Let's talk about "plot armour" and GRRM's usage or breakage of it

[Neolaina]

1 hour ago, LadyoftheNorth72 said:

I'm a bit surprised by the posts claiming that plot armor doesn't exist or isn't an actual literary device, because it does and most certainly is. We're just using modern terminology or misnomers. See:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

Its use has been documented for millennia, ranging from the absolutely absurd (which was intentional in comedies) to the deftly effective (IMO, Ned Stark) to the ridiculously inept (too many examples to list). 

Not sure I can agree that plot armour, as it's been defined here, is a suitable equivalent to deus ex machina. Nor can I even particularly agree that plot armour as a concept exists, despite accepting and recognizing deus ex machina as a device - albeit a shoddy device.

But, hell, I came into a topic about the concept, so I can't just say "Nope."

So let's say, yes, "plot armour" as a concept exists as described. Because it's linked to the progression of a character's arc, and the presumption that the arcs of major, built-up characters should be finished - with a few exceptions - a reader should then be able to tell to some degree - again, refer to the exceptions - whether or not said character will be safe in a scenario that suggests otherwise.

There are plenty of moments where the use of plot armour - Podrick saving Tyrion from death during Blackwater, for example - works within the realm of both the story and logic. Deus ex machina it is not; some might argue otherwise, but we can save that for private messaging. Having Tyrion fall during the defense of KL would have left his development as a character as unhinged: Tyrion's time in King's Landing, representing Tywin as HotK has a purpose towards developing the depth of his character, and having him die on the cusp of a victory he's greatly responsible for would be incomplete. Or whatever speculatory analytical bullshit I can come up with on the fly. Irrelevant to the point...

...It wouldn't have been a horrible move to have him die there - one could argue that he was built up as he was to emphasize that no one is safe, or about forty other maxims - but George has a purpose for him that requires him to keep going. 

Remember, moments of deus ex machina are often non-sensical, unexplained, explained extremely poorly, or they seem trite and contrived, but most importantly, they occur during moments that can't sensibly be written out of.  The last part is probably the only part I care to have everyone agree with. It's how I learned the concept in various levels of schooling, and was always the most integral part of the concept.

I can't help but think of a certain brand of aliens, who were on the cusp of completing their invasion of Earth, only for us to discover that, shit, water is toxic to them. GG, suckers. Shame your seemingly flawless victory was foiled by dihydrogen monoxide, despite the fact that you had the totality of humanity bent over a barrel of Newfie screech!

So, Neo, I ask myself, why is that so god damn important?

Well, ruling out the ancient uses of the device in specific stories and plays, as well as any genre form that actively uses DEM as a resolution device, the two elements of DEM that need to be present for something to be considered as such are the lack of logic therein and the destruction of suspension of disbelief. In other words, you may find yourself saying "That's fucking bullshit, and it doesn't make any sense, because where the hell was any of this mentioned beforehand, in any regard?"

Plot armor does not fulfill this criteria, in and of itself, but something can be both DEM and PA. Plot armor can most certainly be logically inconsistent and as well as forcing us to say "that's just too ridiculous.", but it need not always do so.

So, are they the same? No. Can be they the same? Absofuckinglutely. Are there a number of instances that are both in ASOIAF that cause problems? That's for everyone to decide separately. I've yet to stumble across something significant that I feel is neither logically inconsistent and causes my suspension of disbelief to fail.

It's here that I can most easily admit that PA as defined above is fine as a concept, and it's probably just a matter of taste towards the name itself, rather than what it represents. It's sloppy, albeit straightforward. I like weird looking words. Or Latin. Call me an elitist, but plot armor sounds pedestrian, heh.

While @RoamingRonin's examples may cause some degree of destroying suspension of disbelief - not for me, but again, I think that's a personal issue - none of those points are particularly logically inconsistent.

1) Jon being given chance after chance by Mance - This didn't bother me, though it could have. I considered this an example of one man recognizing that when he needs the other to make the most important choice - helping the Wildlings move south - he might have to deal with a few betrayals.

2) being saved by Summer and Stannis - timely, almost bullshit, but logically consistent. Summer a little less so, but for me, this moment was more surprising than, say, unbelievable. Stannis showing up was consistent with his sense of duty, the call to arms that the Wall sent out, and despite the fact that he'd just suffered a crippling defeat, the strength of his crippled army seemed logically sound and valid in my mind.

3) fighting from the Wall on top of the Wall out of any and all danger - I'm not specifically sure what this is alluding to, but I'm of the opinion that while fights are happening, chaotic in nature as they are, anything can happen. Personally, my suspension of disbelief grows during these moments. 

4) Tyrion - I deleted the addenda. Tyrion's all that needs saying. I can't rule this out, as many of these points do border on farfetched, but I would make the argument that Tyrion's will to survive through whatever means overrules his own physical struggles. That's true for many humans. Luck, as some might say, is consistently on his side. There was never a moment where I thought "Oh, come on." And again, this is going to be subjective. But for all the people out there, Tyrion could be someone I can see making a decent argument.

5) Arya traveling through the scorched Riverlands escaping all of the harsher consequences of being a young girl all alone in a grim-dark fantasy series - You're letting dramatic irony taint this, to some degree. We know she's a girl. Not everyone does. George went out of his way to make that well-known at many points. I would argue that within that purview, everything is logically consistent, and nothing simply comes out of the blue causing me to break suspension of disbelief.

6) No one stealing Dany's dragons and killing her in her sleep while she stayed in Qarth? - This one I like. I would state that the situation in Qarth was an interesting one - bonus points for me currently being on these chapters during this re-read. You had a number of different factions vying for the power of the dragons. If any made a move on Dany, war would literally rip apart Qarth with the numerous factions all trying to get their hands on the dragons. By courting Dany - and using Qartheen law to their advantage - they might be able to get a dragon for themselves through, say, marriage, in a way that few therein could argue with. It would also have the advantage of, you know, not having Qarth break out into total war with itself. Further, no one in that city knew the capability of those dragons. Fear's a hell of a deterrent. Whether or not you agree with this assessment is a topic for discussion elsewhere, but I would argue that it keeps the situation in Qarth wholly consistent with logic.

Exception:

I've whittled it down to one.

1) In fiction, you can have a main character that you're developing that will be wholly incompatible with how the world the character is functioning in will end up. Killing such a character, taking advantage of specific flaws, etc, etc, can not only have a powerful impact on the reader due to their connecting with the character, but it also speaks of traits, elements, etc. that are incompatible with the world. One might argue Ned fits into this. Some main characters are creating specifically for just such a moment to impress upon the reader points about the world that they should keep in their minds.

Alright, I need a smoke. I think I've covered everything I want to. Pick this apart, if ye will. I'll be back.

[Good Guy Garlan]

 

25 minutes ago, RoamingRonin said:

Plot armor is just a subcategory of bad plotting. It's one way people describe how the writer has broken their suspension of disbelief.

Jon getting his face raked by a eagle is one thing. Jon being given chance after chance by Mance, being saved by Summer and Stannis, fighting from the Wall on top of the Wall out of any and all danger... Tyrion - who can't even walk up a flight of stairs without cramping - surviving multiple conflicts, traveling across Westeros without being murdered... Ayra traveling through the scorched Riverlands escaping all of the harsher consequences of being a young girl all alone in a grim-dark fantasy series... No one stealing Dany's dragons and killing her in her sleep while she stayed in Qarth?

Plot armor. All of it.

Okay, I can agree with this, especially about no one trying to steal her dragons at Qarth or Astapor. That's just ridiculous and stretches credibility to breaking point. Obviously this is all pretty subjective, so I'd say my personal Betchdel-kind of test to tell if a character is suffering from chronic plotarmoritis would be something like:

- Does your character keeps walking away from life-threatening situations with only slight injuries or none at all?

- Do these kinds of situations occur very often (say more than 3 times per novel) with the same kind of results?

- Do other characters have to act out of character to ensure your protagonist's survival?

- Do you have to make use of a deux ex machina to ensure your character's survival?

If you answered yes to 1 or 2 questions, you should tone down your character's special snowflakeness. If you answered yes to 3 or more questions, your character may be suffering from plotarmoritis. He or she is very very sick and you need to put him down. 

[LadyoftheNorth72]

First, let me retract my categorization of Ned Stark's execution as either DEM or PA. I was trying to do two things at once and that was not accurate. 

"Remember, moments of deus ex machina are often non-sensical, unexplained, explained extremely poorly, or they seem trite and contrived, but most importantly, they occur during moments that can't sensibly be written out of. "

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, especially when you consider the way the device got its name - a god character would quite literally be lowered to stage level via machine mechanism, and perform whatever miracle was necessary in the author's mind. 

I don't agree that DEM and PA are different things, however. IMO, they are different degrees of the same concept. You can have a character such as Arya who is constantly slipping true disaster's noose by the skin of her teeth, and to me, she is plot armored. She has to be physically healthy and whole, but have been through strongly life changing events, to have ended up where she is now. 

On the other hand, and again just IMO, Drogon might as well have been made of papier-mache and lowered into the fighting pit via a rope and pulley system to the sound of harps and singing cherubs, in order to carry Dany off from Meereen. That was simply a cheat as far as I'm concerned. 

[Tastes like Frey]

I'll never understand why an author would get flack for writing characters with "plot armour". Shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead, as well as the ASOIAF series has this whole "anyone can die at any moment" mantra associated with it, but it's not really the case, Ned's execution and the Red Wedding were vital to the over-arching story of ASOIAF, Dany isn't going to, for instance, mount Drogon to fly to Wetseros, only to actually fall off and die. The characters die when the story demands it, in ways that are natural with the flow and ebb of the narrative. The whole concept of "plot armour" seems daft in general to be honest, yes, Tyrion likely would have died during, say, the Battle of Blackwater, but this is a series filled with dragons, magic and ice zombies, it's strange people have such a hard time buying into a character surviving through some sticky situations. It is fiction after all.

[Neds Secret]

To me, Samwell Tarlys plot armour is indestructible. After surviving the fist of the first man ambush and being carried to safety by Small Paul whilst Slaying an other and surviving all the incidents he has managed to and even getting the girl after joining the nights watch then Samwell is suffering from a severe case of "plotarmoritis". He is indeed more sacred then the 5 mentioned in the OP and he is now my dark horse in the race to become Azor Ahai. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Ned's a decoy protagonist. He leads the reader into thinking that he is the hero, when it reality he is setting the scene for one of the three major conflicts of the series, namely Stark vs Lannister (the other two are the Others, and the potential Targaryen restoration).

In deciding whether anyone else is a decoy protagonist, you've got to evaluate what the effect of their death would be on the other characters, and on the development of the plot. Frankly, there would be precious little pay-off in using decoy protagonists at this stage in the series - the conflict is already there, and it becomes more about how to resolve it. Killing off Ned in the first book is the sort of thing you can do in a first book. Killing off Daenerys in the sixth book? That's just a colossal waste of everyone's time.

As for plot armour, yes, protagonists have it, because without the protagonists you wouldn't have a story. It only becomes a problem when there is a discrepancy between what the text is trying to achieve and what it actually does achieve. Martin is clearly wanting the reader to fear for Jon - but I'd suggest very few people around here actually do. The result is to interfere with the suspension of disbelief.  

[shizett]

Speaking of plot armor and GRRM's usage of it, does anyone else think Sansa has a really thick one?

I find her to be extremely lucky in her arc while screwing up repeatedly. Based on the characters you guys named she wouldn't be one, but she does get out of horrible mistakes quite easily and almost without any action at all (although it is believable I guess). So would she count?

[HexMachina]

8 hours ago, LadyoftheNorth72 said:

First, let me retract my categorization of Ned Stark's execution as either DEM or PA. I was trying to do two things at once and that was not accurate. 

"Remember, moments of deus ex machina are often non-sensical, unexplained, explained extremely poorly, or they seem trite and contrived, but most importantly, they occur during moments that can't sensibly be written out of. "

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, especially when you consider the way the device got its name - a god character would quite literally be lowered to stage level via machine mechanism, and perform whatever miracle was necessary in the author's mind. 

I don't agree that DEM and PA are different things, however. IMO, they are different degrees of the same concept. You can have a character such as Arya who is constantly slipping true disaster's noose by the skin of her teeth, and to me, she is plot armored. She has to be physically healthy and whole, but have been through strongly life changing events, to have ended up where she is now. 

On the other hand, and again just IMO, Drogon might as well have been made of papier-mache and lowered into the fighting pit via a rope and pulley system to the sound of harps and singing cherubs, in order to carry Dany off from Meereen. That was simply a cheat as far as I'm concerned.

I fully accept that there are plot conveniences in the book, that sometimes make me roll my eyes, but this isn't one of them. Dany's entire ADWD arc is about her grappling with her identity and failing to embrace her "dragon". The fighting lit and Drogon's arrival are the culmination of all those chapters of conflict and frustration.

And that is without mentioning that: a) it didn't actually solve anything, it simply made more problems, and b ) Drogon is not treated as some unstoppable force of nature.

i also disagree about DEM = PA. DEM is a device by which characters escape seemingly impossible situations through a totally out-of-the-blue means, whereas "plot armour" is the necessity of certain characters to survive to a given point, while still meeting certain plot points to tell a compelling story. 

So, for example Arya's survival in the war torn Riverlands you could call "plot armour" (not a fan of the term) as (iirc) it never relies on something out of the blue happening, it just requires quite a strong suspension of disbelief over how "lucky" (not lucky really as its living hell, but you get what I mean) she is to survive xyz. 

 

Eta: I also think context is important when evaluating these things. So for example people say Day has plot armour in Meereen because she never suffers for her decisions. But this is a flawed argument IMO. You need to look at her position - I.e. The Queen. It makes perfect sense that the repercussions are mostly against her people rather than her for the decisions she makes.

[Consigliere]

Some degree of 'plot armour' is to be expected. The problem comes in when core characters - the ones virtually guaranteed to survive until the final book i.e. Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya - are consistently being placed in life threatening situations where it is obvious to all and sundry that they will survive. It removes all the tension.

[RoamingRonin]

11 hours ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

Okay, I can agree with this, especially about no one trying to steal her dragons at Qarth or Astapor. That's just ridiculous and stretches credibility to breaking point. Obviously this is all pretty subjective, so I'd say my personal Betchdel-kind of test to tell if a character is suffering from chronic plotarmoritis would be something like:

- Does your character keeps walking away from life-threatening situations with only slight injuries or none at all?

- Do these kinds of situations occur very often (say more than 3 times per novel) with the same kind of results?

- Do other characters have to act out of character to ensure your protagonist's survival?

- Do you have to make use of a deux ex machina to ensure your character's survival?

If you answered yes to 1 or 2 questions, you should tone down your character's special snowflakeness. If you answered yes to 3 or more questions, your character may be suffering from plotarmoritis. He or she is very very sick and you need to put him down. 

This is exactly what I mean.

[ASOIAF_Ali]

 

21 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

Some degree of 'plot armour' is to be expected. The problem comes in when core characters - the ones virtually guaranteed to survive until the final book i.e. Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya - are consistently being placed in life threatening situations where it is obvious to all and sundry that they will survive. It removes all the tension.

Totally agree with this. Obviously main characters in any work of fiction are expected to have some 'plot armour', since there wouldn't be any story without them, but when it becomes obvious to the reader, it removes some of the tension and excitement in these storylines. I feel this way the most with Tyrion to be honest, I can't count the amount of times he's been placed in danger, but then manages to escape due to luck more than anything. I do feel that with his story in particular, GRRM is trying to create a high level of tension and drama, but for me at least, it falls a bit flat since I can easily presume he's going to survive. 

I think plot armour is only a problem when it gets in the way of making a story compelling; such as if we're expected to believe that a character has a high possibility of dying, when we know they won't, because they're the protagonist. Depends on the storyline really, imo. 

[A spoon of knife and fork]

If you are hoping for a character to fail, it's plot armor.

If you are rooting for a character to succeed it's just the plot.

I think Honestly that's all there is to it.  

[RobOsevens]

5 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

If you are hoping for a character to fail, it's plot armor.

If you are rooting for a character to succeed it's just the plot.

I think Honestly that's all there is to it.  

That is exactly it

[Woman of War]

13 hours ago, Neolaina said:

Snip

Neolaina, it was a pleasure to read your well argued and brilliantly written post.

 

Plot armour may be described as the last refuge of the unimaginative writer to save a character he needs. Negative: poor writing.

But what if this writer organically builds up a chain of developments? Not only of those events that lead the protagonist into danger but also of those turns that happen to organize rescue? All that carefully done - but unfortunately happening several times to the same character?

Does this turn into poor writing because it concerns one and the same character again and again or is it part of the character's characterization: Tyrion the survivor despite all odds who was meant to die from day one on and yet stubbornly refused to stop breathing? Tyrion's plot armour started at his birth actually, it is not something he was gifted with at some moment when he needed it most. Actually it is an organic part of his character being able to create his own plot armour, to find ways out others, in-story or we on a meta,  level do not always see.

Shizett mentioned  "Sansa's really thick plot armour". After doing one of the more foolish things in the series - telling Dontos about the marriage plans - she miraculously gets away after her forced marriage, she gets away escaping after the wedding, she so far is unharmed by Baelish. Stumbling from one misfortune into the next yet being still  there in one piece like a child of Lemony Snicket's Series Of Unfortunate Events. Their topic is that things always go wrong. But not too much, that's their plot armour while being their literary characterization.

But we know that Sansa's plot armour will fail

Spoiler

I have seen the series, something like that will happen in the books as well

and with it her characterization will be a different one, she will change, having less plot armour will be part of a development into new characterization,  the Sansa we know will come to an end in tragedy, horror, greatness or all of it.

Spoiler

Maybe end of Sansa after her plot armour against rape had gone down the drain before

 

And Tyrion? He may change in characterization as well, from the antihero who is just as much tragic as he is entertaining to a truly great tragic or hopefully more dramatic hero, with a potentially sacrificial act in the end. This might be the moment where his plot armour ends.

Having so-called plot armour is an integral part of some characters, it is more than a writer's trick to get a valuable protagonist through dire times without sendig him or her to remote and boring plot areas. Sansa in the Vale might smell a bit like storage, but her story there may exist to deceive us, to let us believe that once again she will somehow fly away in a blue veil of plot armour. The hopeful reader's fall will be deep.

Now we can hope that in our favorite character the plot armour is so much an integral part that it carries this beloved protagonist  to an at least remotely happy ending.

To take the two characters mentioned: both are in their own way chroniclers of the books' events. Sansa as eyes and ears who registers a lot without understanding, leaving the interpretation of clues  to us readers, not spoonfeeding us. Tyrion is Martin's voice, interpreting and analyzing, a bridge to us modern readers. Both urgently need to stay in the game, how fortunate for them that Martin has given them plot armour as an integral part of their fictional personae and  already there when needed.

 

[Myself656]

3 hours ago, shizett said:

Speaking of plot armor and GRRM's usage of it, does anyone else think Sansa has a really thick one?

I find her to be extremely lucky in her arc while screwing up repeatedly. Based on the characters you guys named she wouldn't be one, but she does get out of horrible mistakes quite easily and almost without any action at all (although it is believable I guess). So would she count?

Yeah, because being kept as a hostage, watching your father be beheaded, being beaten, nearly raped, married off to a family enemy to be used as a brood mare, learning the entire rest of your family save for your bastard half-brother have been murdered, then framed for murder, the one guy she thought she could trust turned out to only be helping because he was being paid to, forced to give up her very identity and pass herself off as the bastard daughter of a guy where the only question is whether he lusts more for her body or for her inheritance is just so lucky.

If that's your definition of good luck for a character who's gone out of their way to not get into any sort of conflict, I'd hate to think what you'd expect to happen.

Sansa has suffered extremely disproportionately to her actions for a highborn high-value political hostage. Her "screw ups" amounted to trusting some people she shouldn't have. Its not like she set out to murder the King and then got a last minute pardon or something. She was used as a pawn and got pulled out of the chaos because Littlefinger wanted her alive.

Sansa has whatever the opposite of plot armor is... instead of avoiding potential problems, the consequences of her every effort seem to take the worst possible turns they could take. The only reason she hasn't ended up dead is frankly that she's never presented herself as a physical threat to anyone and is politically valuable enough (and her virginity is a big part of that value) that its against the interests of anyone with an ounce of political savvy to harm her.

The girl is so messed up by what she's been through she remembers a kiss that never happened because said guy chose to NOT try to rape her (something that most would take as a minimum standard of decency). If nothing but good things happened for Sansa for the rest of the series it still wouldn't counterbalance all the horrors she's gone through by this point... and we all know that won't be happening either.

Her sister by contrast gets her own special sword, training from a fencing master, then survives without being raped or killed in the middle of a warzone, despite being captured repeatedly. She gets to make friends with a magical assassin who gives her a coin so she can go train to be a magical assassin too. Yeah, she's blinded for a bit as part of her training, but this only serves to wake up her ability to skinchange into animals and is temporary anyway.

If Sansa is wearing plot armor then Arya has ridden through the series in a main battle tank.

[SeanF]

I've heard the term several times and while being self explaining in its name I'll remind those who need it that it basically means that no matter how dire a situation any given character finds him or herself in, "plot armour" will always ensure that said character will make it out alive of any given situation just based on the fact that that characters arc is incomplete and still has some plot left to get through. After a characters arc, the plot armour disintegrates and anything is then possible, but it is usually foreshadowed so continuity makes sense.

Here are the "Big 5" characters that seemingly are protected by plot armour and all of its benefits. We'll talk more about Jon later, though. You could also add Jamie to the mix currently I believe but that's entirely subjective as is most of the content of this post - keep that in mind at all times although don't fear to challenge the views expressed here, healthy debate is always welcomed.

Popular examples of plot armour are the countless dire situations Arya finds herself in during her travels, as well as Dany, Jon, Bran, and Tyrion. There are many points where one could have just been killed by something random and realistic but did not, as the plot would have been dull and unfulfilling and ultimately would make for a lame story. (Again, subjective)

Since this is ASOIAF, many characters die anyways, and there are some instances where a characters arc has indeed been reached but the reader is misguided to believe otherwise therefore making it seem like plot armour has in fact been BROKEN, and making the deaths much more shocking but ultimately makes for a much deeper, rich experience. The deaths in this series stick with you, and it is one of the strong points of GRRM's writing as he makes you care for these characters so much that when they do die you're left utterly shocked and almost unwilling to continue on. In retrospect though shocking as it occurs, it is absolutely brilliant and makes this series one of the most immersive experiences in the history of the genre, in fact literature itself.

Examples of when plot armour seemingly "breaks" is of course Ned's execution, and the Red Wedding. Let's take a minute to talk about Ned.

Eddard "Ned" Stark in both the book and season 1 of the series is immediately introduced as the "main" character - In a story as massive as this one if there ever WAS a main character at one point, it was Ned in book1/season1. Most of the action revolves around him and his family, and at the start everybody is together mainly with Ned being the glue that binds them. As the story progresses, much more dominos are set up for events that eventually play out after book/season1 such as The War of the Five Kings. This makes it so the story can progress and become much grander, and in fact it can and does so without Ned. Many people did not see his death coming. It seemed like Eddard Stark would survive the entire series, eventually to battle the WhiteWalkers or whatever. But instead, we got a shocking beheading at the hands of the bastard Joffrey Baratheon. This makes you (at least me) absolutely HATE Joffrey and the Lannisters and strongly sets up the action for season/book 2. However GRRM is known for "breaking tropes" so the ultimate demise of the Lannisters does not happen in a cinematic way - in fact he manages to SWITCH their roles as antagonists to protagonists! This is absolutely brilliant.

So, plot armour wasn't technically broken, Ned played his part, and the plot continues on even moreso as a result of his death. His arc is, in fact his death.

Then there was the Red Wedding - I won't get into the details of it but again, Robb and Cat's arcs were in fact over despite the reader/viewer thinking that their stories still had much left to it. Instead we were left with one of the most shocking moments in the history of storytelling - and once again, it sets thing up and pushes the action even further. But how much is too much? How often can GRRM keep doing this to our beloved characters while still producing an interesting and relevant plot? Hence, Jon's "demise".

Most people think that Jon's "death" was NOT in fact his death. Because - his arc is incomplete. There is foreshadowing that does not get fulfilled (R+L=J etc.) and it DOES NOT push the plot forward in any way. HE was the POV for the Wall and main protagonist in the White Walker plotline - which ultimately will merge with the other 2 major plotlines in the endgame of the series. How could this possibly be done without Jon? It just doesn't make sense, that's a HUGE violation of the rules of "Plot Armour".

Again, this is entirely subjective and if you feel differently, please, don't hesitate to explain your views.

As for the topic of "Plot Armour", any opinions or examples or insights- whatever related to "Plot Armour" are welcome to be discussed in this thread. I'm sure there are dozens of theories that rely on Plot Armour being in effect, or logic that arcs have been potentially completed leaving characters free of "Plot Armour". Either way I'd love to hear your views!

The potential outcome of "Jon Targaryn" , Lord of the Seven Kingdoms due to "Plot Armour".

"Plot armour" exists in real life. Hitler survived numerous assassination attempts. Octavian suffered numerous defeats and setbacks. Temujin was captured and held as a slave. Theodora was a prostitute who became co-ruler of the Roman empire. Lord Cochran survived dozens of risky naval fights, and so on.

[ChillyPolly]

6 hours ago, Neds Secret said:

To me, Samwell Tarlys plot armour is indestructible. 

Well, ... it WAS .... until FEAST ended with him being led to his death by a faceless man.

[Myself656]

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Ned's a decoy protagonist. He leads the reader into thinking that he is the hero, when it reality he is setting the scene for one of the three major conflicts of the series, namely Stark vs Lannister (the other two are the Others, and the potential Targaryen restoration).

In deciding whether anyone else is a decoy protagonist, you've got to evaluate what the effect of their death would be on the other characters, and on the development of the plot. Frankly, there would be precious little pay-off in using decoy protagonists at this stage in the series - the conflict is already there, and it becomes more about how to resolve it. Killing off Ned in the first book is the sort of thing you can do in a first book. Killing off Daenerys in the sixth book? That's just a colossal waste of everyone's time.

About the only character I think could end up being something a decoy protagonist at this point is Rickon. He's the easy solution to the issue of who rules the North. Ned's trueborn son who can grow into a good and noble ruler.

Which is why he'll die horribly so that instead of an easy answer the Northern Lords are going to have to choose between;

- Ned's trueborn daughter (who's wanted for murdering King Joffrey, but may also have been disinherited in Robb's will if its location and contents are even known and don't have an exception for no longer being married to Tyrion and/or murdering King Joffrey).

- Ned's bastard son (who may or may not be named in Robb's will, but may also be seen as a NW deserter since the story that he died and came back is pretty implausible unless you were there to witness it... and might not even be Ned's son but his nephew by the Targ who stole away Lyanna as well).

- Ned's crippled trueborn son (who's in the middle of bonding to a tree, virtually everyone thinks is dead and many think is a coward for not killing himself after being crippled and would have to journey back across the bitter lands north of The Wall that are teeming with Others and Wights to even present himself as an option).

That creates a heck of a lot of story potential right there. As such, I think Rickon is a prime candidate for being set up as a decoy protagonist in Winds of Winter... he's the boy who can magically solve a lot of problems for the North; someone to rally behind against the Boltons without any messy issues of being a less than ideal candidate (i.e. daughter, bastard or cripple). Then he dies (probably just as the Boltons are defeated) and it all goes to crap when it was supposed to be a great victory.

[shizett]

42 minutes ago, Myself656 said:

If that's your definition of good luck for a character who's never gone out of their way to not get into any sort of conflict, I'd hate to think what you'd expect to happen.

Sansa has suffered extremely disproportionately to her actions for a highborn high-value political hostage. Her "screw ups" amounted to trusting some people she shouldn't have. Its not like she set out to murder the King and then got a last minute pardon or something. She was used as a pawn and got pulled out of the chaos because Littlefinger wanted her alive.

Sansa has whatever the opposite of plot armor is... instead of avoiding potential problems, the consequences of her every effort seem to take the worst possible turns they could take. The only reason she hasn't ended up dead is frankly that she's never presented herself as a physical threat to anyone and is politically valuable enough (and her virginity is a big part of that value) that its against anyone with an ounce of political savvy to kill her.

The girl is so messed up by what she's been through she remembers a kiss that never happened because said guy chose to NOT try to rape her (something that most would take as a minimum standard of decency). If nothing but good things happened for Sansa for the rest of the series it still wouldn't counterbalance all the horrors she's gone through by this point... and we all know that won't be happening either.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Woman of War explained it better than I did. I DO NOT want Sansa to suffer more, nor do I want it for any other character, I just meant that the repercussions of her actions seem to screw others more than they do her.

42 minutes ago, Myself656 said:

because being kept as a hostage, watching your father be beheaded, being beaten, nearly raped, married off to a family enemy to be used as a brood mare, learning the entire rest of your family save for your bastard half-brother have been murdered, then framed for murder, the one guy she thought she could trust turned out to only be helping because he was being paid to, forced to give up her very identity and pass herself off as the bastard daughter of a guy where the only question is whether he lusts more for her body or for her inheritance is just so lucky.

You are right about all these. But she was the one who reported of their departure to Cersei against her father's specific orders. Due to her actions and many many more factors, Ned got beheaded, Jane became a prostitute, Arya started a journey of horror, Robb and Cat went to war and got brutally murdered (which Arya witnessed), Bran had to go the end of the world, Rickon lost all his family and home when he was 3/4. And Sansa:

• Got beaten a few times. Some of them from people who tried not to hurt her much, and was protected by some(like tyrion) in some occasions.
• Was in the situation to be raped multiple times, but got saved.
  • Once by hound against street mob,
  • once by Hound against Hound (the guy who killed a 15 yo kid by almost cutting him in half) and because she was sweet or innocent (or whatever),
  • once by Tyrion against Tyrion (the guy that her family went out of their way to be shitty to, that she had never been nice to, that she made a fool out of in her wedding earlier that night for no reason more than being a dwarf, danced with others through the night while he was getting drunk out of his mind, and he still managed to save her from Joff and not rape her). Bear in mind that as you said Tyrion married her for her claim to WF nut never claimed that claim. Both Hound and Tyrion go against what they normally are against Sansa, but she hasn't really earned it (not that anybody should earn others being decent to them but in this world the default is that people are shitty)
  • Once by Marillion, but Lothor Brune saved her (she was a nobody at this stage, and still nothing)
• Was an extremely important political prisoner and almost as soon as it became clear that she cannot be used in an exchange, Theon went on and killed Bran and Rickon to make her heir to WF. This led to Tyrells and Lannisters competing over her. She screwed the plan once again by telling Dontos, which led to her marriage to Tyrion, which wasn't that bad at all. She was worse to Tyrion than Tyrion was to her, and he ended up protecting her in multiple occasions. He never comsummated the marriage (again, the guy that married her SPECIFICALLY for her claim), but more importantly, stopped others from raping her.
• Was a pawn in killing Joff and framed Tyrion (who had always been nice to her) and got away. She went to Eyrie. She had to become Alayne Stone, but compare her to others who have changed their Identity: Arya has been homeless and in the middle of war for more than a year, Theon was tortured (I don't have others in mind right now). As Alayne Stone she does what Sansa was doing most of the time: she hangs out with nobles, is supposed to marry to the heir to one of the Greatest houses in Weseros and is well fed and physically healthy.

You really don't find it odd? compared to all the women in Westeros that we've read the story of, Sansa has had the easiest path and thorugh no witt or action of her own. On the contrary, she is just sweet and pretty and people get out of their way to save her!

42 minutes ago, Myself656 said:

Her sister by contrast gets her own special sword, training from a fencing master, then survives without being raped or killed in the middle of a warzone, despite being captured repeatedly. She gets to make friends with a magical assassin who gives her a coin so she can go train to be a magical assassin too. Yeah, she's blinded for a bit as part of her training, but this only serves to wake up her ability to skinchange into animals and is temporary anyway.

I really am surprised by this. Arya was a boy for a big portion of her travel, she was beaten repeatedly by Weese while in Harrenhal after having gone through days of near Starvation to the extent she was eating worms and having to work as a cleaning girl all day. She had to sit there for 8 days watching when Mountains group tortured people to death (not just some clean beating) and be afraid that she might be next. 

If you think getting a sword, or training to be an assassin makes up for that or makes it even remotely comparable to Sansa's suffering (the girl who is SO FUCKING PRIVILLEGED THAT THINKS ABOUT LEMON CAKES IN THE MIDDLE OF WAR), then ...

[Winter's Cold]

There is no way that the Lords of the North would ever support Sansa over Bran. If Bran is available then he will be the lord of Winterfell. They'd probably support Jon over Sansa as well in the event that Rickon dies. According to George's SSM, there has never been a ruling lady of Winterfell or Queen of Winter. It's quite doubtful that Sansa will be the exception.