Is the High Sparrow really a villain?

[SeanF]

16 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

This is an interesting topic and led to one of the best conversations I had with my family members I watch the show with.  

In my view, the High Sparrow is a corrupt, power-hungry cynic.  I don't think he believes in anything he is saying about the seven and what they want.  Religion is the tool he uses to get power, nothing more.  There is no way he is getting "spoken to" by the seven every time he says he is.  How freaking convenient, the seven "speak to" him and tell him his political enemies should be arrested and tortured.  BUUUULLLSHIIIIIIT.  The Sparrow use The Seven as a bludgeon to bring down his political rivals and to increase his own power.  He brainwashed the King so he could be the power behind the throne.  At the point when he died, he was poised to have complete dictatorial control over King's Landing.  Perhaps Margaery could eventually have escaped or beaten him, but it would have been a war of attrition long fought.  And I think there was a chance she'd have lost.  

One of my brothers on the other hand said he believed the HS was totally sincere.  That he really believed what he was saying was for the good of the faith and the people, and what his religion told him was sinful (even if it's unlikely he really received direct commands from The Seven).  

Another of my brothers & my dad said he agreed that the HS was a little cynical and used underhanded means.  But that those means were justified if it gets rid of Cersei.  That removing her from power is worth it, no matter what.

I pointed out that Loras and Margaery did nothing that harmed anyone else.  And that basically the only people who he persecuted were the nobles and others - there is no equality of punishment. Commoners aren't being kidnapped and tortured into submission.  I pointed out that this is the start of the inquisition basically.   I pointed out that as bad as Cersei was, theocracy is worse. 

Theocracy would certainly be worse for the nobles and intellectuals, but perhaps it would be better for the masses. 

I actually think that the HS is one of the best, most nuanced, characters in the TV series, helped by the fact that Jonathan Pryce is an excellent actor.  I think he would have been better still had he followed his book counterpart, in being outraged mostly by secular misgovernment, rather than being obsessed with homosexuals, fornicators, and followers of other gods.  But, he's still a well-portrayed character.

I think he is both sincere in his beliefs, and devious in the way that he gathers power to himself.  His aim, IMO, was to turn the monarchy into the enforcement arm of the Faith.  Had he succeeded, the government would have been absolutely horrible towards people who broke its moral laws (rather like Geneva under Calvin) but standards of justice and support for the poor would likely be higher than they were under Robert or Joffrey, or would be under Cersei.

So, more than most, I'd say he combines aspects of good and bad.

Certainly, neither Margaery nor Loras deserved what happened to them.  Margaery was cunning and ambitious, but she never had people tortured or murdered in pursuit of her ambitions.  She genuinely befriended Sansa and had some concern for the poor (I don't think she was telling the truth to the HS when she said it was an act). 

 

[SeanF]

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 1:59 AM, Maid So Fair said:

A religious zealot pretty much by definition doesn't respect the rule of law. The laws of a country are after all a human construct while a zealot would consider the word of God(s) as revealed in a chosen religious text (or better, devine inspiration downloaded directly to his brain) to be the ultimate authority - and may religious texts are not very specific when it comes to laws. If the legal system doesn't agree with him, that's too bad for the sinful and immoral legal system. 

That depends on the religious zealot in question.  The Inquisition was scrupulous about ensuring that the people brought before it were tried fairly.  The conviction of Joan of Arc for heresy was overturned because of the manifest defects in her trial process.  While the whole idea of burning people for heretical beliefs is horrible, it doesn't follow that those in charge will readily condemn people without very clear proof of guilt.  After all, they may fear going to hell for condemning the innocent.

 

[SeanF]

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 4:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

 

Was he willing to let the Faith execute Cersei (obviously the result of the trial they intended to conduct)? If so, why? The Tommen character doesn't make any sense in this context. He is completely inconsistent and makes no sense.

If Tommen was afraid of them or if he came to loath/hate Cersei and wanted to rid himself or her then this should have been made explicit. Instead we have no idea what his views on that were.

And, by the way, there is also no indication what Cersei wanted to do or with Tommen after she had blown up the sept. He had betrayed her with the trial-by-combat thing. Did she intend to let go or had she already planned to push him aside and take the crown herself?

What did trigger Tommen's suicide? The death of Margaery, the catastrophe in an abstract sense, the loss of the High Septon or what? Some reflection on all that would have been much appreciated.

Tommen was never the sharpest tool in the drawer.  I'm sure he thought that a trial would establish Cersei's innocence.  I think he loved Cersei, and thought that the allegations against her were fabricated.

I think that had he not committed suicide, Cersei would have just treated him as a cipher.

IMHO, he killed himself when he realised that the mother he loved had murdered the wife he loved, along with hundreds of innocent people.  He had nothing left to live for.

 

[illinifan]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Theocracy would certainly be worse for the nobles and intellectuals, but perhaps it would be better for the masses. 

I actually think that the HS is one of the best, most nuanced, characters in the TV series, helped by the fact that Jonathan Pryce is an excellent actor.  I think he would have been better still had he followed his book counterpart, in being outraged mostly by secular misgovernment, rather than being obsessed with homosexuals, fornicators, and followers of other gods.  But, he's still a well-portrayed character.

I think he is both sincere in his beliefs, and devious in the way that he gathers power to himself.  His aim, IMO, was to turn the monarchy into the enforcement arm of the Faith.  Had he succeeded, the government would have been absolutely horrible towards people who broke its moral laws (rather like Geneva under Calvin) but standards of justice and support for the poor would likely be higher than they were under Robert or Joffrey, or would be under Cersei.

So, more than most, I'd say he combines aspects of good and bad.

Certainly, neither Margaery nor Loras deserved what happened to them.  Margaery was cunning and ambitious, but she never had people tortured or murdered in pursuit of her ambitions.  She genuinely befriended Sansa and had some concern for the poor (I don't think she was telling the truth to the HS when she said it was an act). 

 

Actually, I preferred the High Sparrow on TV to in the books.  I thought the books dwelt on the misogyny of the Faith even more.  Remember that both Margaery and Cersei were accused of and being held for sexual misdeeds.  They did a virginity test on the younger book Margaery.  He was sort of a one dimensional villain in the books.

And I will stand by my assertion that the Tyrells, including Margaery, view the commoners as pawns for their ambitions.  I also think that Sansa was a pawn to them as well.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, illinifan said:

Actually, I preferred the High Sparrow on TV to in the books.  I thought the books dwelt on the misogyny of the Faith even more.  Remember that both Margaery and Cersei were accused of and being held for sexual misdeeds.  They did a virginity test on the younger book Margaery.  He was sort of a one dimensional villain in the books.

And I will stand by my assertion that the Tyrells, including Margaery, view the commoners as pawns for their ambitions.  I also think that Sansa was a pawn to them as well.

Even if the Tyrells were purely selfish and cynical, they weren't murderers and torturers, which puts them in the top 10% in this series.

[illinifan]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Even if the Tyrells were purely selfish and cynical, they weren't murderers and torturers, which puts them in the top 10% in this series.

Yes.  But it does not mean that they are good people.  The Sparrow's point is the whole system is rotten and does not serve the 99%.  He certainly has a point there but that does not mean his ideas are any better.

[AngeL0L]

Of course he is not a villain. People are judging him because of his misogyny, homophobia etc etc, but they are forgetting that the series take place in a medieval society. Back then there were no things as gender equality or other modern rights we know today and everybody was religious. In my opinion, High Sparrow deserves our respect because from zero he reached the top, he had several victories against many nobles such as the whole house Tyrell and house Lannister of Kings Landing and he achieved to make Tommen, the king, his own puppet.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

2 hours ago, AngeL0L said:

Of course he is not a villain. People are judging him because of his misogyny, homophobia etc etc, but they are forgetting that the series take place in a medieval society. Back then there were no things as gender equality or other modern rights we know today and everybody was religious.

It's evident that the High Sparrow's views on homosexuality and women's roles in society are very regressive even in the world of Westeros.

He also only persecuted his political enemies and did so primarily for his own gain / to consolidate his own power.  This makes him either a cynic or a hypocrite or both.  If he was primarily driven by a pure desire to eliminate "sin", he would have done so from top to bottom.  

2 hours ago, AngeL0L said:

In my opinion, High Sparrow deserves our respect because from zero he reached the top, he had several victories against many nobles such as the whole house Tyrell and house Lannister of Kings Landing and he achieved to make Tommen, the king, his own puppet.

By these criteria we should all agree that Littlefinger is not a villain.  "Ability to amass power while stepping on everyone else on your way up" or "bootstrappyness" is not what I typically use when I determine my opinion of a person.  

[Kytheros]

6 hours ago, illinifan said:

Yes.  But it does not mean that they are good people.  The Sparrow's point is the whole system is rotten and does not serve the 99%.  He certainly has a point there but that does not mean his ideas are any better.

There's also genuinely legitimate reasons for the rise of a militant feudal aristocracy. The first "noble" houses were usually founded by the people who could fight a little better than their neighbors or had a few more family members that could fight, and took on a larger role in protecting the community as their primary contribution to it, rather than farming or otherwise acquiring food. The people who were able to talk their neighbors into supporting them in exchange for protection against outside threats. That would evolve into a family being responsible for organizing the protection of the community in exchange for the community providing for their needs.

 

I'll freely grant that the politics and the "Great Game" or Game of Thrones aren't really part of the legitimate causes for the evolution of a militant feudal aristocracy. On the other hand ... I'm doubtful than any other system would actually work any better for someplace the size of the Seven Kingdoms.

[illinifan]

2 hours ago, Kytheros said:

There's also genuinely legitimate reasons for the rise of a militant feudal aristocracy. The first "noble" houses were usually founded by the people who could fight a little better than their neighbors or had a few more family members that could fight, and took on a larger role in protecting the community as their primary contribution to it, rather than farming or otherwise acquiring food. The people who were able to talk their neighbors into supporting them in exchange for protection against outside threats. That would evolve into a family being responsible for organizing the protection of the community in exchange for the community providing for their needs.

 

I'll freely grant that the politics and the "Great Game" or Game of Thrones aren't really part of the legitimate causes for the evolution of a militant feudal aristocracy. On the other hand ... I'm doubtful than any other system would actually work any better for someplace the size of the Seven Kingdoms.

Yes.  To a point.  But do you really think Tommen woud be king in the situation you describe?  What is being shown is breaking up of the feudal system and replacing it.  Jon's "coronation" is interesting because he was "elected" due to his personal qualities.  It suggests a new age.

[HoodedCrow]

How do people feel that he had Loras imprisoned and tortured on trumped up reasons, so that he could control Margery. She was imprisoned, intimidated, forced to profess religious beliefs, convert her husband, stage a show of public piety so that she could avoid a walk of shame, watched closely, prevented from talking to her allies, told to sleep with Tommen so that he would add an heir for his control. He ultimately wouldn't listen to her and prevented her forcibly from leaving the Sept and and saving herself, her brother and all the people there. The ultimate religious bully, he also used religious fanatics for brute force, and to torture. Is all that hunky dory?

I'm not forgetting his betrayal of Cersei and his selective use of the Walk of Shame, to punish and humiliate her.

[illinifan]

2 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

How do people feel that he had Loras imprisoned and tortured on trumped up reasons, so that he could control Margery. She was imprisoned, intimidated, forced to profess religious beliefs, convert her husband, stage a show of public piety so that she could avoid a walk of shame, watched closely, prevented from talking to her allies, told to sleep with Tommen so that he would add an heir for his control. He ultimately wouldn't listen to her and prevented her forcibly from leaving the Sept and and saving herself, her brother and all the people there. The ultimate religious bully, he also used religious fanatics for brute force, and to torture. Is all that hunky dory?

I'm not forgetting his betrayal of Cersei and his selective use of the Walk of Shame, to punish and humiliate her.

The Tyrells are nobles.  The commoners starved because of their games.  The commoners might enjoy watching Loras joust at the games like people enjoy watching Lebron James but the nobles are still the problem for the 99%.  Why would they care?  Poor Margaery and Loras..  the lives of the commoners are many times worse than Margaery's even as a captive of the High Sparrow.  

[Kytheros]

11 hours ago, illinifan said:

Yes.  To a point.  But do you really think Tommen woud be king in the situation you describe?  What is being shown is breaking up of the feudal system and replacing it.  Jon's "coronation" is interesting because he was "elected" due to his personal qualities.  It suggests a new age.

Nope, Tommen wouldn't be a king if he hadn't "inherited" the position. He wouldn't make it as a noble on his own either. For that matter, neither would Joffery. Robert Baratheon still would have managed it though. As would Jon, Robb, and Ned.

As I said, the "Great Game"/"Game of Thrones" isn't part of those legitimate reasons for feudalism's existence.

 

Democratic or Republic systems of government would not work out well for Westeros and the Seven Kingdoms. It's too big and unwieldy, and nobody identifies themselves as being from "the Seven Kingdoms". There's no national identity - it's all local and regional identities - ie, Northerners, Valemen, Dornish, etc. Primary loyalties are to the local lord and/or the regional Great House.

Feudalism works as well as anything else might for somewhere the size of the Seven Kingdoms, taking into account the technology and travel times.

 

Frankly, I have no idea how Daenerys thinks she's going to "break the wheel". The only thing I can think of is to break the Great Houses, and instead of having an inherited position being in charge of regions, have the administrator for regions be appointed for set terms by the Crown. And even that's doubtful.

[illinifan]

8 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

Nope, Tommen wouldn't be a king if he hadn't "inherited" the position. He wouldn't make it as a noble on his own either. For that matter, neither would Joffery. Robert Baratheon still would have managed it though. As would Jon, Robb, and Ned.

As I said, the "Great Game"/"Game of Thrones" isn't part of those legitimate reasons for feudalism's existence.

 

Democratic or Republic systems of government would not work out well for Westeros and the Seven Kingdoms. It's too big and unwieldy, and nobody identifies themselves as being from "the Seven Kingdoms". There's no national identity - it's all local and regional identities - ie, Northerners, Valemen, Dornish, etc. Primary loyalties are to the local lord and/or the regional Great House.

Feudalism works as well as anything else might for somewhere the size of the Seven Kingdoms, taking into account the technology and travel times.

 

Frankly, I have no idea how Daenerys thinks she's going to "break the wheel". The only thing I can think of is to break the Great Houses, and instead of having an inherited position being in charge of regions, have the administrator for regions be appointed for set terms by the Crown. And even that's doubtful.

Is Westros going to transition into a democracy at the end of the series?  No it isn't.  That would make no sense in this world.  A political marriage/ union between Dany and Jon is the most likely way the series ends.  However, Westros is transitioning to the "modern world;" both the books and TV shows are showing us this.  I think that we'll see a new balance between the rulers and the commoners at the end of the series.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

2 hours ago, Kytheros said:

Democratic or Republic systems of government would not work out well for Westeros and the Seven Kingdoms. It's too big and unwieldy, and nobody identifies themselves as being from "the Seven Kingdoms". There's no national identity - it's all local and regional identities - ie, Northerners, Valemen, Dornish, etc. Primary loyalties are to the local lord and/or the regional Great House.

It seems to me that the inherited titles are already beginning to break down, in favor of people choosing their leaders based on at least the perception that they are best qualified for the job.  The importance of blood is already weakening and is at the point of "the wheel" breaking.  

Though they didn't elect her Dany's people did choose to follow her, despite her so far having no blood claim to anything she currently rules.  The Lords in the North chose Jon despite him not being the first in line.  Apparently the people of Dorne follow Elaria and the Sand Snakes willingly, because they are giving them the war they want (which basically makes Dorne's government currently a military dictatorship).  There are counter examples, like the Tully men following Edmure's orders despite it being clear to everyone that the Blackfish was best qualified to lead, at least at that time.  

Dany also on two occasions has had places she conquered elect their own leaders.  I don't think we are shown this for no reason.  

Quote

Feudalism works as well as anything else might for somewhere the size of the Seven Kingdoms, taking into account the technology and travel times.

Frankly, I have no idea how Daenerys thinks she's going to "break the wheel". The only thing I can think of is to break the Great Houses, and instead of having an inherited position being in charge of regions, have the administrator for regions be appointed for set terms by the Crown. And even that's doubtful.

I'm not an expert in systems of government (and neither is George and neither are the show runners), but I think that Westeros could be believably run by a council of representatives from each of the Seven K.  Most people would still identify as being from their region, yet the confederacy would still help prevent war by mutually agreed treaty.  

Why couldn't the administrators of each region be elected (probably not at first a true democracy for all the people, but rather by some elite as we see in Essos) rather than appointed?  I imagine in many cases it would be the head of a great house that would win, though not always.  Still plenty of opportunities for corruption and gamesmanship but more democratic, and a seismic, wheel breaking shift compared to previous systems of government.  Perhaps before she heads north Dany will declare this her intention.  Then Jon and Dany will die, leaving Tyrion left to administer the new government. 

[AngeL0L]

19 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

It's evident that the High Sparrow's views on homosexuality and women's roles in society are very regressive even in the world of Westeros.

He also only persecuted his political enemies and did so primarily for his own gain / to consolidate his own power.  This makes him either a cynic or a hypocrite or both.  If he was primarily driven by a pure desire to eliminate "sin", he would have done so from top to bottom.  

By these criteria we should all agree that Littlefinger is not a villain.  "Ability to amass power while stepping on everyone else on your way up" or "bootstrappyness" is not what I typically use when I determine my opinion of a person.  

Then who is the hero who is about to fight the High Sparrow, the villain? In my opinion it doesnt make sense to have a villain without having a hero, who fights him and tries to beat him. What? Is Cersei the hero? Of course not. The High Sparrow actually looks like a saint compared to her. The answer is that no one is a villain or a hero. No one is the good guy or the bad guy. Both sides fight for victory and want to dominate against the other. Also, in the world of ice and fire we have seen a lot of terrible things. I dont think High Sparrows homophobia is such a big problem, so we can characterize him as a villain.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Just now, AngeL0L said:

Then who is the hero who is about to fight the High Sparrow, the villain? In my opinion it doesnt make sense to have a villain without having a hero, who fights him and tries to beat him. What? Is Cersei the hero? Of course not. The High Sparrow actually looks like a saint compared to her. The answer is that no one is a villain or a hero. No one is the good guy or the bad guy. Both sides fight for victory and want to dominate against the other. Also, in the world of ice and fire we have seen a lot of terrible things. I dont think High Sparrows homophobia is such a big problem, so we can characterize him as a villain.

They are both villains.  In a story with as many well develop characters as GoT you have many villains.  

In this story arc, I'd argue Cersei is a villain protagonist and HS is a villain antagonist.  Meanwhile, Margaery is a hero protagonist.  It's at least a three-way conflict, and it could have turned out with any of these three characters on top.  Margaery eventually would have brought down the HS from within, I think.  She was playing the long game.  

[illinifan]

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

They are both villains.  In a story with as many well develop characters as GoT you have many villains.  

In this story arc, I'd argue Cersei is a villain protagonist and HS is a villain antagonist.  Meanwhile, Margaery is a hero protagonist.  It's at least a three-way conflict, and it could have turned out with any of these three characters on top.  Margaery eventually would have brought down the HS from within, I think.  She was playing the long game.  

It is actually in Margaery's interests to play along with the Sparrow.  She could separate Tommen from Cersei, have Cersei found guilty and probably exiled, and have religion bless her and Tommen's reign.  The only bump is getting Loras pardoned fully.

[AngeL0L]

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

They are both villains.  In a story with as many well develop characters as GoT you have many villains.  

In this story arc, I'd argue Cersei is a villain protagonist and HS is a villain antagonist.  Meanwhile, Margaery is a hero protagonist.  It's at least a three-way conflict, and it could have turned out with any of these three characters on top.  Margaery eventually would have brought down the HS from within, I think.  She was playing the long game.  

Yes, we have many villains in GoT general, but im talking about the Kings Landing conflict. If we should have a villain, then we should have a hero to fight him, otherwise a villain vs villain doesnt make much sense. So, if we dont have a hero we dont have a villain. We must compare the villain with the good guy to tell if he is bad or not. With this logic in Kings Landing where everyone fights for power everyone is a villain. Also, Margaery isnt a hero in my opinion, because the main conflict is between Cersei and High Sparrow.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

1 hour ago, AngeL0L said:

Yes, we have many villains in GoT general, but im talking about the Kings Landing conflict. If we should have a villain, then we should have a hero to fight him, otherwise a villain vs villain doesnt make much sense. So, if we dont have a hero we dont have a villain. We must compare the villain with the good guy to tell if he is bad or not. With this logic in Kings Landing where everyone fights for power everyone is a villain. Also, Margaery isnt a hero in my opinion, because the main conflict is between Cersei and High Sparrow.

Your view is too narrow.  There are plenty of conflicts with villains on both sides / no heros in literature and film.  

Antagonist vs Protagonist is one of the central types of conflict in literature.  "Villain" and "hero" involve moral judgements, Antagonist and Protagonist do not necessarily. 

The question you want to ask is whether Cersei, the high sparrow or Margaery is the Protagonist.  Of these three, clearly Cersei is.  So actually I'll revise my opinion.

Cersei is Villain protagonist, and the central character

High Sparrow is Villain antagonist (to Cersei and Margaery)

Margaery could be viewed as either a Hero antagonist (to Cersei) or a Hero protagonist (to High Sparrow).  But since she's and the high sparrow are not central characters, It's probably more correct to identify her in relation to Cersei.