Is the High Sparrow really a villain?

[illinifan]

One thing that has interested me about the reaction to the series is the hatred of the High Sparrow.  Yes, he is a religious zealot and yes he is homophobic and misogynist.  However, isn't what he is preaching like equal justice under the law and care for the peasants better for Westros than the game that the nobles are playing?  Cersei is a fun and complicated villain but she did murder her husband and start a war.  She just committed an act of terrorism and mass murder.  The High Sparrow was going to bring her to justice.  The idea that royalty is not above the law is a huge leap forward in this society.

Moreover, unlike many modern religious zealots, the High Sparrow operated under the law.  The Sparrows do not commit terrorist acts and do not even arm themselves until given specific permission by the Crown.  The High Sparrow is crafty enough to move pieces around and get what he wants within the bounds of Westerosi law.  

It just seems that perhaps critics and the audience are applying modern sexual mores and gender norms and attitides toward religion to a fantasy world based on medieval Europe.  I get why audiences dislike the High Sparrow when filtered through their modern persepectives.  However, should the High Sparrow be considered so bad in the context of Westros?

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

I agree.  I loved the High Sparrow. First, the actor was fantastic.  The common people loved him.  He fed and cared for the poor. 

And he was right about the corruption and sinfulness of the high Lords.  Power went to his head, and got a little too overconfident, but fundamentally he was a good man. 

Remember, he never asked for the faith militant to return. 

[illinifan]

Yes.  I think that perhaps both Hollywood and Martin underestimated the idea of faith in the average Westerosi's life.  Even the average noble in Westeros has is likely cowed by the supernatural.  It is unrealistic that every noble in Westros is a cynical player.

[Madarjeen]

Well, like most characters in Game of Thrones, he was ambiguous. There are very few real villains in the show.

He meant well in what he was doing. He used manipulation and brute force to accomplish what he wanted, but that doesn't mean he didn't genuinely care about the common people, or that his opposition to the corrupted nobles wasn't justified. However, if he can be considered a good person from this point of view (at least, not an evil one), of course we don't have to agree with his political ideas (homophobia, sexism...). And sometimes he was willing to do evil things for what he perceived was the greater good. Tyrion, Varys and Daenerys did similar things.

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, illinifan said:

Yes.  I think that perhaps both Hollywood and Martin underestimated the idea of faith in the average Westerosi's life.  Even the average noble in Westeros has is likely cowed by the supernatural.  It is unrealistic that every noble in Westros is a cynical player.

Not all of them are. There are many pious lords still in Westeros, not to mention those of ancient days who sided with the Faith Militant back during the days of Aenys and Maegor.

As to the original question:

I don't understand what the purpose of this character was in the show. What did he want? What was his agenda aside from amassing power for his religion and forcing anybody - even the royals - under the yoke of the Seven.

It would have been nice to see what his agenda was this alliance of the Crown and the Faith he enforced on Tommen. What did he try to accomplish?

Not to mention that such an alliance had always existed anyway - the difference now was that the Faith was the partner in charge and not the Crown.

In the books things are more easily understandable: The High Septon is a wandering septon, a zealous commoner whose people suffered greatly during the war in the Riverlands and who now comes to the capital to demand justice. He is a fundamentalist and a zealot and once fate (and Varys, presumably) put him into office he enforces his rigid interpretation of the Faith on everyone.

He certainly wants to revert the role between the Crown and the Faith but he hasn't accomplished that yet. I think he'll anoint Aegon King of Westeros but what he and Aegon then do thereafter is unclear. In the show that point in the plot was basically reached when Tommen and he declared their alliance. What should be done thereafter remained unclear.

[Thia Stark]

The question 'Is somebody a villain?' can be asked about literally any character of the books/show and different people would give various answers. 

But to answer the question, I personally found the High Sparrow a much more sympatethic character than Cersei and was rooting for him over her. Although it pained my heart to see Loras punished for being gay because homophobia is a problem that still exists in our world, most of the time I am able to distance myself morally shall we say, because I comprehend that GoT is set in medieval times. If we were to judge the High Sparrow for his sexism and homophobia, we would also have to judge everyone from Ned Stark to Sweetrobin for exploiting the smallfolk in a feudalist system that is little better than slavery.

As for the fanaticism on the other hand... That's an entirely different story.

[Tianzi]

A misogynist, a homophobe, a hypocrite, a religious fanatic... well, the last one outwardly at least. A cheater (Loras' case), a guy on a power trip (it sort of felt good that he died precisely because he was too happy humiliating the Tyrells to stop, listen to Marg and think about potential dangers).

Definitely a villain, though of course in an 'evil versus evil' setting.

Also, he wasn't interested in any kind of justice, he locked Marg for nothing and let her out when she made a gain for him, and arrested Cersei but wasn't a bit interested in arresting Jaime. It was a political game, he just had better - from a modern point of view - slogans than the nobles.

[Lockjaw of House Boltagon]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not all of them are. There are many pious lords still in Westeros, not to mention those of ancient days who sided with the Faith Militant back during the days of Aenys and Maegor.

As to the original question:

I don't understand what the purpose of this character was in the show. What did he want? What was his agenda aside from amassing power for his religion and forcing anybody - even the royals - under the yoke of the Seven.

It would have been nice to see what his agenda was this alliance of the Crown and the Faith he enforced on Tommen. What did he try to accomplish?

Not to mention that such an alliance had always existed anyway - the difference now was that the Faith was the partner in charge and not the Crown.

In the books things are more easily understandable: The High Septon is a wandering septon, a zealous commoner whose people suffered greatly during the war in the Riverlands and who now comes to the capital to demand justice. He is a fundamentalist and a zealot and once fate (and Varys, presumably) put him into office he enforces his rigid interpretation of the Faith on everyone.

He certainly wants to revert the role between the Crown and the Faith but he hasn't accomplished that yet. I think he'll anoint Aegon King of Westeros but what he and Aegon then do thereafter is unclear. In the show that point in the plot was basically reached when Tommen and he declared their alliance. What should be done thereafter remained unclear.

On the contrary, his goals and character are better outlined in the show. He told Olenna and Jaime his ultimate goal outright: the uprising of the %99, the Many, etc. He once used to be somewhat close to the way of life of the nobles but had an epiphany of sorts that made him realize how frivolous and grotesque the whole thing was, so he's dead set not only on shaking up the entire status quo but also on exposing the nobles as they truly are, to humiliate them and get them down from their ivory towers.

That's more than what we know about the HS in the books. I don't even know if he's after a widespread peasant uprising and the tearing down of the nobility. We still don't know a thing about who or what he was before becoming the HS. He's just a random zealot who got into a position of power. 

[Lord Varys]

33 minutes ago, Lyin' Ned said:

On the contrary, his goals and character are better outlined in the show. He told Olenna and Jaime his ultimate goal outright: the uprising of the %99, the Many, etc. He once used to be somewhat close to the way of life of the nobles but had an epiphany of sorts that made him realize how frivolous and grotesque the whole thing was, so he's dead set not only on shaking up the entire status quo but also on exposing the nobles as they truly are, to humiliate them and get them down from their ivory towers.

Hm. I always took that as an intimidation tactic. I've got many little soldiers that would die for me. Do you, too?

What I want to know is what he wanted to do with the power he had. Clearly he did not want to remove the king and install himself in his place.

[illinifan]

 

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Hm. I always took that as an intimidation tactic. I've got many little soldiers that would die for me. Do you, too?

What I want to know is what he wanted to do with the power he had. Clearly he did not want to remove the king and install himself in his place.

The High Sparrow was willing to work within the system to achieve his goals.  He didn't move until Cersei stupidly gave him the power to move. He didn't place himself on the throne because he knew that Westros was a feudal monarchy and Tommen was an easily manipulated pawn.  That is actually what makes him interesting.  He is a player and religious zealot who is willing to use the customs of Westros to his advantage to achieve greater power for the common folks.  He almost got to a situation where the Queen Mother would be actually held accountable for her crimes.  Who knows what else he would have been able to whisper into Tommen's ear?  Perhaps land reform or something to help the common folk.  

And I actually thought the High Sparrow was a more interesting character on the TV than in the books because of how Jonathan Pryce played him.  In the books, we only see him through Cersei's eyes, so we see his misogyny and zealotry.  However in the show we see more of the contempt for the corruption and sin among the nobles and their exploitation of the peasants.  Let's take the Tyrells for instance.  I did love Margaery's devotion to her brother and she is the only noble who gets that being popular among the people provided power, but the High Sparrow is right that the family is after the Iron Throne.  The Tyrells were willing to starve Kings Landing to get political power and I am assuming that Olenna has ordered the same tactic now.  This is considered a war crime by the Geneva Conventions.

[Rumy Stark]

2 hours ago, Tianzi said:

A misogynist, a homophobe, a hypocrite, a religious fanatic... well, the last one outwardly at least. A cheater (Loras' case), a guy on a power trip (it sort of felt good that he died precisely because he was too happy humiliating the Tyrells to stop, listen to Marg and think about potential dangers).

Definitely a villain, though of course in an 'evil versus evil' setting.

Also, he wasn't interested in any kind of justice, he locked Marg for nothing and let her out when she made a gain for him, and arrested Cersei but wasn't a bit interested in arresting Jaime. It was a political game, he just had better - from a modern point of view - slogans than the nobles.

This, seriously.

To be fair the High Sparrow was not the ultimate villain in King's Landing--basically it was/is a cesspool of power-hungry people willing to do practically anything to secure power and control over Westeros. Was the High Sparrow generally a better person than most of his rivals in this game (like, say Cersei)? Yes, I'd argue he sure as heck was. But he was also still very much a villain. Is that merely reflective of the generally medieval setting of Westeros or just Westeros in general? Sure. It doesn't excuse him or make him any less a villain.

Was he an enjoyable villain? Was he played masterfully and written well? Yes definitely. Yet a villain he remains. 

[Lord Lannister]

Well I could make a comment about the good guys having a habit of not torturing people with sleep, food and water deprivation, publicly shaming people and sending your thugs out to smash up anything you don't approve of but this season did feature the good guys feeding a man's own sons to him before killing him and feeding another man to a pack of dogs, so....

Jonathan Pryce portrayed him masterfully and he was a well fleshed out character, regardless of his twisted morality. Oddly enough, he was even more brutal in the books. It's usually the show that dials up the violence meter.

[LatrineDiggerBrian]

Don't know how he's portrayed in the books, but I couldn't stand the guy on the show every time he was on screen. All he did was spew a bunch of uninteresting religious cliches. The early part of the King's Landing story line (before the confrontation at Sept of Baelor) was absolute misery. I think they should've played up his grayer elements more, on the show he comes across as too sympathetic. I rejoiced when he was incinerated by wildfire. Honestly, they should've had her blow up the Sept in the first episode, and then have the Lannisters and Tyrells battle it out for the rest of the season.

[illinifan]

Here is another thought..  Many devout religious people during the Middle Ages did things that we would consider fanatical and harsh today.  St. Francis of Assisi, for instance, was far from the pacifist, nature loving hippie that he is so often portrayed as in popular culture.

[Dragon_Rider]

He's isn't a villain in the conventional sense of pure evil. He had some good ideas, sure, but that didn't make him any less worse than the other power hungry and ambitious people.  Moreover, he also had a some really bad ideas. If his idea of a perfect society is where everybody lives according to his religious principles, I'll take the amoral world of the Westeros or Essos instead.  A theocracy is no better than monarchy, no matter what they may preach.

[illinifan]

 

1 hour ago, Dragon_Rider said:

He's isn't a villain in the conventional sense of pure evil. He had some good ideas, sure, but that didn't make him any less worse than the other power hungry and ambitious people.  Moreover, he also had a some really bad ideas. If his idea of a perfect society is where everybody lives according to his religious principles, I'll take the amoral world of the Westeros or Essos instead.  A theocracy is no better than monarchy, no matter what they may preach.

So you would prefer to live in the world of Essos where you could be captured by the Dothraki and sold into slavery or into the equally bad world of Westros where the nobles can treat you like virtual slaves to the High Sparrow's ideas?  You might be faced with strict religious laws governing your behavior but the lords would be subject to the same restraints.  A small peasant farmer might be willing to trade his wine and gambling at the local tavern if his lands are safe from being burned, his stores age from being confiscated, and his daughters safe from being raped.

[Zorral]

What the High Septon wanted are the same things reformers and their followers among the lower classes in the Middle Ages and other eras always want, the same things that the Cluniac Reforms wanted, that Savonarola wanted, John Ball of the Peasants' Revolt wanted, Jan Hus, Peter Waldo, Martin Luther, the Puritans etc. wanted.

Inevitably, for a while, it seems great power grows along with followers, for those who are willing to speak out and act.  And almost inevitably they get squashed, unless other political desires among the powerful align with their desires for reforms, as fortunately happened for Martin Luther -- the hatred of the Holy Roman Empire and its rapacious and increasingly incompetent nobility and administration among the German states' nobility and wealthy middle class.

 

[Dragon_Rider]

2 hours ago, illinifan said:

 

So you would prefer to live in the world of Essos where you could be captured by the Dothraki and sold into slavery or into the equally bad world of Westros where the nobles can treat you like virtual slaves to the High Sparrow's ideas?  You might be faced with strict religious laws governing your behavior but the lords would be subject to the same restraints.  A small peasant farmer might be willing to trade his wine and gambling at the local tavern if his lands are safe from being burned, his stores age from being confiscated, and his daughters safe from being raped.

I'm not gonna go too far down this path, but let's just say a theocracy is more than just giving up wine and gambling. If you don't believe me, just look at what kind of life religious fanatics of today in the real world demand.  Moreover, while they might make you safe from the Dothraki, religious fanatics have not held back at burning alive those people whom they consider heretics.  Religion-based governments have their own hierarchy of powerful people who abuse those in the lower rungs of power and make violence against their perceived enemies. This isn't hypothetical, it's how history itself has played out in the Middle Ages and even today.

[Maid So Fair]

He's a raging hypocrite who does horrible things with much less ex use than his book counterpart who genuinely seems interested in providing for the smallfolk. He arrests the royal family not out of any sense if justice (he lets them go when they agree to further his power base and in Marg's case there was no good reason for her arrest in the first place), but to further his personal goals and gain power (to what end?). He focuses on people's sex life, whether that's sleeping with prostitues (former High Septon), sleeping with men (Loras) or sleeping with someone outside marriage (Cersei) while people die of violence and hunger. His things smash a marketplace. He tortures his prisoners, especially Loras. Definitely a villain for me.

Of course, Cersei is even worse, with her Neon Trial. 

[illinifan]

1 hour ago, Dragon_Rider said:

I'm not gonna go too far down this path, but let's just say a theocracy is more than just giving up wine and gambling. If you don't believe me, just look at what kind of life religious fanatics of today in the real world demand.  Moreover, while they might make you safe from the Dothraki, religious fanatics have not held back at burning alive those people whom they consider heretics.  Religion-based governments have their own hierarchy of powerful people who abuse those in the lower rungs of power and make violence against their perceived enemies. This isn't hypothetical, it's how history itself has played out in the Middle Ages and even today.

Ah yes.  I am just positing an interesting question.  I think it is quite valuable today.  Here is an interesting scenario.. Perhaps there was a conservative Islamic religious zealot who was committed to the law and was for the peasants.  Let's suppose that he was committed to the rule of law and was the first condemn terrorist acts like in Brussels and Paris.  He works within the law of the country and only does what the law allows.  However, Mohammed High Sparrow proposes certain things that are disgusting to the West like castrating gay men or permitting marital rape or denying women education and autonomy.  What do you propose then?