Truly good characters

[Orphalesion]

10 hours ago, Mild Inconvenience said:

I don't count Ned as good, more neutral. He put his honour before the life and safety of his children. He could've kept his mouth shut about Joffrey and gone home. Instead thousands died, including his son and wife.

Ned had the screwed up definition of "honour" that his culture propagated and made many mistakes because of that. But in the end Ned swallowed his pride and displayed true honour by renouncing his claim that Joffrey is a bastard in the hopes that it will ease the suffering of his family.

He was wrong and it was too late, but the idea was there.

Well truly good characters are hard to find. I think it's because of general perception, we usually tend to view "good" as the default setting so it's easier to recognize when somebody is doing something that "breaks" the default setting and is evil/bad/selfish/wathevs.

Personally I think Brienne and Davos fit the bill, their worst flaws are that they are too loyal for their own good, which is a problem if you serve a horrible lord like Davos does. Also Brienne is fairly judgmental when we first meet her, but I don't think basic flaws like "being judgmental" disqualifies a character from being "truly good". 

[khal drogon]

5 hours ago, BericDondarrion said:

Ser Bonnifer Hasty 

 

He is arguably the most pure and honorable person still alive in Westeros.

 

Brienne supported an usurper and has repeatedly threatened to kill her rightful king.

Brienne supported her liege against two other kings with shaky claims from her perspective. She was right for wanting to kill a guy who murders with black magic.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

I'd include Yoren.He had no reason to protect Arya and Gendry, except that he believed it was the right thing to do. 

[devilish]

- All the Starks + Jon Snow
- Edmure 
- Samwell
- Missandei
- Brienne
- Davos
- Tyrion
- Tommen
- Renly

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

14 minutes ago, devilish said:

Renly

Controversial. Renly's one of my favorite characters, but "good" isn't how I'd describe him. Shameless, fun-loving rogue who probably would have been the best person from the original five to rule the 7K, sure, but good?

[devilish]

10 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Controversial. Renly's one of my favorite characters, but "good" isn't how I'd describe him. Shameless, fun-loving rogue who probably would have been the best person from the original five to rule the 7K, sure, but good?

Can you please list anything he did which was bad?

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

Just now, devilish said:

Can you please list anything he did which was bad?

Don't know about "bad", but his motivation for being King was simply that he wanted to be. He also argued for Dany's assassination I think. Both these things, while justifiable in some ways, were at best morally ambiguous. 

[SeanF]

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Don't know about "bad", but his motivation for being King was simply that he wanted to be. He also argued for Dany's assassination I think. Both these things, while justifiable in some ways, were at best morally ambiguous. 

I certainly can't think of anything that Renly did that was particularly virtuous.

[devilish]

45 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Don't know about "bad", but his motivation for being King was simply that he wanted to be. He also argued for Dany's assassination I think. Both these things, while justifiable in some ways, were at best morally ambiguous. 

He wanted to be king, because he was the only person in Westeros who could go toe to toe with Tywin Lannister. Without him, the Tyrells would simply kiss lion's arse and together they would smash anybody on their way. 

Regarding Danny, well, Renyl was being practical. His brother was a stubborn stag who saw red when ever Targeryans are mentioned. He might as well pick the fights he can hope to win. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 minutes ago, devilish said:

He wanted to be king, because he was the only person in Westeros who could go toe to toe with Tywin Lannister. Without him, the Tyrells would simply kiss lion's arse and together they would smash anybody on their way. 

Maybe we disagree about Renly’s motives here. What we see of him, particularly from Catelyn’s perspective, is not someone who reluctantly took the crown because it was the right thing to do, but someone who gleefully went for it because he wanted to and reckoned he could get away with it. I actually do think that his positive traits would have made him a better king than any of the others, especially Joffery and Stannis who were the only other claimants to the IT at that point. As it goes, I count one of his positive traits being that he was not bound with a rigid code of honour, like Robb and Stannis were/are, and having a certain willingness to fight dirty when necessary.

12 minutes ago, devilish said:

Regarding Danny, well, Renyl was being practical. His brother was a stubborn stag who saw red when ever Targeryans are mentioned. He might as well pick the fights he can hope to win. 

His acquiescence on that issue may have been practical, but I think a “good” person would have either fought it tooth and nail, like Ned, or at least made a small objection, like Barristan. We’re having a debate on that issue on another thread though so I won’t derail this one.  

[devilish]

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Maybe we disagree about Renly’s motives here. What we see of him, particularly from Catelyn’s perspective, is not someone who reluctantly took the crown because it was the right thing to do, but someone who gleefully went for it because he wanted to and reckoned he could get away with it. I actually do think that his positive traits would have made him a better king than any of the others, especially Joffery and Stannis who were the only other claimants to the IT at that point. As it goes, I count one of his positive traits being that he was not bound with a rigid code of honour, like Robb and Stannis were/are, and having a certain willingness to fight dirty when necessary.

 

His acquiescence on that issue may have been practical, but I think a “good” person would have either fought it tooth and nail, like Ned, or at least made a small objection, like Barristan. We’re having a debate on that issue on another thread though so I won’t derail this one.  

 

Erm you've just described Cat's son.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, devilish said:

Erm you've just described Cat's son.

You could argue that for Robb too, yes. I think it's even more obvious in Renly's case though. 

[Sigella]

Since there exists no objective morality (unless you think it stems from a real deity) you can't truthfully call one thing or another good.

 

The question, I think, you are discussing is: "Is there any truly utilitarian character?"

[devilish]

32 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

You could argue that for Robb too, yes. I think it's even more obvious in Renly's case though. 

Is it? 

Renly had an 80k army. With the lion and the wolf at each other's throat, invasion by conquest was not only possible but probable

Robb had a 20k army and with them he had to protect the punching ball of Westeros. He goes on putting a crown on his head, breaking promises he made and cutting bannermen heads. The boy was in lala land. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

14 minutes ago, devilish said:

Is it? 

Renly had an 80k army. With the lion and the wolf at each other's throat, invasion by conquest was not only possible but probable

Robb had a 20k army and with them he had to protect the punching ball of Westeros. He goes on putting a crown on his head, breaking promises he made and cutting bannermen heads. The boy was in lala land. 

I don’t know what the relative size of their armies has to do with the question in hand. Yes, Renly was in a much better position to seize the Iron Throne/launch a successful rebellion, the debate, I thought, was whether he was motivated because he thought his being king was best for the realm (he did claim this) or because he was personally ambitious. I think it was the latter really.

I don’t really know why I’m now being asked to defend Robb, this feels like a bit of whataboutery. Many of Robb’s decisions were flawed, and we can debate his relative merits with those of Renly, but that wasn’t what we were originally discussing.

[devilish]

19 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I don’t know what the relative size of their armies has to do with the question in hand. Yes, Renly was in a much better position to seize the Iron Throne/launch a successful rebellion, the debate, I thought, was whether he was motivated because he thought his being king was best for the realm (he did claim this) or because he was personally ambitious. I think it was the latter really.

I don’t really know why I’m now being asked to defend Robb, this feels like a bit of whataboutery. Many of Robb’s decisions were flawed, and we can debate his relative merits with those of Renly, but that wasn’t what we were originally discussing.

You're not being asked to defend anybody mate. Relax

All I am saying is. Joffrey had to be stopped and Renly was the only one able to do so. If he bent the knee to Stannis, then rest assured that the Tyrells would have joined the Lannisters and together they would have been unstoppable. Out of the 5 kings he was the only one with a feasible plan of bringing things into order.

A bad person would have executed Cat for treason. Instead he treated Cat with respect and he even gave Robb a way out of the enormous hole he dug himself into. He didn't had to do so. The feud between Lion and Wolf was so deep that they would be forced to skin one another. Once that occurred none of them were strong enough to beat the stag.

 

 

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

5 minutes ago, devilish said:

A bad person would have executed Cat for treason. Instead he treated Cat with respect and he even gave Robb a way out of the enormous hole he dug himself into. He didn't had to do so.

That would have been bad, but also stupid. I don't think he didn’t kill Cat out of the goodness of his heart, but because it would have been politically bizarre to do so. He wanted Robb on his side. If there had been a clear and obvious benefit to killing her I don’t know what he would have done. Personally, I don’t think he’d be so vicious as to murder an unarmed woman who came under a peace banner, but that wouldn’t make him “good”, it would just mean he wasn’t an utter shit.

9 minutes ago, devilish said:

Relax

They call me mellow yellow

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Ghost

Grey Wind

Lady

Nymeria

Shaggydog

Summer

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

3 minutes ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

Shaggydog

Tbf, Shaggy's a bit of a dick at times. 

[devilish]

20 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That would have been bad, but also stupid. I don't think he didn’t kill Cat out of the goodness of his heart, but because it would have been politically bizarre to do so. He wanted Robb on his side. If there had been a clear and obvious benefit to killing her I don’t know what he would have done. Personally, I don’t think he’d be so vicious as to murder an unarmed woman who came under a peace banner, but that wouldn’t make him “good”, it would just mean he wasn’t an utter shit.

 

 

They call me mellow yellow

 

Ok I went a bit too Stannis for my taste. Executing Cat would be OTT, however, he could have easily arrested her. I also doubt Renly ever needed Robb to be honest. His 80k army could trample over both lion and wolf at will.