Who Indeed? (AND WHY?)

[Spotted Cat]

“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two.

‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’

‘Do it,’says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’

‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’

So tell me—wholives and who dies?”

i know the book says that power resided wherever we think it reside. but surely people would have some different ideas.

[butterbumps!]

oh, I actually made on OP on this recently (and then completely forgot about it, lol): http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/75619-a-king-a-tycoon-and-a-priest-walk-into-a-bar/

There were some really good answers- I like Tze's breakdown a lot.

[Jaime's Wench]

It depends on the time period. In the sixteenth to seventeenth century, which is my period of study, it would have been the priest. Europe was in the throes of hyperreligiosity - what The Church/Bible said was law (according to whether you were C or P).

Now, it would be the richest man. We are obsessed with the pursuit of commodities. Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Alan Sugar etc etc. have become very rich by our need to possess.

In the days of the British Empire, when Englightenment meant the decline of religion but colonies gave us an innate sense of nationalism, it would be our King. This led to WW1, ultimately, with one great king and his men against another, against another.

In Westeros, it is slightly harder to say. I would agree with Varys, in some ways.

[Crown]

It depends on the time period. In the sixteenth to seventeenth century, which is my period of study, it would have been the priest. Europe was in the throes of hyperreligiosity - what The Church/Bible said was law (according to whether you were C or P).

Now, it would be the richest man. We are obsessed with the pursuit of commodities. Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Alan Sugar etc etc. have become very rich by our need to possess.

In the days of the British Empire, when Englightenment meant the decline of religion but colonies gave us an innate sense of nationalism, it would be our King. This led to WW1, ultimately, with one great king and his men against another, against another.

In Westeros, it is slightly harder to say. I would agree with Varys, in some ways.

History teacher then? I always forgot to ask you what you teach.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

Power resides where men believe it resides. Thus, it depends on the man himself. If he was a devotional believer of the Seven for example, he'd surely choose the Priest. If he was someone like Shae (golddigger) he'd surely choose the rich man. If, however, the man was loyal to his King and wants to obey the law, he'd choose his King.

I for one don't know whom I would choose. Perhaps I'd just walk out of the bar. Killing is not my thing. If I should choose however, I'd probably choose the Priest.

[ab aeterno]

As to the OP's question I think, as people have said that it depends on the person. Power may be an illusion but power means nothing in a vacuum. You could have a king with unlimited amounts of gold, superhuman strength, immortality and omniscience but with no-one to exercise power over he would be completely powerless. Power cannot exist without someone to exercise power and someone to have power exercised over them. So the right answer is necessarily the sellsword because the power of the three great men must be exercised through him.

In this scenario the power of the three great men is equal- they have no power. Power therefore resides with the sellsword and always will. In whose favor he will exercise his power depends on his own beliefs, because the sellsword doesn't know nor understand that he has power. The sellsword believes that each of the three men holds the power between them and it depends upon which the sellsword believes to be the most powerful, the most legitimate or the most beneficial.

[Spotted Cat]

I think in this particular situation power resides with the person who can convey the common man that he has the power. it all comes down to brains and manipulation.

It depends on the time period. In the sixteenth to seventeenth century, which is my period of study, it would have been the priest. Europe was in the throes of hyperreligiosity - what The Church/Bible said was law (according to whether you were C or P).

with all due respect to your knowledge i don't think westeros as a very religious place. (at least before High Sparrow came in to power ). this would be true once THE SWORDS and poor fellows start enforcing faith through weapons.

[R'hllor's Bastard]

For the gold of course, the rich guy is the only one offering anything physical.

Like LF said, when ideals and morals are conflicted,u go with the guy who pays you

[ab aeterno]

For the gold of course, the rich guy is the only one offering anything physical.

Like LF said, when ideals and morals are conflicted,u go with the guy who pays you

Then why doesn't Tywin rule the Seven Kingdoms?

[R'hllor's Bastard]

Then why doesn't Tywin rule the Seven Kingdoms?

In a way he does, almost every character thinks about Tywin frequently in PoVs, from the North to Dorne all the way to Essos. He is talked about more than Robert or any other king or priest in the series.

[Myrcella]

There's only one sellsword here. If there were more sellswords, the one whom most of the sellswords believe most of the others believe has the power, is the one with power. It's not about fearing the man of power, it's about fearing those who enforce it. So I think Varys is right in that regard.

Unfortunately, with only one sellsword, all the power goes to the sellsword. Should the sellsword be righteous, he would obey the king; should he be faithful, he would obey the priest; should be be practical, he would obey the rich man; should he be LF, he would kill all of them and crown himself, and take all the men's gold.

GRRM very clearly and cleverly demonstrated the nature of power by choosing that specific example.

[ab aeterno]

In a way he does, almost every character thinks about Tywin frequently in PoVs, from the North to Dorne all the way to Essos. He is talked about more than Robert or any other king or priest in the series.

He's not king though. He has no real power over any of the other houses. He has some influence over Robert but not as much as he would like, it seems. Tywin has power but even he wouldn't have dared face Robert.

[Mikkel]

There's only one sellsword here. If there were more sellswords, the one whom most of the sellswords believe most of the others believe has the power, is the one with power. It's not about fearing the man of power, it's about fearing those who enforce it. So I think Varys is right in that regard.

Unfortunately, with only one sellsword, all the power goes to the sellsword. Should the sellsword be righteous, he would obey the king; should he be faithful, he would obey the priest; should be be practical, he would obey the rich man; should he be LF, he would kill all of them and crown himself, and take all the men's gold.

GRRM very clearly and cleverly demonstrated the nature of power by choosing that specific example.

Should he be LF, he would bitch & whine that they should give him the gold, then go find a child to brag to about how clever he is :cool4:

[eddard of the house stark]

It's a riddle without a right answer.... Vary's answer proves that.

[ab aeterno]

It's a riddle without a right answer.... Vary's answer proves that.

I think Varys does answer the riddle in a round about way. There are wrong answers, even if there is no possible way to say which will live or die. The entire point of the riddle is that power is indefinite.

[Jaime's Wench]

History teacher then? I always forgot to ask you what you teach.

History, indeed.

I think in this particular situation power resides with the person who can convey the common man that he has the power. it all comes down to brains and manipulation.

with all due respect to your knowledge i don't think westeros as a very religious place. (at least before High Sparrow came in to power ). this would be true once THE SWORDS and poor fellows start enforcing faith through weapons.

It isn't a very religious place. Catholicism makes the Seven look like the sweetest religion there ever was. The religious tolerance is fairly incredible, too. This idea that 'we follow the new gods' would be totally unacceptable to people of the Middle Ages. In their mind, there's one god, and there's always been that god, and anyone who says otherwise deserves a painful death as a heretic and an eternity of hell. This is why I am not convinced the prince would win over in Westeros. The Red Priest might, however - since R'hollar is based on the puritan faith, imo, and they were very hot-headed and intolerant at times.

[R'hllor's Bastard]

There are more examples of a king/queen being betrayed for gold than gold being betrayed for a king or queen. Hell gold is betrayed for a priest/religion (Lancel) more often than for a king.

[Gerold_Hightower]

Power resides where men think it resides.

Maybe Varys is trying to tell him that even people think that power resides somewhere (else probably), convincing them otherwise might do the trick.

[ab aeterno]

There are more examples of a king/queen being betrayed for gold than gold being betrayed for a king or queen. Hell gold is betrayed for a priest/religion (Lancel) more often than for a king.

There are betrayals, yes, but mostly people don't go to war for money. Stannis' King's Men go to war for the King, the Queen's men go to war for faith; Robb's men go to war for their liege lord/king. Roose betrays them for power not for money. There are actually relatively few betrayals just for money.

Dondarrion and the BwB fight for their dead king. Davos betrays Mel for his king. Lancel is the best example for faith, though arguably the betrayal of Jon might be said to be for faith.

[R'hllor's Bastard]

I dont think these wars can be simply chalked up to ideals, every major and minor lord quibble over some patch of land or some castle they were promised and all the soldiers are going to want some compensation.