Purely "Good" Characters?

[INCBlackbird]

So you agree with Jaime's morals to kill a child because he claimed it was done for love?

Or Theon' violently fecking Kyra because of some pent up frustration?

Or Jaime disregarding innocent peoples lives because he put his family first and foremost.

So you would not be in favor of Jon's decision to stay at the NW to fight a ice zombie apocalypse instead of going to war with Robb for his family. But Theon and Jaime's emotion based decisions that have benefitted no one but themselves is okay?

we're talking about morals, not decisions. and the things you mentioned were all things that Jaime and Theon did and then regretted which caused them to build up their own moral code, based on what they FELT was wrong, because they are good human beings on the inside. rather then simply accepted what someone has told you is right and wrong and refusing to change those morals even when something you do because of them is wrong.

[INCBlackbird]

There are a lot more that one could mention but what do you think he intended when he ordered Ned's men to be killed for his brother being hostage and even gave a smile about it? Do you think these were the actions of a good guy acting morally?

I think he was angry and wasn't thinking straight because he actually cares about Tyrion...

[INCBlackbird]

The same is true for morality as law

Jaime openly jokes about starting a war in order to continue screwing his sister, simply he knew the results his actions would have.

yep, he was joking... is that so horrible?

[INCBlackbird]

So you are saying that Ned should have just let it go and and allowed the Lannisters to take over the Iron Throne and KL and have power over everyone? He would have been more of a fool to allow that.

And let's be clear here. Jaime was not some self sacrificing saint either. He was very much into putting his bastards on the throne and prepared to go to war to make that happen. Coupled with the fact that Jaime's actions where what led to Joffrey on the throne in the first place, I am not sure how you are absolving him of responsibility for causing a war.

For keeping his son on the throne and the Lannisters in power, Jaime was involved in the war that killed thousands and caused suffering. After giving Catelyn an oath that he would never harm her family, he was involved in taking Edmure and his family prisoners (After threatening to trebuchet babies). He did not have the guts to prevent a poor Jeyne Poole being given over to Ramsay Bolton. All he did was shrug and say 'Oh well'.

You keep saying that Jaime was traumatized. Why and how was he traumatized? He's a scumbag who's trying to excuse his own misdeeds by wallowing in self pity. That's the worst kind of person.

Jaime is the pampered son of Twyin Lannister, one of the richest men in Westeros. Compared to Tyrion, Jaime has a great childhood. But then he decides to shag his twin sister for which both him and Cersei have equal culpability.

He then joins the KG to be close to his sister so that he can continue to shag his sister. Let's be clear here. He joins the KG to shag his sister, despite knowing that the KG take a vow of celibacy. Which means he did not have any regard for oaths or for the office of the KG when he joined it. He did it for selfish reasons.

In the meantime, his father orders the rape of his brother's wife and he does nothing about that either nor spend much time thinking about that.

So how exactly did Aerys traumatize Jaime so much that it causes Jaime to continue to his affair with the King's wife and try to murder an innocent child?

if he had done that it would have saved thousends of lives as there probably wouldn't have been any war (as far as Ned knew) and he didn't think there should be war because they were the lannisters or because of what Joffrey is, he simply wanted the "rightfull" heir on the throne. Joffrey could have been the best king ever and Ned still wouldn't have wanted him on the throne because he's a bastard.

how did Jaime's actions lead to Joffrey on the throne? I do not understand how you came to that conclusion as it was cercei who arranged roberts death and get her son on the throne. Jaime merely supported his family, what else did you want him to do?

well first of all, he's tywin Lannisters son, I don't think I would call that experience traumatising but his family is very dysfunctional for a reason and it was a weight jaime carried as well. but mainly he got traumatised when he became a kings guard because he had to witness all that horrible stuff the king did and just stand by according to his vows. and Jaime often talks about going away inside in those moments, which is something what trauma victims do to try and protect themselves against more harm. why do you think he's lost faith in humanity? according to what people(including Ned) consider right he had to protect an abuser simply because he'd sworn to do so, then there's his father who's all about power and what people think of you. and Jaime is just done with people and what they deem important and honorable and doesn't want to take part in it anymore. which I find very understandable when you grow up like that.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

first of all, before I forget to ask: is your avatar a picture from suspiria!?

no, that's not what I meant. I don't think Ned thinks other's should die chosing their family over honor. but he believes that people should always do the honorable thing, he's so black and white about that! he doesn't seem to taking to consideration that situations often aren't that simple and he judged Jaime and the guy from the night's watch for breaking their oaths, while he, himself gets to do it when it's about saving his family. he gives himself a pass when the situation is complicated but he doesn't give others a pass when their situation is complicated. that's why I call him a hypocrite.

indeed, he prejudiced jaime and I personally really really hate prejudiced people, especially when they're also self rightious and hypocritical. sure Jaime didn't explain, that wasn't his job, it was Ned's job to ask before he spread his prejudice about him.

that's a good point, and it gains good points for Ned. and I don't think he's a bad person either, he just doesn't make the list of truely good people for me. I know he does his best and I know he means well (which is defenitly admirable in the world of asoiaf) but I think he has a lot of very wrong morals and he's very self rightious about those wrong morals and that gets to me, that's why he doesn't make my list.

I don't think all lannisters are like that, I don't think Jaime is like that. I think he has moments where he thinks he is because that's what he's been taught by his father but Jaime actually creates his own set of morals based on what he believes is right and wrong and I agree with those morals a lot more then I agree with Ned's who are based on what is honorable and what isn't...

see, and there's my main problem with Ned and the main reason I don't count him on my list of good people despite his good intensions. he values institutional normsl (who is considered the rightfull hair by law) over the lives of thousends of people. and yes he believes this to be right, and that's exactly where my problems lies, that he actually considers this right. lots of the lannisters might consider themselves above the law, lots of characters might do bad things for their own personal gain but at least they don't consider it to be right, they know they're doing the wrong thing for their own sake, while Ned belives himself to be all high and mighty. and yes I know a lot of people don't see the logic in this, and really, no one has to. this is my personal view on it and I don't demand people to agree, but do you understand where I'm coming from with this?

about jaime:

that is true, yes, and I think this comes from Jaime's bitterness over the world, Jaime has long since accepted that the world he lives in does not care about right and wrong so he has that attitude of "to hell with everyone" but jaime does care about what is right and wrong, he got traumatised by having to witness what aerys did and he killed him in order to stop him from doing these thiings. and later on he regains his confidense in the world a little bit when he meets brienne and I think that now he's pretty much given up the attitude of "to hell with everyone", also because he's not in the toxic relationship with cercei anymore and has realised the truth about her.

Jaime is irresponsible, yes which wood make him a bad leader, but then again jaime is one of the few characters who isn't out to get power. I don't think being irresponsible makes one a bad person when one does not try to gain power.

it's ridiculous to blame him for the war because by the logic of "they did this which lead to this which lead to the war" you can blame tons of characters for the war. either they are all responsible or none of them are. but it certainly isn't just one of them. and I said guilt by association because the person I was responding to was blaming Jaime for his families actions, while a person can only be blamed for their own individual actions, if my sister murders someone that's not my fault.

I don't think either Jaime or Theon are "purely" good people (and yeah, both of them are defenitly flawed, which is actaually a big part of why I love them so much), I don't think anyone is, purely good people don't exist and therefor they shouldn't exist as characters either cause they'd be unrealistic and boring. and Jaime and Theon were pretty low on my list but I do count them as good people. and I have explained many times why and why I don't count ned. it's got nothing to do with their actions and a lot to do with their morals. the gist of it is that I agree with theon and jaime's morals and I don't agree with Neds.

I don't think Ned is a bad person, not at all, but I don't think he's a good person either. like I said, he tries, but I very much disagrees with his morals and that's where all my problems with him come from. I really like some of the things he stands for like the whole "he who passes the sentences should swing the sword" but then there's the whole "let's have a war to put the rightfull king on the throne" and I'm like "really Ned?" and I can't put him among the good people anymore because in my opinion a good person would value the lives of thousends of people over a law.

no, I don't think Ned should feel as bad about what he did to theon as theon about what he did the miller's boys. and like I said, I don't really blame Ned for what he did to theon, that's not my problem with him, not really. I don't think Ned should nessacarily feel guilty but he doesn't think about theon at all, except when he's using him as a political tool vs theon having guilt nightmares. the thing is that, yes the two situations are very different but what it all comes down to is that Theon never created his own set of morals and he is creating them now, in acok, he is realising what is right and what is wrong through what he allows to happen and what he does himself in winterfell (just like jaime discovered it through what he witnessed aerys do) while Ned... I do not know when he created his own set of morals but I assume he learned them from jon arryn, and he refuses to change them, I guess because he created them (or was taught them) without self discovery? I have no clue but they are not any morals a person should go by. while Theon and Jaime have morals based on what they feel is right and wrong, on an emotional level rather then a rational level.

we don't have to agree... this is all rather personal anyway so I don't think you can agree on this stuff and that's not my intension, but do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes, it's Suspiria :)

Well, he judged Jaime based on what he saw and the picture was pretty clear in a misleading way. After witnessing the atrocities Tywin committed by treachery he encounters his son sitting in the IT after having killed the king. From his point of view Jaime had simply got rid of Aerys once Tywin got in KL. Jaime's mockery didn't hep things at all. And Jaime was saving himself and his father just as much as the rest of population of KL. It's not like the innocent people were his priority. Even completely awful people would try to save themselves in that situation and could very well have killed Aerys without a single altruistic thought. Not saying Jaime didn't have a level of concern for the people in KL but still his act is not nearly as heroic as he claims to be.

I don't think Ned was prejudiced. The whole scenario was pretty unfavorable to Jaime. Not only Ned but at least half the population of Westeros judged him for that. He should have put aside his Lannister pride for a minute and explained the whole situation, no one had the obligation to guess. He chose the exact opposite direction and acted with cynicism.

I don't think Jaime really has much morals. He is more bothered by his reputation and for the sake of his honor he is trying to make amends in order to be viewed in a positive light in the future. He respects Brienne and is able to feel compassion in certain occasions but I think he is mostly self-centered. He distanced from Cersei not because he saw the cruel person that she is but because she started to act crazy and aggressive and Tyrion told she had repeatedly cheated on him.

I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree. I do think lives are more important than whose blood sits in the IT but that is not such a trivial matter, who has the right blood and who hasn't. The institutionalized government depends on it, absurd as it may seem for us. If the farce promoted by Cersei became known war would happen anyway (and Stannis knew, so a conflict was inevitable) and supporting it would open a precedent for countless people trying to usurp the Throne from the rightful heir thus causing more conflict and suffering. It is not like Cersei was openly affirming her rights for political purposes and trying to change the government paradigm. Ned actually tried to resolve everything diplomatically (with a "paper shield" like Cersei mocked). He would rule as regent for the time being until Stannis returned, Cersei would be judged (as she should) and no harm would come to the children as long as Ned had the power to keep them safe. Stannis could have an different idea but that would be on him, not Ned. His was a peaceful solution, if not politically astute. Of course Ned was being naive but he would be walking in a thin line either way.

I was saying Jaime was irresponsible for not caring for a war to happen due to his reckless behavior so that makes him morally flawed even if he doesn't seek power. Blaming him solely for the war is wrong but he knew the risks and chose to keep doing what he did. He was a major instigator. The conflict can be traced to his and Cersei's decision.

Perfectly fine, just stating my opinions. Your list is your list, I'm just discussing it because you made it public and I like to put my thoughts about Ned and Jaime as well once in a while.

That's true. Ned only thinks about Theon one time and for political purposes but his exact feelings about him are not stated in the text. He could care for him. I didn't know Ned cared so much about Jory until he cradled his body.

I don't think Ned's morals can be traced directly to Jon Arryn. He certainly learned a lot from him but from what we could see Jon Arryn was much more willing to compromise and make alliances with unsavory people like Tywin than Ned. I think he developed his own set of morals and they are not that different from our contemporary views IMO. They diverge a lot less than the morals of other noble characters IMO.

Yes, I respect your opinion and I agree we don't have to agree on that subject. Just offering a reply.

[HairGrowsBack]

Wait, Jaime express guilt?

"I'm not ashamed of loving you, only of the things I have done to hide it. That boy in Winterfell..."

And that's not counting his guilt over what happened to Rhaella and Rhaegar's children.

[Hand to King Davos]

Davos.

/thread.

[Lord Orys]

Old Nan is the most morally terrifying character in the story. She filled Brans head with horrific stories and caused childhood trauma in an attempt to shelter him.

[Game Of Thrones]

Robb Stark. He never did anything that didn't need to be done. That which he was murdered for and betrayed over were due to the fact those who did so were corrupt.

He broke his oaths to House Frey.

[Nihlus]

"I'm not ashamed of loving you, only of the things I have done to hide it. That boy in Winterfell..."

And that's not counting his guilt over what happened to Rhaella and Rhaegar's children.

"I never thought he'd hurt them..." :(

He broke his oaths to House Frey

Seriously, fuck the Freys. They were breaking their own oaths by refusing to help the Tullys. They're opportunistic leaches that didn't deserve shit.

I still don't think he's anywhere near a good guy though, due to his burning of the Westerlands.

[Batbob45]

not serious

Shitmouth - other than being Gregor's men, we never see him do evil things

Serious

Brienne

Edric Storm

Devan Seaworth seem like a good kid

[Fat Mac]

Seriously, fuck the Freys. They were breaking their own oaths by refusing to help the Tullys. They're opportunistic leaches that didn't deserve shit.

It's that kind of attitude that causes the Freys to be like that. They are constantly spat on, so when they have the chance to spit on someone else, they do.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Seriously, fuck the Freys. They were breaking their own oaths by refusing to help the Tullys.

But kept their promise to the King on the Iron Throne. King>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lord.

[Julia H.]

see, and there's my main problem with Ned and the main reason I don't count him on my list of good people despite his good intensions. he values institutional normsl (who is considered the rightfull hair by law) over the lives of thousends of people. and yes he believes this to be right, and that's exactly where my problems lies, that he actually considers this right. lots of the lannisters might consider themselves above the law, lots of characters might do bad things for their own personal gain but at least they don't consider it to be right, they know they're doing the wrong thing for their own sake, while Ned belives himself to be all high and mighty. and yes I know a lot of people don't see the logic in this, and really, no one has to. this is my personal view on it and I don't demand people to agree, but do you understand where I'm coming from with this?

no, I don't think Ned should feel as bad about what he did to theon as theon about what he did the miller's boys. and like I said, I don't really blame Ned for what he did to theon, that's not my problem with him, not really. I don't think Ned should nessacarily feel guilty but he doesn't think about theon at all, except when he's using him as a political tool vs theon having guilt nightmares. the thing is that, yes the two situations are very different but what it all comes down to is that Theon never created his own set of morals and he is creating them now, in acok, he is realising what is right and what is wrong through what he allows to happen and what he does himself in winterfell (just like jaime discovered it through what he witnessed aerys do) while Ned... I do not know when he created his own set of morals but I assume he learned them from jon arryn, and he refuses to change them, I guess because he created them (or was taught them) without self discovery? I have no clue but they are not any morals a person should go by. while Theon and Jaime have morals based on what they feel is right and wrong, on an emotional level rather then a rational level.

And here I thought that a possible definiton of sin is knowing that you are doing the morally wrong thing and doing it all the same.

So if you insist on doing what you think is morally right, it makes you "high and mighty" and self-righteous because, well, because you know you have done what you think is right? At the same time if you commit any crimes so you can feel guilty about it, you are a good person because it shows you have morals. Logical.

Theon has bad feelings and nightmares about the miller's boys - he clearly realizes that killing them was wrong - but he still goes on with the whole flaying project and the display of the flayed little dead children (can you imagine the sight?) so that everyone can see them (including himself) in and around the castle; and that makes him morally good because he is so wonderfully experimenting with what is right and wrong and because he is so perfectly aware all the time that what he is doing is morally wrong, Well, his nightmares show that he is afraid of the revenge of the dead (or the living), but he never tells himself "how could you do that?", and he leaves the heads to rot instead of burying them.

I'm quite certain Ned has morals based on what he feels right and wrong, and he also does what he feels right.

And since these characters are being compared... Ned's great sin is taking a hostage though he was not commander-in-chief at the time, and if Robert wanted a hostage, there was little anyone could do to stop him. (If Ned had refused to take Theon and Theon had ended up with Roose Bolton and fallen victim to his schemes, it would also have been Ned's fault for wanting to keep his hands clean.) Right. But what about the hostages these two beautiful characters on your list of good people - Theon and Jaime - took? Theon uses Beth as hostage threatening to kill her to blackmail her father, and he adds that he has no lack of hostages. Jaime takes hostages in the Riverlands without remorse, and he is commander-in-chief there, i.e. taking hostages is his decision. He also threatens to kill a newborn baby in a most horrible way to force the baby's father to obey.

I don't see how Ned is more responsible for the start of the war than many other people (in fact, I don't see how he could have stopped it from happening), and I agree with the explanation Ghost from Winterfell gave.

[INCBlackbird]

And here I thought that a possible definiton of sin is knowing that you are doing the morally wrong thing and doing it all the same.

So if you insist on doing what you think is morally right, it makes you "high and mighty" and self-righteous because, well, because you know you have done what you think is right? At the same time if you commit any crimes so you can feel guilty about it, you are a good person because it shows you have morals. Logical.

Theon has bad feelings and nightmares about the miller's boys - he clearly realizes that killing them was wrong - but he still goes on with the whole flaying project and the display of the flayed little dead children (can you imagine the sight?) so that everyone can see them (including himself) in and around the castle; and that makes him morally good because he is so wonderfully experimenting with what is right and wrong and because he is so perfectly aware all the time that what he is doing is morally wrong, Well, his nightmares show that he is afraid of the revenge of the dead (or the living), but he never tells himself "how could you do that?", and he leaves the heads to rot instead of burying them.

I'm quite certain Ned has morals based on what he feels right and wrong, and he also does what he feels right.

And since these characters are being compared... Ned's great sin is taking a hostage though he was not commander-in-chief at the time, and if Robert wanted a hostage, there was little anyone could do to stop him. (If Ned had refused to take Theon and Theon had ended up with Roose Bolton and fallen victim to his schemes, it would also have been Ned's fault for wanting to keep his hands clean.) Right. But what about the hostages these two beautiful characters on your list of good people - Theon and Jaime - took? Theon uses Beth as hostage threatening to kill her to blackmail her father, and he adds that he has no lack of hostages. Jaime takes hostages in the Riverlands without remorse, and he is commander-in-chief there, i.e. taking hostages is his decision. He also threatens to kill a newborn baby in a most horrible way to force the baby's father to obey.

I don't see how Ned is more responsible for the start of the war than many other people (in fact, I don't see how he could have stopped it from happening), and I agree with the explanation Ghost from Winterfell gave.

When you believe that your morals are superior to those of others and judge others for not following then then you are self-righteous. Especially when those morals happen to be severely flawed.

Of course Theon goes on with the display! Otherwise he would have killed them for nothing! And displaying them is not the same as killing them, it’s not like he ever kills children again after that, because he is discovering what his morals are at that point, he actually tries to fight them all throughout a clash of kings, he tries to be an iron born with iron born morals but he keeps feeling bad and then gets frustrated because the real Theon, the one he’s trying to hide, does not agree with those morals, the real Theon has morals of his own, based on what he feels is right and wrong and he discovers them the hard way.

Once again, i’m not talking about actions. I’m not talking about their “sins” because actions don’t simply stem from personality, but from circumstances the character is in. personality obviously does play a part in the ultimate decisions the character made and they can be used to investigate this persons personality but the actions a person commits do not decide the character’s personality, rather the personality decides the person’s actions. And I am talking about personality here, not actions.

And for the record I do not blame Ned for taking Theon hostage, that is not why I do not count him as a good person. the reason he is not on my “good characters” list is (just like why theon and Jaime are!) because of his personality. He is self-righteous, judgemental and has a very wrong black and white set of morals. While theon and Jaime have morals based what they feel (emotionally) is right and what is wrong.

When did I say he was responsible? I don’t think Ned is responsible, I don’t think anyone is souly responsible for the war, lots of events lead to the war! What I am talking about is that Ned got told that there would be war if he wanted to put the “rightful heir” on the throne and Ned’s very wrong set of morals lead him to say that there was no other choice, that it was ok for thousends of people to die as a casuality of war in order to put the rightful heir on the throne, because that was more important then those thousends of lives. It’s not about whether or not he is responsible for those lives, it’s about his way of thinking, his flawed morality. Again, it’s not about actions it’s about personality…

[Game of Thrones Reference]

When did I say he was responsible? I don’t think Ned is responsible, I don’t think anyone is souly responsible for the war, lots of events lead to the war! What I am talking about is that Ned got told that there would be war if he wanted to put the “rightful heir” on the throne and Ned’s very wrong set of morals lead him to say that there was no other choice, that it was ok for thousends of people to die as a casuality of war in order to put the rightful heir on the throne, because that was more important then those thousends of lives. It’s not about whether or not he is responsible for those lives, it’s about his way of thinking, his flawed morality. Again, it’s not about actions it’s about personality…

Ned didn't know there was going to be a war. When he walked into that throne room, he thought the gold cloaks were on his side and if the queen refused to do as he liked, he would take Cercei, Joffrey, and the other children into custody. Boom! War over. No one else had to die. Ned was not aware his actions would cause the deaths of thousands of people. It was supposed to be bloodless, and would have been, if Littlefinger hadn't betrayed him.

[Cavendish]

Brienne

Ned

Hodor

Margaery

Sansa

[INCBlackbird]

Ned didn't know there was going to be a war. When he walked into that throne room, he thought the gold cloaks were on his side and if the queen refused to do as he liked, he would take Cercei, Joffrey, and the other children into custody. Boom! War over. No one else had to die. Ned was not aware his actions would cause the deaths of thousands of people. It was supposed to be bloodless, and would have been, if Littlefinger hadn't betrayed him.

I'm not talking about when he walked in the throne room, i'm talking about his conversations with Petyr. to make things clear : http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/08/02/eddard-starks-ethics-of-honor that lists pretty much my biggest problem with Ned (as a person, as a character I find him very interesting)

[sifth]

But kept their promise to the King on the Iron Throne. King>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lord.

Joffrey is a false king though, a bastard of Cercie and Jamie, so does he even count.

[Game of Thrones Reference]

I'm not talking about when he walked in the throne room, i'm talking about his conversations with Petyr. to make things clear : http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/08/02/eddard-starks-ethics-of-honor that lists pretty much my biggest problem with Ned (as a person, as a character I find him very interesting)

You said that Ned knowingly put the lives of thousands of men at risk to place the rightful heir on the throne. I was simply refuting that claim by stating that Ned had no idea that there would be a war. If his plan had worked, Joffrey and Cercei would be his hostages, Tywin would have been forced to surrender, and Stannis would be able to come to the capital and claim his rightful place as king. As I stated earlier, the war would have been over before it had even really begun. You condemn Ned for his actions and his morals when all he was trying to do was honor Robert's legacy and keep a Baratheon on the throne. You condemn Ned and yet you praise Jaime because he knew that pushing a child out a window was a big "no-no." Your morals may be different from mine, but I don't think knowing you've done wrong is enough. You have to make amends, and Jaime hasn't done anything even remotely close to making up for what's he's done. Now, that said, I think that because we're even having this debate, Ned and Jaime should both be disqualified from the list of "purely good" characters. By "purely good", I believe the OP meant that they're hands are completely clean and have done no wrong.