Controversial opinions on characters

[Ser Greenseer]

There are more good people than you think.

[TimJames]

How do you know that he was a rapist or mad?

This is you making your opinions facts. Rhaegar wasn't Prince Charming but from all accounts he wasn't a rapist or mad as you like to put it.

We haven't even got the whole story like GRRM said we would there is more to Rhaegar and Lyanna's story. To label him mad when years later we see the ice dead walking, dragons being reborn, prophecies coming true in some sense, and magic coming back and calling him mad when we don't know what it was that he read or anything really is your hate talking.

I believe this thread is called "controversial OPINIONS". I am of the opinion that Rhaegar was an insane rapist.

There are actually several accounts that support my claim, as well as huge heaps of circumstantial evidence and basic common sense.

[The Wolves]

I believe this thread is called "controversial OPINIONS". I am of the opinion that Rhaegar was an insane rapist.

There are actually several accounts that support my claim, as well as huge heaps of circumstantial evidence and basic common sense.

There is honestly nothing that I remember from the books supports your claim that Rhaegar was mad. Nobody but Robert ever says anything bad about Rhaegar every account we have heard about him does not say that he was mad. We know next to nothing about Rhaegar and again with the dead walking and magic and dragons making a come back I just don't see how anyone can fall Rhaegar mad with the little info we have on him and most of it coming from biased unreliable people.

We don't even know what prophecy he read, nobody has ever heard him talk about the song of ice and fire or the prince that was promised.

[LordStoneheart]

Bran: There's no difference to me when Bran wargs Hodor or Summer.

Haggon: Backwards, primitive hack with no real authority

Stoneheart: nothing wrong with her hanging Podrick and Hyle (defense of Hyle Cunt is baffling to me.)

Stannis: He did not consider burning Edric to "save the world." He did it out of a selfish desire for the throne.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

I'm not argueing that he's a jerk. he is. the argument was about Theon kicking the head of the deserter and smiling. which was clearly a manifestation of him being scared that next time it would be him on the block. and it's not an ambiguous thing, it's made pretty clear throughout the books on several occasions.

My reading of your posts was you were reacting to someone saying theon was a callous asshole from the beginning, citing that example. You said basically Nono, he's not an asshole he's ~scared~ and if you think any different you can't read.

My point is, I don't honestly care where his callous, assholish attitude and actions come from - he's still an asshole at that moment, and a difficult past doesn't change that.

Furthermore while I agree with you that a lot of what drives Theons actions is insecurity; there is also a lot of just plain selfish thoughtlessness. I don't think he gives a thought to the captains daughters fate, he just wants to get his rocks off and she's conveneint.

[Fat Mac]

The Greatjon is a moron. In fact, the only Northern Lords I've seen with a decent amount of intelligence are Wyman Manderly, Roose Bolton and Barbrey Dustin

Stoneheart half exists to give the fans some justice on the Freys, and half exists to change the direction of Jaime's storyline. Once that's done, she's done. I don't expect her to live long past her encounter with Jaime.

Littlefinger is better than Varys. Better character, better player

[TimJames]

There is honestly nothing that I remember from the books supports your claim that Rhaegar was mad. Nobody but Robert ever says anything bad about Rhaegar every account we have heard about him does not say that he was mad. We know next to nothing about Rhaegar and again with the dead walking and magic and dragons making a come back I just don't see how anyone can fall Rhaegar mad with the little info we have on him and most of it coming from biased unreliable people.

Rhaegar started a war which got nearly his entire family killed, along with millions of other people. He did this all for a vague prophecy, when he could have easily prevented The Others from being a threat by sending troops to help hold The Wall. I think he was insane because his actions have no rational or logical justification.

I think Rhaegar was a rapist because if he cared that much about a prophecy, than there's no way he'd take no for an answer.

And stop acting like Rhaegar was universally loved by everyone but Robert. Brandon rushed to KingsLanding to challenge Rhaegar to a duel to the death so as to save his sister, years later his nephew Bran told Osha that Lyanna was raped and murdered, and I'm guessing he either heard this from Eddard (if he heard it elsewhere you can bet he went to Eddard who confirmed these events).

Even people like Barrestin Semly and Daenarys who look up to Rhaegar do not try to justify him running off with Lyanna. Daenarys actually grew up thinking Elia must have been cruel for Rhaegar to betray her so horribly, and continues to think this until Barrestin corrects her by stating that Elia was actually a good person. Even Barrestin can only say "I don't know what was in his heart" because abandoning your wife and children to die is a scumbag move by most standards and he can't completely convince himself otherwise.

[INCBlackbird]

@a spoon of knife and fork: because he IS scared. and he's smiling to hide said fear... and it doesn't require much to understand that.

maybe you don't care but I do care. cause that's part of why I like him. I like characters who are scared, lonely and don't Always do the right thing. and I can't fault him for what he does cause I wouldn't do any better in his situation and I don't think there's a lot of people out there who would do better than him, so yeah I think people Judge him too harshly and disregard why he is the way he is.

I think it goes further than that. He is rather selfish yes (than again, who isn't?) but his whole treatment of lowborn people (it's not just the captain's daughter, it's also her father, he is a jerk to both a much as he can) is about making himself feel like he is in controle. because he doesn't feel in control (which in turn makes him not in control, it's a vicious circle) and no that's not an excuse but everything comes from somewhere and with Theon most things come from feeling scared, helpless and unloved. which is very sad and it's why I like him, I like sad characters, the more pain they're in the more i'll love them.

[The Dragons Hand]

I agree with pretty much all of the OP. I mean, read my signature and you'll see my opinion of Jaime.

Also any opinion I have of Daenerys is controversial, she is polarizing as all possible hell. She is my favorite, and has been since MMD's burning.

brienne of tarth is dumber than ned and victarion put together

the ironborn aren't badass, they are the rednecks of westeros

petyr is more lucky and sly than intelligent and devious. He has no hope whatsoever of getting what he wants -- he is already at his peak.

Rebels calling Jamie kingslayer is driven by petty jealousy, nothing more. Ned is probably the root of this prejudice.

Jon snow is morally corrupt, unwilling to listen to good council, and just plain inept as a leader. He scammed his way into power and him getting killed is a good thing.

And lastly....the knight of flowers is grossly overrated as a fighter.

I've always ranked Loras as somewhat above Rhaegar's level.

My unpopular/controversial opinions:

- I sympathized a lot with Theon even before he was tortured by Ramsay.

- I think Sansa is just as strong and capable as Arya, maybe even more so. I also don't hate Sansa for telling Cersei about Ned's plan because she could not have known about the consequences.

- I don't get any satisfaction whatsoever out of Lady Stoneheart hanging her enemies, Arya crossing names off her list, Tyrion killing Tywin and Shae, Wyman Manderly baking Frey's into pies or any other time a character has gotten revenge. Heretic

- I love the Greyjoy's. I'm in the middle

- I think it's unfair to blame Catelyn for causing the war, or causing Ned's death, or causing the Red Wedding.

Honestly, I'm not sure how controversial these opinions are but I've had a lot of people disagree with me on them so yeah... :P

Shae was not forced to make that confession and Tyrion had the right to vengeance

Hold on your butts because Rhaegar didn't start RR. How spooky is that? If anything it was Aerys *Assisted by Brandon*

[Maid So Fair]

snip

Doing the right thing might not always be easy (and it'd be kind of pointless if it were) but that doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do. And I don't buy that Theon had no choice - that's what he tells himself but it's nonsense. He always had a choice - to not attack Winterfell, to not try to stay there, to not murder those boys, to leave with Asha. He could have said fuck it I'm returning to Pyke. Burn Winterfell if he must to keep his tough guy persona alive. Sure, some of his men might lose some respect for him, but so the hell what? He'll just have to earn it back. It's certainly not worth the life of innocents. The only thing truly at stake was his conqueror fantasy.

You seem very uncomfortable with labelling anybody who is not an outright murderous psychopath who tortures kittens for fun a bad person. I can see where you're coming from, and you are entitled to that view, even if I think it's quite a simplistic way of looking at things. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and prisons are full of 'innocent' people. The problem is that no one is a villain in their own story and it's often those who think that think they're doing bad things for the greater good that end up causing the most damage. There are certainly shades of good/evil and some characters are a lot more grey than others. But leaving that aside surely you acknowledge that some actions (meaning the act itself+circumstances+motivation) can be considered bad/evil? And if so, is it truly that surprising that some people might dislike a person or a character for committing those actions? That someone might look at the extenuating circumstances and find them sorely lacking?

What Ramsay was doing wasn't common knowledge - even now it's just rumours and tales. Dead girls don't talk. And with Roose at home Ramsey would be kept on a leash. It's only after he leaves that Ramsay commits the worst excesses - and he's promptly condemned for it and sentenced to death by Winterfell. Even Roose, one of the most powerful nobles in the North is extremely careful to stick to his peaceful land, quiet people principle.

As for Ned I've read that post and I must say that if your best argument against Ned is him not wanting to put a monster like Joffrey on the IT then you should know you are truly grasping at straws. To reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, war was already in full progress when Ned denounced Joffrey because Tywin, not Ned, invaded the Riverlands. Renly was going to oppose the Lannisters no matter what out of self-preservation so there would still be a war between the IT and Renly-Tyrell alliance. Stannis would still declare himself King and go to war with everybody else to claim what's his rights. What does Ned do then? Go to war against Renly and Stannis to defend the claim of a boy who is not only a terrible King but has no right to the throne? Also, the only reason there would be/was war was if the Lannisters don't give give up on a position they have no legal right to - why is it ok for Tywin to ravage half a continent for Joffrey but not for Ned to promote his own candidate (peacefully one might add)? Mind boggles.

You have every right to dislike Ned, just like other people have every right to dislike Theon. I don't know those other characters so unfortunately can't comment on the similarities between them and Ned. If jerks with a good heart is basically the same thing as a lovable rogue, I certainly wouldn't class Theon as one, however.

[Anythingatall]

All characters - Sometimes they act out of character because the plot demands it.

[Lykaios Wolfsheart]

I agree with pretty much all of this. Especially what you said about Stannis. Also, I love Mance and all the wildlings. I think Jon was pushed into leadership to soon, and made some bad decisions, and is letting Stannis push him around. I also think Dany is to naive and refuses to see the larger picture of her actions.

I don't actually think Jon's situation is what came too quickly, it's his decisions that came too quickly. The Watch wasn't ready for that kind of massive change, and of course they were going to react.In general I think his ideas were good (I mean, it shows a greater tolerance for different cultures and gives the wall more fighters. What's not to like about that? He remembers the true enemy is the Others, not the wildlings. But the Watch wasn't ready for that mindset and did what they thought their order deserved.)

But yes I agree about Dany, started as one of my favourite chapters to read but in the end I started really wishing they were over.

[Maid So Fair]

I don't actually think Jon's situation is what came too quickly, it's his decisions that came too quickly. The Watch wasn't ready for that kind of massive change, and of course they were going to react.In general I think his ideas were good (I mean, it shows a greater tolerance for different cultures and gives the wall more fighters. What's not to like about that? He remembers the true enemy is the Others, not the wildlings. But the Watch wasn't ready for that mindset and did what they thought their order deserved.)

But yes I agree about Dany, started as one of my favourite chapters to read but in the end I started really wishing they were over.

The thing is that Jon's problem was with delegation and communication rather than his ideas, which I believe were very sound and even visionary. He fails, just like Dany, by ignoring the day-to-day slogfest of ruling which requires pacifying opposing interests and presenting his ideas in an inspiring way that others can get behind. Like her, he suffers from a lack of reliable subordinates that he could delegate tasks to. But I think overall he handles the situation better, especially when it comes to dealing with Stannis and integrating the wildlings into the Watch. I'm not sure what he could have done about Bowen and co except relocating them elsewhere - but there's no one to replace them at Castle Black.

[Lykaios Wolfsheart]

The thing is that Jon's problem was with delegation and communication rather than his ideas, which I believe were very sound and even visionary. He fails, just like Dany, by ignoring the day-to-day slogfest of ruling which requires pacifying opposing interests and presenting his ideas in an inspiring way that others can get behind. Like her, he suffers from a lack of reliable subordinates that he could delegate tasks to. But I think overall he handles the situation better, especially when it comes to dealing with Stannis and integrating the wildlings into the Watch. I'm not sure what he could have done about Bowen and co except relocating them elsewhere - but there's no one to replace them at Castle Black.

Totally agree.

I think if this series of books does anything, it most certainly shows us why children/young adults shouldn't be put in positions of power.

[Dulcinea]

I don't actually think Jon's situation is what came too quickly, it's his decisions that came too quickly. The Watch wasn't ready for that kind of massive change, and of course they were going to react.In general I think his ideas were good (I mean, it shows a greater tolerance for different cultures and gives the wall more fighters. What's not to like about that? He remembers the true enemy is the Others, not the wildlings. But the Watch wasn't ready for that mindset and did what they thought their order deserved.)

But yes I agree about Dany, started as one of my favourite chapters to read but in the end I started really wishing they were over.

I see your point. I think that is true, especially dealing with the baby swapping, which Is something I have a huge issue with. I understand why he did it, but it seemed way to premature.

The thing is that Jon's problem was with delegation and communication rather than his ideas, which I believe were very sound and even visionary. He fails, just like Dany, by ignoring the day-to-day slogfest of ruling which requires pacifying opposing interests and presenting his ideas in an inspiring way that others can get behind. Like her, he suffers from a lack of reliable subordinates that he could delegate tasks to. But I think overall he handles the situation better, especially when it comes to dealing with Stannis and integrating the wildlings into the Watch. I'm not sure what he could have done about Bowen and co except relocating them elsewhere - but there's no one to replace them at Castle Black.

Yes yes yes. You said it way better than I. I do think his choice not to communicate his ideas clearly or delegate properly is a big issue, and that's more of what I mean. I am assuming however that he is choosing not to communicate, but its possible he just doesn't know how to. Or doesn't see that its nessesary.

My biggest issue with Dany, is that she never bothered to learn the culture of Meereen, but immediately began imposing her western ideals on them. It seems so contradictory to her earlier acceptance of Dothraki culture. She did learn through osmosis, but seemes so ulset that everyone didn't immediately love her and obey her. Such naivety. And I can't believe Barristan and Jorah didn't try and give her more of an education about Westeros. I think she will have a rude awakening if/when she arrives.

[INCBlackbird]

Doing the right thing might not always be easy (and it'd be kind of pointless if it were) but that doesn't change the fact that it is the right thing to do. And I don't buy that Theon had no choice - that's what he tells himself but it's nonsense. He always had a choice - to not attack Winterfell, to not try to stay there, to not murder those boys, to leave with Asha. He could have said fuck it I'm returning to Pyke. Burn Winterfell if he must to keep his tough guy persona alive. Sure, some of his men might lose some respect for him, but so the hell what? He'll just have to earn it back. It's certainly not worth the life of innocents. The only thing truly at stake was his conqueror fantasy.

You seem very uncomfortable with labelling anybody who is not an outright murderous psychopath who tortures kittens for fun a bad person. I can see where you're coming from, and you are entitled to that view, even if I think it's quite a simplistic way of looking at things. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and prisons are full of 'innocent' people. The problem is that no one is a villain in their own story and it's often those who think that think they're doing bad things for the greater good that end up causing the most damage. There are certainly shades of good/evil and some characters are a lot more grey than others. But leaving that aside surely you acknowledge that some actions (meaning the act itself+circumstances+motivation) can be considered bad/evil? And if so, is it truly that surprising that some people might dislike a person or a character for committing those actions? That someone might look at the extenuating circumstances and find them sorely lacking?

What Ramsay was doing wasn't common knowledge - even now it's just rumours and tales. Dead girls don't talk. And with Roose at home Ramsey would be kept on a leash. It's only after he leaves that Ramsay commits the worst excesses - and he's promptly condemned for it and sentenced to death by Winterfell. Even Roose, one of the most powerful nobles in the North is extremely careful to stick to his peaceful land, quiet people principle.

As for Ned I've read that post and I must say that if your best argument against Ned is him not wanting to put a monster like Joffrey on the IT then you should know you are truly grasping at straws. To reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, war was already in full progress when Ned denounced Joffrey because Tywin, not Ned, invaded the Riverlands. Renly was going to oppose the Lannisters no matter what out of self-preservation so there would still be a war between the IT and Renly-Tyrell alliance. Stannis would still declare himself King and go to war with everybody else to claim what's his rights. What does Ned do then? Go to war against Renly and Stannis to defend the claim of a boy who is not only a terrible King but has no right to the throne? Also, the only reason there would be/was war was if the Lannisters don't give give up on a position they have no legal right to - why is it ok for Tywin to ravage half a continent for Joffrey but not for Ned to promote his own candidate (peacefully one might add)? Mind boggles.

You have every right to dislike Ned, just like other people have every right to dislike Theon. I don't know those other characters so unfortunately can't comment on the similarities between them and Ned. If jerks with a good heart is basically the same thing as a lovable rogue, I certainly wouldn't class Theon as one, however.

The smartest thing Theon could have done was to take the Starks, reeds and Frey’s hostage and burn Winterfell to the ground. Unfortunately, Theon might tell himself that he’s taking Winterfell to show daddy he’s worthy of his love. And that’s a part of it too yes, but mostly Theon is taking Winterfell because he can’t let go of the place. That’s why he stays! He is still trying to make it his home because he’s too attached! And this is the problem, with pretty much all of Theon’s decisions his judgment is clouded through strong emotions, he doesn’t think rationally, like Ned does. Theon is led by his emotions, always. And that leads to horrible situations like the miller boys one. The same thing happens when Asha asks him to leave with her, he actually knows that if he doesn’t he’s going to die and he asked himself why he didn’t go. He knows rationally that he should, but his emotions of wanting to prove everyone wrong about him (his dad, Asha, the people of Winterfell even Ned stark) and prove to them that he is worthy of love and respect are too strong. So it’s not as simple as to just make the right choice. Humans don’t work that way, humans are more complicated. Some people like Ned have the ability to separate their emotions when it comes to decision making, most people don’t. And I don’t think you can just expect everyone to be able to make such rational decisions, especially when they’re as young and inexperienced as Theon.

I actually think it’s the opposite of simplistic, I simply don’t like to judge people when I am not sure I’d have done any better than them. I don’t like to call people bad people because they’ve made a mistake, lots of people would have made. I hate it when people judge others all the time, usually there’s circumstances, a past… that all has to be taken into account. There’s also the fact that you often hear the story from just one side. In fact when my mom or any of my friends is telling me about someone telling them about someone else doing something to them, I always go “well, you’ve only heard it from one side, got to take that into account” I try to not judge anyone until I know the full situation, except when they’re an actual psychopath and kill/torture people for fun but that’s another story. Same thing with people in prison, I abhor the fact that so many people judge people because they’ve gone to prison. Most of them got there because of the way they grew up or a stupid mistake that lead to more stupid mistakes. That doesn’t make them bad people (not innocent though, that’s a different thing, I don’t think Theon is innocent either, just not a bad person) and imagine that you get out of prison, already thoroughly humiliated and ashamed for what got you there in the first place, than you get out into the world and everyone judges you, you don’t get a job because people think that when you’ve done one thing wrong you’re completely bad… that’s horrible!

Actions are a different matter. Actions in itself are often undebatable good or bad, Theon killing the miller’s boys was a bad action, the reason why people end up into prison are bad actions. I just don’t think that a person’s action(s) define the whole person.

You can read it that way I guess, but do you have any proof? Cause I always read it as the moment Ramsay touches a high born he gets sentenced to death, not before, even though people knew.

Ok, let’s make one thing clear, it’s not about Joffrey. The point is that Ned didn’t not support Joffrey because he was “an evil monster” but because he wasn’t the rightful heir by law. If Joffrey had been the nicest, best possible king for the realm it wouldn’t have made a difference to Ned because it wasn’t about that, It was about who should be king by law. And I am aware the war would have still happened, I’m not blaming Ned for the war (I don’t blame anyone in particular for the war it was caused by tons and tons of people for tons and tons of reasons) I simply don’t find his decision (or rather his lack of considering other decisions) morally right. In his (in my opinion flawed) morality he prefers war and the rightful king and with that tons of innocent lives over a king who’s not the rightful one by law and no war and no innocent blood spilled. And no I don’t think Ned is a bad person for that, he’s convinced he’s doing the right thing and he means well, but he’s too stuck in his own principles to even consider something else. While with Doran you get this : “As the children splashed in the pools, Daenerys watched from amongst the orange trees, and a realization came to her. She could not tell the high-born from the low. Naked, they were only children. All innocent, all vulnerable, all deserving of long life, love, protection. ‘There is your realm,’ she told her son and heir, ‘remember them, in everything you do.’ My own mother said those same words to me when I was old enough to leave the pools. It is an easy thing for a prince to call the spears, but in the end the children pay the price. For their sake, the wise prince will wage no war without good cause, nor any war he cannot hope to win.” And Doran’s way is what I consider the morally right way to go about it, not Ned’s reasoning.

To answer your other question, it is not ok to do what Tywin did (obviously) and I never said it was. My problem isn’t what Ned (or Tywin) did or didn’t do. My problem is that Ned considers what he’s doing the right thing, he’s rather self-rightious and judgemental of others who don’t share his morals. While I find him not morally superior in any way. he’s got good intensions sure, Tywin doesn’t (and he’s quite honost about it) which makes Ned a better person than Tywin, in fact Ned’s a better person than most characters. But I don’t like characters for being better people than others. I like/dislike characters for their personality. And I don’t like judgemental, self-rightious people.

Actually a lovable rogue is exactly what I think he is, I didn’t know the term but I looked it up and yes, that’s what Theon is to me. I guess he doesn’t share all the characteristics so it’s debatable he’s not a clear cut example of it, he’s also much more than that, he’s a very sad and tragic character. But that’s how I have always seen him.

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

I don’t think you can just expect everyone to be able to make such rational decisions, especially when they’re as young and inexperienced as Theon.

. Actions in itself are often undebatable good or bad, Theon killing the miller’s boys was a bad action, the reason why people end up into prison are bad actions.

Actually a lovable rogue is exactly what I think he is,

Robb Stark was 4/5 years younger than Theon, Shared the same Maester, Septon, Master of Arms for 10 years yet made decisions which could have won a war but for dirty tricks

A loveable rogue steals the last cookie out of the jar, pinches girls bums, Doesn`t murder boys

[INCBlackbird]

Robb Stark was 4/5 years younger than Theon, Shared the same Maester, Septon, Master of Arms for 10 years yet made decisions which could have won a war but for dirty tricks

A loveable rogue steals the last cookie out of the jar, pinches girls bums, Doesn`t murder boys

it's not about whether a person can make decisions that can or cannot win a war. it's about making rational decisions over emotional ones and guess what Robb slept with Jeyne because he was in emotional distress, Robb, because he was inexperienced tended to assume people could read his thoughts (a common mistake with young people) rather than TELL THEM what his thaughts were (see Edmure) don't act as if Robb didn't make any mistakes based on emotions/inexperience. and before you say it, they're not the same as the mistakes Theon made, but than again their situations were completely different.

except that one of the most common examples I see of a lovable rogue is sawyer from lost and he killed someone, same goes for Jesse Pinkman...

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

it's not about whether a person can make decisions that can or cannot win a war. it's about making rational decisions over emotional ones and guess what Robb slept with Jeyne because he was in emotional distress, Robb, because he was inexperienced tended to assume people could read his thoughts (a common mistake with young people) rather than TELL THEM what his thaughts were (see Edmure) don't act as if Robb didn't make any mistakes based on emotions/inexperience. and before you say it, they're not the same as the mistakes Theon made, but than again their situations were completely different.

except that one of the most common examples I see of a lovable rogue is sawyer from lost and he killed someone, same goes for Jesse Pinkman...

Crazy, just crazy. Watch an episode of porridge. a British comedy from the 1970`s Fletcher is a loveable rogue. Whoever sees Jesse Pinkman as one just don`t understand the term

[INCBlackbird]

Crazy, just crazy. Watch an episode of porridge. a British comedy from the 1970`s Fletcher is a loveable rogue. Whoever sees Jesse Pinkman as one just don`t understand the term

in a comedy maybe, I'm pretty sure that character archtypes will depends on the kind of story they're in. When the villain's worst crime is being jealous at the protagoist vs when the villain is a mass murderer makes a difference of how much bad acts the hero is allowed to do in order to stay a hero. just like the situation makes a difference. same goes for other archtypes. it's all pretty relative. Jesse and Sawyer get discribed as lovable rogues many many times...