Jump to content
Varysblackfyre321

Is x character a psychopath?

Recommended Posts

On 3/11/2019 at 12:00 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Bronn.  Maybe he's even worse.  

Well, Bronn certainly doesn't have a conscience and seems to feel no guilt, which fits the psychopath criteria. The question with Bronn is how much of his psychotic tendencies come from being a sellsword driven only by money, or traits that he just already has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It shouldn’t be ignored that she only  needed the mere possible  implication from a Master Assasain that the insurance salesmen was a bad guy to go and kill the guy.

 

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

she’s a smart enough girl to know the odds of her being asked to kill again is likely. And the next person could be a saint or devil. But, she doesn’t seem to ponder what she’d actually do when the time comes.

It also shouldn't be ignored that she's an eleven year old who spent a long time without any stability or safety and thinks she has no family and no better place to go. She is very smart, but also traumatized and immature.

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

the cult she’s chosen to serve

It's true she's there by choice, but how much freedom did she really have to choose? She ended up in Braavos almost by accident, she tried to convince the captain to take her to the wall and he refused, she thinks quite a few times that she has no other place to go (whether she actually has other options is irrelevant if she's convinced she doesn't have them), the alternative options the FM give are either something that doesn't appeal to Arya at all or wrapped up in the implication that she's too weak to be one of them (when we know Arya is stubborn and desperate to prove she's strong and that these guy are pros at reading people to manipulate them), she says that she wanted to ask Dareon to take her to the wall, FM be damned (the kindly men somehow never thought of offering taking her to the wall). So how much is she really choosing to serve the Faceless Men?

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She does refuse to mercy-kill the Hound-leaving him to instead die an excruciating painful death.

That's one interpretation, but it could also be that she couldn't bring herself to do it after having spent time with him. If I remember correctly, she'd started to "forget" to mention him on her list sometimes. Or it could be a mix of both things.

 

I don't think she's completely innocent, I think she was wrong in killing the insurance guy and even more wrong in killing Dareon, but it's not fair to put her on the level of people like Ramsay or Cersei without taking into consideration that she's a child who didn't fully develop, that she's traumatized, that the adults in the house of black and white are probably taking advantage of her vulnerable situation for their own purposes, and that she has many qualities that completely contradict the "psychopath" term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We don’t really know if the insurance man was too immoral to empathize with. It shouldn’t be ignored that she only  needed the mere possible  implication from a Master Assasain that the insurance salesmen was a bad guy to go and kill the guy. Yes, I know she’s seriously find a character fault for quite a while when scoping the guy out but I got the impression it was  50-50 chance she’d do it regardless.  I mean she’s still with the cult after the whole ordeal, she’s a smart enough girl to know the odds of her being asked to kill again is likely. And the next person could be a saint or devil. But, she doesn’t seem to ponder what she’d actually do when the time comes. Daeron, too she only knew he was a derserter-a crime that does warrant death, but given the cult she’s chosen to serve does she have room to judge? The Faceless Men have murdererd thousands, plenty of innocent, Hell I imagine the kindly old man’s crimes far surpass whatever Daeron has done.

Also, she doesn’t really have much time to actually torture the people she kills right? I mean the people she’s killed tend to be in a place where if she doesn’t do it relatively quickly it could pose a greater risk to her.

She does refuse to mercy-kill the Hound-leaving him to instead die an excruciating painful death.

There is zero text suggesting Arya would torture just given time and space, though.

The fact that she accepted rather weak evidence to justify killing the insurance-dude is in line with her vigilanteism: she has to become a FM to complete her "work" - therefore the work she does for them is a necessity and totally justifiable.

Being a vigilante is all about judging, so her judging Daeron fits perfectly.

The Hounds suffering would be on Briennes conscience not Arya's. Also take mind that Sandor had butchered her friend, kidnapped and beaten her and also claimed he raped her sister - none of which makes him any moral favours if you feel like judging people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Plain, Simple Tailor said:

Well, Bronn certainly doesn't have a conscience and seems to feel no guilt, which fits the psychopath criteria. The question with Bronn is how much of his psychotic tendencies come from being a sellsword driven only by money, or traits that he just already has. 

Nurture versus nature.  He was born without much of an empathy and then an early childhood of violence didn't help.  My opinion, the person who feels nothing is worse than the person who gets a kick out of it.  A person without feelings is not your norm.  There's something wrong up there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We don’t really know if the insurance man was too immoral to empathize with. It shouldn’t be ignored that she only  needed the mere possible  implication from a Master Assasain that the insurance salesmen was a bad guy to go and kill the guy. Yes, I know she’s seriously find a character fault for quite a while when scoping the guy out but I got the impression it was  50-50 chance she’d do it regardless.  I mean she’s still with the cult after the whole ordeal, she’s a smart enough girl to know the odds of her being asked to kill again is likely. And the next person could be a saint or devil. But, she doesn’t seem to ponder what she’d actually do when the time comes. Daeron, too she only knew he was a derserter-a crime that does warrant death, but given the cult she’s chosen to serve does she have room to judge? The Faceless Men have murdererd thousands, plenty of innocent, Hell I imagine the kindly old man’s crimes far surpass whatever Daeron has done.

Also, she doesn’t really have much time to actually torture the people she kills right? I mean the people she’s killed tend to be in a place where if she doesn’t do it relatively quickly it could pose a greater risk to her.

She does refuse to mercy-kill the Hound-leaving him to instead die an excruciating painful death.

The insurance man.  He would not have been in business for long if he had been guilty of fraud.  Might be the insured failed to read the contract thoroughly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sigella said:

The fact that she accepted rather weak evidence to justify killing the insurance-dude is in line with her vigilanteism: she has to become a FM to complete her "work" - therefore the work she does for them is a necessity and totally justifiable.

No it kinda doesn’t. Everyone of her murderers excluding this one were done after the victim in question basically laid out iron clad proof they are guilty. They either bragged/confessed to doing within earshot of Arya or she has literally seen them commit the crimes in question with her own eyes.

In this instance she seems to latch on to the first interpretation she had from the words of a serial liar, because it’s favoring to her particularly-she gets to kill, with feeling righteous. Actually dealing out Justice is secondary.

The reason she for why she’s working for the FM can be understandable.

Not justifiable.

4 hours ago, Sigella said:

The Hounds suffering would be on Briennes conscience not Arya's.

Show.

4 hours ago, Sigella said:

Also take mind that Sandor had butchered her friend, kidnapped and beaten her and also claimed he raped her sister - none of which makes him any moral favours if you feel like judging people.

Yeah my point wasn’t the hound should be judged it’s more given the opportunity to prolong the suffering of someone she opted to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No it kinda doesn’t. Everyone of her murderers excluding this one were done after the victim in question basically laid out iron clad proof they are guilty. They either bragged/confessed to doing within earshot of Arya or she has literally seen them commit the crimes in question with her own eyes.

In this instance she seems to latch on to the first interpretation she had from the words of a serial liar, because it’s favoring to her particularly-she gets to kill, with feeling righteous. Actually dealing out Justice is secondary.

The reason she for why she’s working for the FM can be understandable.

Not justifiable.

Im' not saying its morally right - I'm saying thats what I think Arya think is morally right.

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Show.

Rorge or Biter or whoever it was that cut his leg then. My apologies for mix up :) 

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah my point wasn’t the hound should be judged it’s more given the opportunity to prolong the suffering of someone she opted to do it. 

I see your point but I don't think a cruel death for Sandor was her goal. In any case, walking away from someone is morally pretty far from torturing them even if the end result is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, elipride said:
On 3/13/2019 at 5:02 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

It also shouldn't be ignored that she's an eleven year old who spent a long time without any stability or safety and thinks she has no family and no better place to go. She is very smart, but also traumatized and immature.

Yes. Her moral compass is really confused at the moment. 

11 hours ago, elipride said:

It's true she's there by choice, but how much freedom did she really have to choose? She ended up in Braavos almost by accident, she tried to convince the captain to take her to the wall and he refused, she thinks quite a few times that she has no other place to go (whether she actually has other options is irrelevant if she's convinced she doesn't have them),

The options provided aren’t preferable. But they are laid out before her-she could allow the FM to marry her off into a noble family as her family would have done if some troublesome circumstances didn’t arise.

11 hours ago, elipride said:

the alternative options the FM give are either something that doesn't appeal to Arya at all or wrapped up in the implication that she's too weak to be one of them (when we know Arya is stubborn and desperate to prove she's strong and that these guy are pros at reading people to manipulate them), she says that she wanted to ask Dareon to take her to the wall, FM be damned (the kindly men somehow never thought of offering taking her to the wall). So how much is she really choosing to serve the Faceless Men?

I do get the impression the options the FM do propose are intentionally framed in a way to make Arya more resolves to stay. Her murder of Daeron shows she really has not absorbed any of the philosophy of the FM. I guess because this group has a dark purpose for her that will entail a lot of death. Personally, I see them as being thralls for the great other. 

11 hours ago, elipride said:

That's one interpretation, but it could also be that she couldn't bring herself to do it after having spent time with him. If I remember correctly, she'd started to "forget" to mention him on her list sometimes. Or it could be a mix of both things.

I didn’t give an interpretation man. I simply stated the action the character took. Arya did leave the hound to die a very painful death. What can be subject to her interpretation is her intent/motivation for the action-which you put as she just couldn’t bring herself to kill the man after her hatred of him has cooled. I disagree on that.   

11 hours ago, elipride said:

I don't think she's completely innocent, I think she was wrong in killing the insurance guy and even more wrong in killing Dareon, but it's not fair to put her on the level of people like Ramsay or Cersei without taking into consideration that she's a child who didn't fully develop, that she's traumatized, that the adults in the house of black and white are probably taking advantage of her vulnerable situation for their own purposes, and that she has many qualities that completely contradict the "psychopath" term.

I don’t really think she’s a psychopath either. At least as of now. Sure she’s joined a rather duplicitous bunch but honestly, many kids especially kids who’ve experienced sever abuse and trauma in their life, join vicious gangs, I wouldn’t say most of those kids are psychopaths. 

I simply rejected what I saw as an attempt to totally sanitize Arya and frame all her killings as noble or justice.  

.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. Her moral compass is really confused at the moment. 

I agree with that.

14 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The options provided aren’t preferable. But they are laid out before her-she could allow the FM to marry her off into a noble family as her family would have done if some troublesome circumstances didn’t arise.

After spending so much time feeling like a weak victim and working as basically a slave, I don't see why she would ever accept being married off to some stranger who would probably consider her his property instead of learning things that could let her become more independant and never be a victim again.

14 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I didn’t give an interpretation man. I simply stated the action the character took. Arya did leave the hound to die a very painful death. What can be subject to her interpretation is her intent/motivation for the action-which you put as she just couldn’t bring herself to kill the man after her hatred of him has cooled. I disagree on that.

I think the moment you say "leave the hound to die a very painful death" you are giving your interpretation, we could also say "Arya refused to kill a man" and that would also describe the action of the character took.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 7:00 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Bronn.  Maybe he's even worse.  

Nah, ruthless =/= psychopathic.  Bronn kills for profit and personal advancement not because he's mentally deranged and can't control his impulses or has a need to kill for pleasure or out of obsession.  No

Ramsay's hunting and killing of women for sport, his apparent derangement and lack of remorse, self control or any shred of empathy is the textbook example of a psychopath.  Yes

Septon Utt's serial sexual abuse and murder of children shows a similar derangement and lack of impulse control though his realization that what he is doing is wrong and his demand that he be scourged afterwards as a punishment shows a little more social awareness.  It's not really empathy though and, similar to how medieval monks scourged themselves to rid themselves of impure thoughts or as expiation of guilt for any trivial sins, it looks more like he is going through a ritual to clear his conscience and expunge his guilt so he can move on without any deeper reflections on his actions and with a "clear" conscience.  Yes

And Biter?  Whether the filed teeth and brutal training in the illegal fighting trade in Flea Bottom made him what he is, or whether it was there in his character before, he is clearly deranged and his penchant for cannibalism only adds to the horror.  Given he can't speak and we never see him act independently it's hard to look beyond the horror of his actions but left to his own devices he would probably kill fairly easily and routinely as it is all he seems to know.  Yes

Roose and Littlefinger lack any real empathy and are fairly diabolical but their actions are tightly controlled and carefully reasoned and always taken out of calculated self-interest not an irrepressible urge.  Neither displays any particular mental problems - an unhealthy egotism and ruthlessness is undesirable but not evidence of illness - and don't partake in any unnecessary killing to sate any twisted appetites.  No

Likewise the Tickler and Clayton Suggs are torturers by profession, however sickening that may sound.  They may enjoy their work but a certain detachment from their victims (and what they are doing to them) is probably necessary for their own mental state, however troubled that may be, and their torture is as directed by their superiors not inflicted on the general populace in an indiscriminate or uncontrolled fashion.  No

The same is true of Amory Lorch, who is merely a soldier (and a knight) selected for a scorched earth and terror campaign in the Riverlands as a military tactic.  No

Gregor falls somewhere between Lorch and Ramsay.  He is a soldier given specific orders by Tywin in the Riverlands campaign and has no problem carrying them out.  His impulse control is poor though, as with the needless rape and murder of Elia and the manner of baby Aegon's murder at KL, the rape of the innkeeper's daughter (it being clear from Chiswyck's recollection that this is unlikely to be a unique occurrence) or the killing of the spectator (a child) who got to close to him in his duel with Oberyn, his attempt to kill Loras after he lost the joust in the Hand's Torney (and the killing of his own horse), or indeed the early childhood scarring of his brother for stealing a toy, the strange death of his father and the apparent death of at least two wives and disappearance of a number of servants at his House.  I'm not sure this makes him a psychopath, rather a terribly dangerous person with a very short temper and a propensity for awful violence when triggered.  He certainly doesn't exhibit a need to kill as opposed to a readiness to do so when ordered or when provoked though more knowledge of circumstances at his family home might change that view.  Maybe

And Vargo Hoat?  How much is his wide scale use of amputation a deliberate tactic of terror to sow fear rather than to meet a psychological urge to carry it out?  It's undeniably brutal and loathsome but is it the brutal calling card or trademark of a mercenary letting prospective employers know he will do whatever dirty work they need doing?  He's quite clear that Brienne is not to be raped as she is a valuable hostage while maiden and can control his impulses (unlike Rorge & Shagwell) until after her father has declined to pay a suitable ransom.  Even Jaime's amputation has a practical and political purpose rather than being mindless violence.  All the slobbering, lisping and amputations make it hard to see past the fairly monstrous image to assess whether he is deranged rather than brutal and ruthless.  Maybe

The Weeper has been mentioned.  Again, how much does he want to sow fear in his enemies and how much is he unable to control his urges?  Does he inflict similar punishments on other wildlings or only on the NW or victims south of the Wall to instill fear in pursuers?  Tribal warfare is often horribly savage by our standards with the taking of heads and the cutting off of the genitals and placing them in the mouths of dead enemies being historical practices that this is on a par with.  Without knowing more about him all we can say is that this is terror as a tactic against enemies.  Maybe

Victarion.  No, just no.  A fairly limited man but with a full emotional range and whose violence is unleashed in battle not in satisfying psychological urges and who displays no mental abnormality whatsoever.  No

Euron.  A very similar character to Littlefinger or Roose.  The mere act of (apparently) ordering Balon's murder adds to his sinister reputation but then history is full of examples of sibling conflict or murder when power is at stake.  The memory of "the squeal of a rusty hinge" in Aeron's chapters seems to hint at childhood abuse by his elder brother which is a textbook sign of a disturbed personality (displaying lack of empathy and the willingness to harm others in fulfilling personal urges from a young age) but an abusive personality is not necessarily a psychopathic one.  The crewing of Silence by mute slaves, the apparent feeding of one of the captured warlocks to the unknowing others for no discernible reason other then cruelty and the enjoyment of it and the chopping of Baelor Blacktyde into seven pieces in mockery of his belief in the Seven rather than the Drowned God is all unquestionably dark.  He certainly indulges his appetites more and has the superficial charm, dishonesty, guile and shallow emotional response that many psychopaths do but his cruelty is not indiscriminate or unhinged and nor does his violence shock his contemporaries the way, say, Ramsay's, Utt's or Biter's would.  He's dark and dangerous but he's not mentally ill.  No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×