An interesting topic I found on Reddit about the villains of ASOIAF

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, boltons are sick said:

Actually, even if Ned had succeeded in arresting Joffrey and Cersei, he would still have to fight Tywin Lannister. War was unevitable in that case and he knew it. However, Cersei gave him TWO CHANCES to make peace with her before his arrest and he didn`t take them. The reason why most readers don`t see this is because the story is told from Ned`s perspective and he is a likeable character and for these reasons most people immediately side with him and don`t question his decisions.

But Ned gave Cersei multiple chances to leave as well and she didn't take that either. Cersei was losing that game for a while; which is why she says "we might have lost all." Also, we know Robb could beat Tywin in the field. But, it doesn't really matter. War was caused by both sides. While some argue he didn't kneel when he should have, the same can be said that he didnt play the game of thrones well enough - even in a situation when he didn't want to play it at all. I just dont think that's villainy. Now he might be a "villain" to Dany or Cersei or Barbary Dustin but that's a villain to the characters - not the same as the story's "villain."

[boltons are sick]

2 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

But Ned gave Cersei multiple chances to leave as well and she didn't take that either. Cersei was losing that game for a while; which is why she says "we might have lost all." Also, we know Robb could beat Tywin in the field. But, it doesn't really matter. War was caused by both sides. While some argue he didn't kneel when he should have, the same can be said that he didnt play the game of thrones well enough - even in a situation when he didn't want to play it at all. I just dont think that's villainy. Now he might be a "villain" to Dany or Cersei or Barbary Dustin but that's a villain to the characters - not the same as the story's "villain."

I don`t think he is a villain and he is one of the more likeable characters. I just said that he knew very well that his actions would lead to war even if he had succeeded in his plans (because he would still have to fight with Tywin Lannister. Yes, Cersei is partially responsible for this war as well (like many other people) but my point was that she didn`t try to create it intentionally. In fact she actually tried to prevent it by trying to make peace first with Ned Stark and then with Robb Stark (for selfish reasons, but still...).

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 minutes ago, boltons are sick said:

I don`t think he is a villain and he is one of the more likeable characters. I just said that he knew very well that his actions would lead to war even if he had succeeded in his plans (because he would still have to fight with Tywin Lannister. Yes, Cersei is partially responsible for this war as well (like many other people) but my point was that she didn`t try to create it intentionally. In fact she actually tried to prevent it by trying to make peace first with Ned Stark and then with Robb Stark (for selfish reasons, but still...).

I still disagree; he thought could lessen the cost of war through his actions if he could just come out on top. He thought he was helping an orderly succession through bloodlines (which is why I said the Reddit take was off). He was wrong. He gambled and lost. LF's offer to keep playing covertly would have been great - if Ned was that good of a player and if Joff wasn't a loose canon. And again -- Ned still knelt in the end.

[frenin]

3 hours ago, boltons are sick said:

Actually, even if Ned had succeeded in arresting Joffrey and Cersei, he would still have to fight Tywin Lannister. War was unevitable in that case and he knew it.

War is unevitable as long as the odds are even, if Ned had been regent he'd count with most of the Realm's support, or at least support enough to make Tywin think thrice about going to war.

[McGuv19]

I disagree with a lot of the op. But a disclaimer, I am not saying any of these characters are pinnacles of virtue. All of the characters have their flaws and are grey, but I would like to challenge the Op’s thoughts that they are the ‘true villains’ of the books.

You can say Dany is evil and greedy for wanting the Throne, but that is hardly a remarkably bad thing in-universe. How did the Starks, Martells, Arryns, and other houses gain their positions of power? 9 times out of ten, through fire and blood. Also, the war in Slaver’s Bay is IMO the most just conflict ever fought in the entire series. Dany has the very best casus belli anyone could want. She has good motivations for fighting which is more than you can say for anything Gregor or Ramsay do. I do however think she will be seen as a villain upon arriving in Westeros, but she is too shortsighted to realise this. She is not a villain.. yet.

Jon was going to leave the Watch and save Arya by battling Ramsay. Ramsay had threatened the Watch and Jon with death, and they had no way of carrying out Ramsay’s demands. The Wall has laughable defenses when attacked from the south, so the best chance the Watch had was to take the fight to Ramsay. Also, Jon did not force his brothers to break their vows, he only took wildlings who volunteered. Bowen may have been right to kill Jon for breaking vows, but that doesn’t mean Jon was wrong in marching against Ramsay. 
 

The assessments of Ned and Robb I mostly agree with tbh. They were willing to start wars over ‘honour’, instead of making the choice best for the realm as a whole and keeping the peace. This is very similar to Tywin using Tyrion’s abduction as a pretext to invade the Riverlands.

However, these four characters are far from the ‘true villains’ of ASOIAF. Sadists like Euron, Ramsay, and Gregor are definitely villains with no redeeming features. I think the “true villain” so far is Petyr Baelish, as he has engineered much of the conflict that is happening in Westeros through deceit and manipulation, though I fully expect, once his true motivations are revealed, he will become a more understandable/sympathetic character.

[boltons are sick]

1 hour ago, McGuv19 said:

I disagree with a lot of the op. But a disclaimer, I am not saying any of these characters are pinnacles of virtue. All of the characters have their flaws and are grey, but I would like to challenge the Op’s thoughts that they are the ‘true villains’ of the books.

You can say Dany is evil and greedy for wanting the Throne, but that is hardly a remarkably bad thing in-universe. How did the Starks, Martells, Arryns, and other houses gain their positions of power? 9 times out of ten, through fire and blood. Also, the war in Slaver’s Bay is IMO the most just conflict ever fought in the entire series. Dany has the very best casus belli anyone could want. She has good motivations for fighting which is more than you can say for anything Gregor or Ramsay do. I do however think she will be seen as a villain upon arriving in Westeros, but she is too shortsighted to realise this. She is not a villain.. yet.

Jon was going to leave the Watch and save Arya by battling Ramsay. Ramsay had threatened the Watch and Jon with death, and they had no way of carrying out Ramsay’s demands. The Wall has laughable defenses when attacked from the south, so the best chance the Watch had was to take the fight to Ramsay. Also, Jon did not force his brothers to break their vows, he only took wildlings who volunteered. Bowen may have been right to kill Jon for breaking vows, but that doesn’t mean Jon was wrong in marching against Ramsay. 
 

The assessments of Ned and Robb I mostly agree with tbh. They were willing to start wars over ‘honour’, instead of making the choice best for the realm as a whole and keeping the peace. This is very similar to Tywin using Tyrion’s abduction as a pretext to invade the Riverlands.

However, these four characters are far from the ‘true villains’ of ASOIAF. Sadists like Euron, Ramsay, and Gregor are definitely villains with no redeeming features. I think the “true villain” so far is Petyr Baelish, as he has engineered much of the conflict that is happening in Westeros through deceit and manipulation, though I fully expect, once his true motivations are revealed, he will become a more understandable/sympathetic character.

I am not saying they are the true villains of ASOIAF. I just found this topic on Reddit and decided to share it because I found it thought-provoking and interesting.

[Targknight]

Almost all the characters in POV are actually anti-villains. Theon,Cateyln, Tyrion, Danny, Ned, Rob, and Cersei.

[McGuv19]

18 hours ago, boltons are sick said:

I am not saying they are the true villains of ASOIAF. I just found this topic on Reddit and decided to share it because I found it thought-provoking and interesting.

Sorry if I came off aggressive, I was not trying to make you feel bad or anything.

[boltons are sick]

19 hours ago, McGuv19 said:

Sorry if I came off aggressive, I was not trying to make you feel bad or anything.

No, you didn`t. Don`t worry about it. There is no need to apologise for simply expressing your opinion. I just wanted to point out that this Redddit post is not written by me and there are things in it that I myself disagree with.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 7/23/2020 at 1:05 PM, McGuv19 said:

You can say Dany is evil and greedy for wanting the Throne, but that is hardly a remarkably bad thing in-universe. How did the Starks, Martells, Arryns, and other houses gain their positions of power? 9 times out of ten, through fire and blood. Also, the war in Slaver’s Bay is IMO the most just conflict ever fought in the entire series. Dany has the very best casus belli anyone could want. She has good motivations for fighting which is more than you can say for anything Gregor or Ramsay do. I do however think she will be seen as a villain upon arriving in Westeros, but she is too shortsighted to realise this. She is not a villain.. yet.

 

Fire and blood wouldn't be so bad if she was interested in rebuilding and ruling, but her lack of interest is what makes her more on the dark end of the grey scale. She is more like the Dothraki.

Those other houses went to war, and then sat down to rule. This is why I don't think she is Aegon the Conqueror 2.0. 

Her motives for fighting in Essos are based on not wanting the people following her to starve on the march to Westeros. Her motives aren't really about freeing people or anti-slavery. It's about not wanting to face a cost to her conquests. 

[BlackLightning]

On 7/21/2020 at 5:21 PM, SeanF said:

The real problem with the Martells is that people just don't talk to each other.

A-ha! I think this will be a major theme in Arianne's story (aka the central Martell POV) moving forward.

All the POV characters have their own central themes. Catelyn's theme as a POV is about the power and powerlessness of medieval motherhood and wifehood. Sansa's theme is a deconstructive reconstruction of the Disney princess who thinks life is a song and that the grass is greener on the other side. Daenerys is an deep inversion of Arthurian legend (dragons in petrified eggs=Excalibur in the stone): people assume that he wants power because of his power when he really just wants family and a home. Cersei is GRRM's take on the wicked queen seen in most fairytales. Areo's theme can be summed up as "Serve. Obey. Protect. Simple vows for a simple man" and whether or not silent service and submission is really that simple.

Arianne's theme appears to be one about the importance of effective communication, what happens when misunderstandings go unresolved and the danger of "fake news."

[BlackLightning]

As for the topic at hand, I stopped reading the OP because I find it absolutely slanted and wrong.

Moral relativism and anti-war are major points that GRRM is making but don't get carried away. Not only is GRRM very clear throughout the entire story that there is good and evil, heroes and villains but he is also not a pacifist. Saying that most wars are horrifically unnecessary tragedies and wastes of time is not saying that war is bad. GRRM has repeatedly stated that some wars are worth fighting even to the bitter end, a false unjust peace will never last, and violence is often necessary...

On 7/23/2020 at 6:34 PM, sexyprinceviserys said:

Almost all the characters in POV are actually anti-villains. Theon,Cateyln, Tyrion, Danny, Ned, Rob, and Cersei.

Catelyn, Dany and Ned are not anti-villains.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, BlackLightning said:

As for the topic at hand, I stopped reading the OP because I find it absolutely slanted and wrong.

Moral relativism and anti-war are major points that GRRM is making but don't get carried away. Not only is GRRM very clear throughout the entire story that there is good and evil, heroes and villains but he is also not a pacifist. Saying that most wars are horrifically unnecessary tragedies and wastes of time is not saying that war is bad. GRRM has repeatedly stated that some wars are worth fighting even to the bitter end, a false unjust peace will never last, and violence is often necessary...

Catelyn, Dany and Ned are not anti-villains.

Agreed.

I doubt if Martin would argue in real life that like people Beria, Himmler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin are heroes when seen from another point of view.

[Angel Eyes]

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

As for the topic at hand, I stopped reading the OP because I find it absolutely slanted and wrong.

Moral relativism and anti-war are major points that GRRM is making but don't get carried away. Not only is GRRM very clear throughout the entire story that there is good and evil, heroes and villains but he is also not a pacifist. Saying that most wars are horrifically unnecessary tragedies and wastes of time is not saying that war is bad. GRRM has repeatedly stated that some wars are worth fighting even to the bitter end, a false unjust peace will never last, and violence is often necessary...

Catelyn, Dany and Ned are not anti-villains.

Anti-heroes maybe, particularly Daenerys.

[Targknight]

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

As for the topic at hand, I stopped reading the OP because I find it absolutely slanted and wrong.

Moral relativism and anti-war are major points that GRRM is making but don't get carried away. Not only is GRRM very clear throughout the entire story that there is good and evil, heroes and villains but he is also not a pacifist. Saying that most wars are horrifically unnecessary tragedies and wastes of time is not saying that war is bad. GRRM has repeatedly stated that some wars are worth fighting even to the bitter end, a false unjust peace will never last, and violence is often necessary...

Catelyn, Dany and Ned are not anti-villains.

Look up the word anti-villain.

1).Dany destabilized Meereen. People are homeless and starving.

2). Ned beheads people left to right. A Night Watch deserter was beheaded without a fair trial.

3). Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion, and tried to have him executed. 

[Orm]

On 7/23/2020 at 12:34 AM, boltons are sick said:

but my point was that she didn`t try to create it intentionally. In fact she actually tried to prevent it by trying to make peace first with Ned Stark and then with Robb Stark (for selfish reasons, but still...).

Should have avoided the incest and treason in the first place, No?

She forces war for super self-servicing reasons........

While you can somewhat say that Ned forces war, but on duty bound reasons......

Who would you wanna be friends with?

 

[BlackLightning]

15 hours ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Look up the word anti-villain.

1).Dany destabilized Meereen. People are homeless and starving.

2). Ned beheads people left to right. A Night Watch deserter was beheaded without a fair trial.

3). Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion, and tried to have him executed. 

I know what an anti-villain is.

Catelyn did not kidnap Tyrion; she arrested Tyrion and she had good reason to do so. The evidence -- as she knew it -- pointed to Tyrion. And she tried to give him a fair trial. Tyrion would have gotten a fair trial if Robert only had a backbone and if Lysa wasn't a looney-toon. Catelyn never tried to execute Tyrion...

Daenerys did destabilize Meereen...but it was an accident. She didn't intentionally set out to destabilize Meereen. If she meant to destabilize Meereen, why did she stay so long? Anti-villains don't do bad things on accident (heroes and anti-heroes make mistakes), they intentionally do bad things for a good purpose.

Ned? Okay, Ned is a good example overall but I do want to say that it depends on perspective. Although Ned is really just doing his job (are cops anti-villains for "doing their job"), he made a mistake (again, anti-villains don't commit acts of evil and injustice by mistake!!!!!!!) by not investigating and corresponding with the Lord Commander. But it makes sense why he did what he did. Deserters don't really get fair trials though: you either go AWOL and abandon your post or you don't.

[R2D]

16 hours ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Look up the word anti-villain.

1).Dany destabilized Meereen. People are homeless and starving.

2). Ned beheads people left to right. A Night Watch deserter was beheaded without a fair trial.

3). Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion, and tried to have him executed. 

No you look up the word anti villian.

[boltons are sick]

4 hours ago, Orm said:

Should have avoided the incest and treason in the first place, No?

She forces war for super self-servicing reasons........

While you can somewhat say that Ned forces war, but on duty bound reasons......

Who would you wanna be friends with?

 

The reason why she did it in the first place was because she genuinely loved Jaime and was forced in an abusive marriage against her will. The reason why cheating on the king was considered treason in Meddieval ages was because back then the people were sexist and classist. Nobody should be executed for cheating on their spouse (espessially if the spouse in question also cheated on them and even RAPED them). She didn't choose Robert as her husband and he abused her and cheated on her as well. I agree that Cersei and Jaime's love is twisted because they are twins but if Cersei had slept with someone that she is not related to, it would have been considered treason again. The incest doesn't play any role in this. Choosing the biological father of your kids is considered a basic human right these days so as 21-century readers I don't think we are supposed to condemn Cersei for this.

And Cersei didn't want to start a war. She wanted to keep her affair secret. Meanwhile Ned wanted to expose her affair due to his own classist beliefs and start a war instead of taking her offer and making peace with her. I am not saying that Ned is a villain or that Cersei is a wonderful person. I am simply trying to point out that there is more complexity in these books than "Starks good, Lannisters bad".

[BlackLightning]

2 hours ago, Orm said:

Should have avoided the incest and treason in the first place, No?

She forces war for super self-servicing reasons........

While you can somewhat say that Ned forces war, but on duty bound reasons......

Who would you wanna be friends with?

 

It's not even about who you wanna be friends with? It's about who you wanna do business with?

52 minutes ago, boltons are sick said:

The reason why she did it in the first place was because she genuinely loved Jaime and was forced in an abusive marriage against her will. The reason why cheating on the king was considered treason in Meddieval ages was because back then the people were sexist and classist. Nobody should be executed for cheating on their spouse (espessially if the spouse in question also cheated on them and even RAPED them). She didn't choose Robert as her husband and he abused her and cheated on her as well. I agree that Cersei and Jaime's love is twisted because they are twins but if Cersei had slept with someone that she is not related to, it would have been considered treason again. The incest doesn't play any role in this. Choosing the biological father of your kids is considered a basic human right these days so as 21-century readers I don't think we are supposed to condemn Cersei for this.

And Cersei didn't want to start a war. She wanted to keep her affair secret. Meanwhile Ned wanted to expose her affair due to his own classist beliefs and start a war instead of taking her offer and making peace with her. I am not saying that Ned is a villain or that Cersei is a wonderful person. I am simply trying to point out that there is more complexity in these books than "Starks good, Lannisters bad".

Oh stop. Not only are you dead-wrong, you look crazy.

Daenerys was forced into an abusive marriage against her will. Did Daenerys have sex with Viserys and pass off the child as Drogo's? Did Daenerys try to seduce Ser Jorah and turn him against Drogo? No because that'd be wrong, stupid and dangerous and Daenerys is actually a good person.

Cersei doesn't genuinely love Jaime. How can she if she constantly cheats on him with other men? Cersei is a narcissist who loves Jaime so much because Jaime is the closest she can get to having sex with herself. It's twisted and true, genuine love is not twisted.

Nobody should be executed for cheating on their spouse? Uh, I don't agree, especially not in this case. And I think many people who have been cheated on and publicly humiliated may beg to differ: 

If Cersei as the queen consort slept with anyone who wasn't the king, then yes, she'd still be guilty of treason. Is it sexist? Meh, it depends on your perspective? Is it classist? No not at all. The fact that she slept with one of the king's personal bodyguards makes it twice as worse--on so many levels.

If she wanted to keep her affair a secret, then cheating on your husband in the home of your husband's best friend and then cosigning the attempted murder of the son of said best friend is an ABSOLUTELY excellent idea!

It doesn't matter which way you flip it: Cersei was dead-wrong.

If Cersei had just had ONE baby by Robert, what would Westeros look like? Would the War of the Five Kings even exist?