[ADWD Spoilers] Victarion

[MinotaurWarrior]

I still think he's a horrible person, a reaver and a murderer, so I don't like him. However, I did enjoy reading about him in ADWD. He was badass in a really amusing, shocking way.

[mcb]

Not once do we see Victarion rape someone, and he takes no joy in killing others unlike Gregor. Gregor would of burned those girls for fun, he did it because he felt it was his duty.

So it's actually Gregor who's the honest one without phony excuses. That would be another vote for Joffrey 2.0.

[Olenna]

This discussion has brought up the interesting question of how we define a villain. The "Victarion's a villain" camp seems to be defining a villain as someone who violates the moral laws of our and/or Westerosi society. The "Victarion's not a villain" camp seems to be defining a villain as someone who does bad things for no reason or for fun; this camp exonerates people who do bad things for their beliefs.

A couple of related questions: We know Victarion's actions are unusually cruel by Westerosi standards, but are they unusually cruel by Ironborn standards?

Is Victarion doing bad things "for his beliefs", or is he actually doing bad things for his GOAL of reaching Dany? And do we perhaps need to distinguish between these two things? He isn't acting disinterestedly on behalf of his god--he's acting so as to gain something for himself. His motives are more selfish than pious.

If it's cool for Abraham to agree to sacrifice Isaac, then it's cool for Victarion to burn 7 girls and drown people.

Very thought-provoking analogy! The one problem with it is that God explicitly commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham didn't stand to gain anything from it. Victarion, on the other hand, sacrificed random people in order to placate the gods (who had not told him to do it) so that they would help him achieve his goal. I think there's a difference. What does everyone else think? Is there a legit way to define a villain?

[Raksha the Demon]

The guy goes around murdering, killing, sacrificing, raping etc.

And no battle we've seen him enter was on even terms.

He's basically a bully.

And him being brought up that way doesn't excuse him.

AND the one battle that we do know mattered, Stannis beat him.

I honestly don't get what's to like about him.

:agree:

Victarion has a brutish charm, as long as one is not about to be killed by him. And he does a lot of killing/reaving/burning; some of it for glory, some of it for fun, or because he feels like it. I don't get the admiration for the character, he's a semi-charming thug.

[Dragons Dancing]

I find all of the ironborn to be comic book villans (with the exception now of Theon)and force myself to read their chapters in case there is some relevant clue as to how they will make any difference in the main story.

Victarian was a total bore until he got his red arm and a swarm of monkeys. He did provide some comic relief in ADWD and we needed it to offset the boredom of reading about Dany & Tyrion.

He will likely play some role in the Meerenese situation. He has the boats and the men and his red priest to kick some ass there. He will not get Dany even though she has some prediliction for swash buckling pirate types. She may however try to use him to get to Westeros. It is a good bet that Ser Selmy will explain the pitfalls of too closely aligning herself with the iron born.

[Tyler Snow]

I liked Victarion from the start. Yes, he is brutal but it is stemming from his warrior culture. Sure, I'd rather be the Young Derry trying to defend my land from barbarous shores but he's a sacrifice to the Drowned God now.

ASOIAF is not a place with black and white, good and bad, but Victarion is certainly a grey character. He honors his opponents, treats prisoners (that he doesn't sacrifice) with respect, and fulfills his duty even though it is upsetting to his own personal sense of self. However, he also commits human sacrifice and seeks glory through blood.

There are many more characters in the series that I dislike than Victarion Greyjoy and, while I do find him brutal, he is also begrudgingly likable to me, and in Dance that was only enhanced.

[Raksha the Demon]

Victarion might be a little insensitive to the culture differences between the slaves & his Ironborn, but telling slaves they're free and having them be "salt wives" to his captains is a little different than cruel, wanton rape. I remember reading the Theon chapters when he first sails off to Pyke, and judging from those, most low born Ironborn women would consider it an honor to be the salt wives of captains of the Iron Fleet. He told them just that.

If Victarion's evil for all the reaving that his society endorses, then are the wildlings evil for their raiding & carrying off women? It's basically the same thing. We see the latter through Jon's POV and become sympathetic to the wildling culture, while a lot of the Watch see them a bit differently. Is Tormund less evil than Victarion because he's Jon's friend, or because he has a better sense of humor? That's just silly.

And why are people still hung up on the sacrifices? They're to a god the Ironborn believe in (the Drowned God) and a new god that the priest has somewhat "proven" to Victarion. In his eyes, why should he just simply kill them or leave them to starve or whatever if he can make them an offering to gods? Religion's always a touchy subject, but if you're doing something because you believe it's what some almighty power wants, that trumps any moral qualms you might normally have. If it's cool for Abraham to agree to sacrifice Isaac, then it's cool for Victarion to burn 7 girls and drown people.

On human sacrifice - I think it's wrong. I don't care if it's a cultural norm, let the priests or whoever is doing the sacrifice put their own brothers and sisters and children on the altar, or volunteer themselves, and then we'll see how 'pious' they are or if they just want the power of being priests. I didn't think it was cool for Abraham to agree to sacrifice Isaac; and I'd been Abraham, I would have refused. When Stannis volunteers for a burning in order to raise a wind or a dragon, then I'll cheer him and Melisandre, until then, I'd say it's very easy to give criminals or helpless people to the fires or the knife to prop own one's own position or further one's agenda. I think any needless violence is wrong. While the world of Westeros is not our own, and is a violent one, some instances of violence are far worse than others.

[TamTam Rapley]

This discussion has brought up the interesting question of how we define a villain. The "Victarion's a villain" camp seems to be defining a villain as someone who violates the moral laws of our and/or Westerosi society. The "Victarion's not a villain" camp seems to be defining a villain as someone who does bad things for no reason or for fun; this camp exonerates people who do bad things for their beliefs.

A couple of related questions: We know Victarion's actions are unusually cruel by Westerosi standards, but are they unusually cruel by Ironborn standards?

Is Victarion doing bad things "for his beliefs", or is he actually doing bad things for his GOAL of reaching Dany? And do we perhaps need to distinguish between these two things? He isn't acting disinterestedly on behalf of his god--he's acting so as to gain something for himself. His motives are more selfish than pious.

Very thought-provoking analogy! The one problem with it is that God explicitly commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham didn't stand to gain anything from it. Victarion, on the other hand, sacrificed random people in order to placate the gods (who had not told him to do it) so that they would help him achieve his goal. I think there's a difference. What does everyone else think? Is there a legit way to define a villain?

By Ironborn standards, Victarion is a hero that his men look up to. He is a product of his culture and firmly believes in the "old way." He considers slavery as an abomination of the old way. Moreover, he feels shamed when he has to pay for supplies in gold as opposed to the iron way of taking. Furthermore, he is respectful of the gods. In his mind, if a god helps you or you believe that you are being helped, it would dishonorable to not offer something in return. Victarion also happens to one of the most open-minded characters in the novel. Instead of just dismissing Moqorro and R'hllor, he is open to the concept of another god. Whereas, Euron would fit the villain role better. Not only is he cruel by our morals, Westerosi morals, but he is a pariah even among the Ironborn. He has bastard children he treats like crap, he rapes Victarion's wife, sells slaves as opposed to taking thralls and salt-wives etc. I would also argue that although idealistic, Victarion is also grounded in reality unlike other characters such as Dany. Dany frees slaves with no disregard to the consequences, economy, or how it will affect the situation. Congratulations, you created homeless people, plague, and war. Whereas, Victarion, kills the male prostitutes because they would be extra mouths to feed and would serve no purpose out on sea, training them to be rowers would take too much time (it's a lot harder than it appears). He frees the slave rowers and provides them with jobs with the Iron Fleet. It's unknown if they are truly free, or thralls, but if thralls their children will be free, and if truly free then they have the opportunity for advancement within the Iron Fleet. Plus, the women sex slaves are now salt-wives, which in Ironborn culture is considered to be an honor.

[reiver]

but telling slaves they're free and having them be "salt wives" to his captains is a little different than cruel, wanton rape.

So it's the morally acceptable sort of rape then?

You make some very good points about normative relativism and whether someone should be judged by their cultural standards or ours. I guess by the culture of the ironborn what he does is acceptable behaviour and is likely neither particuarly good nor evil just as the Dothraki raping and murdering and the Yunkai slaving and the Meerenese bloodsports are.

Still when judging whether we think he's a good or bad person (not a good or bad character) it's inevitable that he's held up to some approximation of modern standards. To me rape is wrong, slavery is wrong and killing innocents is wrong. I can still enjoy reading about a character that does those but i can't consider them a a good guy.

Regarding the wildlings. Yes, pretty much they are evil if they attack defenceless people and rape and carry off their women/daughters, kill their children and husbands and destroy their livelihoods. There are degrees of evil within that from ones who raid and don't rape even to the ones Ygritte has the ideal of that only carry off unwed marriagable women but either way their harm and suffering on others which is not a nice thing to do.

[awesome possum]

I don't think that I like him too much in the sense of thinking he's a good guy or rooting for him, but I did very much enjoy his chapters in this book.

I agree. I think he's a horrible person, but his chapters are entertaining. That said, I think he deserves to have a little one-on-one action with Drogon, dracarys-style.

[Olenna]

By Ironborn standards, Victarion is a hero that his men look up to. He is a product of his culture and firmly believes in the "old way." He considers slavery as an abomination of the old way. Moreover, he feels shamed when he has to pay for supplies in gold as opposed to the iron way of taking. Furthermore, he is respectful of the gods. In his mind, if a god helps you or you believe that you are being helped, it would dishonorable to not offer something in return.

OK, but is human sacrifice normal for the Ironborn? And is it ever specified that the Drowned God wants it? Would Aeron approve of it? Or is Victarion just making this shit up?

The cultural-relativism argument for Victarion not being a villain is "Well, the Ironborn think he's a decent guy, so he must be." But one of the problems with that argument is that the only people shown making that judgment are the society's privileged people, the reavers, who aren't suffering as a result of his decisions (and who, by the way, elected Euron, which doesn't reflect well on them). I wonder if the thralls and salt wives are so lenient in their assessment. And I wonder what Asha would think of his murder spree. In short, there are probably a lot of Ironborn who would disapprove of his actions--we just don't get to hear from them.

[reiver]

OK, but is human sacrifice normal for the Ironborn? And is it ever specified that the Drowned God wants it? Would Aeron approve of it? Or is Victarion just making this shit up?

Sounds common enough. In Asha's chapter with the lead up to the burning of the cannibals she mentions about seeing thralls having their throats slit by Drowned Men although she seemed to be against the idea of burning so that may give a clue what she thought of Victarion's actions.

I was slightly suprised at the throat slitting info. Maybe since its thralls it's less of an issue but i thought the Drowned men were against spilling blood but pro drowning. Aeron seems to approve that Botley is drowned by euron in a cask of saltwater.

[Été]

The Ironborn method of execution is to drown criminals in the rising tide, so that their death is sacred to the Drowned God. Sounds like a pretty sacrificial cult to me. In fact, the Faith appears to be the only one that doesn't engage in it.

[Ikonoklastik]

The one problem with it is that God explicitly commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham didn't stand to gain anything from it.

Abraham stood to gain the favor of God, and avoid his wrath.

Victarion, on the other hand, sacrificed random people in order to placate the gods (who had not told him to do it) so that they would help him achieve his goal.

Although it wasn't huge by any means, I think it was mentioned that he chose the 7 most comely of the slave girls to sacrifice. He thought they would please the gods most, as opposed to the people who Victarion might have deemed the most useless. It's a weak one, but that's an argument against the selfish nature of his sacrifice. In societies like those of Westeros, and even our own, it's commonly thought that a particular god speaks to people through his servants (priests, for example). If Moqorro is a servant of his god, has proved himself to Victarion via his visions and healing his arm, Victarion has no reason to doubt Moqorro saying that such a sacrifice would serve to please & thank the god that sent him to help Victarion. Similarly, from the preaching and practices of pious men like Aeron, Victarion firmly believes that sacrifices to the Drowned God are also welcomed.

I think the comparison of these sacrifices to that of Abraham's intended sacrifice is completely valid. Abraham wants to be in God's good graces & avoid his wrath, Victarion wants to pay homage to his 'native' god and a new one whose servant saved his life, and both are willing to sacrifice to do so.

[mcb]

By Ironborn standards, Victarion is a hero that his men look up to.

True. However, they're crappy standards from a culture of douchebags. According to laws and customs of Craster's Keep, Craster was a swell guy, too.

Whereas, Euron would fit the villain role better. Not only is he cruel by our morals, Westerosi morals, but he is a pariah even among the Ironborn.

Considering they elected him their king, it's hardly accurate co call him a pariah.

[Faranya]

Sounds common enough. In Asha's chapter with the lead up to the burning of the cannibals she mentions about seeing thralls having their throats slit by Drowned Men although she seemed to be against the idea of burning so that may give a clue what she thought of Victarion's actions.

I was slightly suprised at the throat slitting info. Maybe since its thralls it's less of an issue but i thought the Drowned men were against spilling blood but pro drowning. Aeron seems to approve that Botley is drowned by euron in a cask of saltwater.

Ironborn don't spill the blood of other ironborn, which is why Aeron was ok with drowning Botley, as no blood was spilled.

And Victarion, from the perspective of the ironborn, is an absolute paragon of virtue. He is fearless, ferocious, pious (according to the traditions of the Drowned God, not the cloistered Seven), and generous.

He freed the slaves and made them thralls and saltwives. This is actually a step up for them; thralls and salt wives are second class citizens, but they are not property, and their children will be free men.

He threw the little boy prostitutes into the ocean because he considered what they had been made into unnatural, and gave them a proper holy execution. Also, what else was he going to do? Little boys can't pull an oar on a warship.

That, and I just love his pragmatism that most other characters don't seem to share.

Victarion: I have a god.

Moqorro: I have the god. Look, I can perform miracles.

Victarion: I have two gods!

[Theon Greyboy]

Honestly I thought that his bold vow to sail across the Dothraki Sea (and subsequent strangling of the fisherman who mocked him for it) might have been the funniest thing in the series since "Thapphireth!".

I also really liked it when he caught the slaver vessel and basically told the rowers "You are free men! Now row dammit!" (Okay so I'm paraphrasing somewhat.

Anybody else really get a kick out of his chapters?

I felt bad for that poor son-of-a-bitch Maester he killed, but his bizarre antics regarding the slaves and his dual-religion ritual put a smile on my face. All in all, I can't say I like him more or less than I did in AFFC.

In any case, Moqorro + Victarion = Best bromance ever.

[Doomprophet]

That, and I just love his pragmatism that most other characters don't seem to share.

Victarion: I have a god.

Moqorro: I have the god. Look, I can perform miracles.

Victarion: I have two gods!

Sometimes my religous friends ask what it would take to make me believe in God. I always think "hey, show me the goods, and I'm in!"

[Faint]

Speaking generally, I remember many found Victarion as a POV in AFfC to be boring, is that still the case?

Personally, I've always loved him as a POV but now I find myself considering whether he has moved into my top ten.

[Dinsdale!]

Abraham stood to gain the favor of God, and avoid his wrath.

I think the comparison of these sacrifices to that of Abraham's intended sacrifice is completely valid. Abraham wants to be in God's good graces & avoid his wrath, Victarion wants to pay homage to his 'native' god and a new one whose servant saved his life, and both are willing to sacrifice to do so.

To compare the sacrifice of Isaac to the tri-god sacrifice of seven whores is to compare a candle to the sun. The value of Isaac to Abraham far exceeded the value of those women to Victarion. And there is the small matter that the kinslayer is accursed, both in Westeros society and in the bible.