Who is the biggest hypocrite in Westeros? (spoilers)

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Aegon seized it from people who had that right from thousands of years (like the Stark kings) while Robert seized from a lunatic murderer who was a usurper himself, and if he allowed Aerys children to remain as rulers he would jeopardize his own life and his relatives' lifes (like so many people blame Ned), and for what, just so one or two generations later another crazy inbred starts burning people because he thinks it's fun.

First off, there's absolutely no reason to think that the Targaryens actually are more likely to produce lunatics than any other line. There have been great Targs, and crazy ones, and unremarkable ones. Like every family ever. It's as likely you'll get an Aemon or a Daenerys next generation as an Aerys or Viserys. And it's as likely you'll get a Joffery or a Robert (both aaawful kings) as a Tommen (who's doing fine, IMO!).

Second, Robert had no right to wipe out the entire Targ Dynasty. IMO, its likely that Ned and Jon intended to have one of Rhaegar's children (Aegon, likely) inherit with Jon as protector of the realm - and it would be easy to raise the child carefully so that they would not want revenge. Viserys could be a problem but easily solved if they keep him locked up somewhere. The only reason Robert wiped out the Targaryens is because he was jealous of Rhaegar and driven by bloodlust. He wanted to kill all the Dragons because Lyanna loved Rhaegar instead of him. He didn't even want to be king - and didn't give a crap about saving the realm from Targaryen insanity. Rhaegar was the one he hated - not mad Aerys. This is honestly why I find Robert Baratheon to be among the most despicable characters in aSoIaF. He ordered the murder of innocent children because a woman didn't love him.

Third, even if Aegon could be considered a usurper, it's a very big stretch to say Aerys was one. He's the last in a very well established Dynasty. I'm not exactly sure where the line is (three generations? four?) but Aerys is no "usurper" - his family has been in power for three hundred years.

At least the way I see, an usurper would be someone who deceives, he could be either someone impersonating someone else (maybe like young Griff), or someone who is a bastard or a son of someone else robbing the right of a trueborn son or heir (like Joffrey) or even an younger brother taking the place of the elder by killing him (unlike Renly who recognized that he had no right and was simply taking the power by force).

The way I see, Robb wasn't a traitor either, even if Joffrey were Robert's son. First he never swore any oath to Joffrey and he was simply taking back his right as the heir of the oldest royal line of Westeros.

Eh, the Starks swore fealty to the Baratheons as kings, and The Starks gave up the King in the North title when they bent the knee to Aegon. That's enough to say Robb was breaking an oath, at least. Robb can weasel around if he wants, but he knew he would have to defend his claim with force, as it wasn't really justified by oath.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

That's all I ever got from her POV's. Actually, I've just reread ACoK and through Dany's 5 POV's I found zero sentences considering her worries for slavery. And I heard Qarth was full of slavers and slaves. You should reread books with some objective distance. I guess you like her as a character so maybe you have some difficulties seeing her bad sides.

Actually, what you said was:

All we got was describing her bath session, thinking about throne, dragon blood and how cool and noble Drogo is.

Which is simply ridiculous. You know that as well as I do.

As to the issue at hand, I gave some examples about how she thought about slaves (and freed them) during the first book. So obviously you missed a lot if this was all you got out of it.

Yes I like Dany, but that's not really the point. The point is you clearly dislike her and are trivializing her perspective to suit an argument that simply doesn't hold water.

As to her feelings towards Drogo - they are very complicated - she does not consider him just "cool and noble" as you said. She is grateful that he's not a complete bastard, but realizes she's very lucky in that. She knows she has to keep him happy, because otherwise she's basically got no power (e.g. "it had taken all the pillow tricks Doreah had taught her, but eventually he agreed to let [Viserys] ride again"). She comes to love Drogo, but doesn't like the way the Dothraki work (several times in aCoK she considers how savage the Dothraki way is), and she realizes with a shock during the Lhazareen incident, that while he was good to her, his was not the type of kingdom that she would want to rule. And indeed, once she had the power she changed the way her Khalasaar was run by forbidding rape and slavery.

Furthermore, many conversations with Ser Jorah in the first three books indicate that she is thinking quite deeply from the beginning about how one can be a good ruler, not just following the Dothraki way blindly.

You next ask why in aCoK she doesn't demand that the Quartheen free all their slaves? :shocked: She's there as a guest, and she's trying to get ships home. She's not going to accomplish much shitting all over the ways of the people she's trying to convince to help her. And it's ridiculous to say that Dany is a "hypocrite" for freeing some slaves but not others. There are more pressing matters to attend to and she does what she can for her people.

[Bran The Burner]

It's a complicated situation considering she is quite pleased that Drogo is finally going to help her son get the throne back. I am sure that she would not be pleased if he started raping and enslaving Westerosi. We see this in the very next chapter when she is upset at the raping and enslaving.

She was definetely not worried about what the dothraki would do once they got in Westeros, it didn't matter to her if they would rape, kill and burn the entire continent like they did in Essos if that meant that she would sit in her precious throne.

All we really know is that she went to Slaver's Bay to acquire an army by whatever means so she could stand on her own power, rather than relying on Illyrio. What she would have done with the unsullied if she had simply bought them, we can't be sure, but given that she freed all the Dothraki slaves when she became the mother of dragons, she clearly had an anti-slavery agenda already. So it's pretty likely she would have freed them in any case. And why not? Generally when you free a slave army you tend to win their loyalty!

Of course she freed her slaves, how else would she control them when she had only a knight, three bloodriders and a couple of boys, and what use were they to her, they were just mouths to feed, she would be happy if the weak, sick and old went on their own way. And where would they go alone, far from their homes, without food and protection, they had to follow her.

Not all who free slaves do that because they are kind and care about them, before slavery was abolished in Brazil, first a law was approved that freed all slaves above 60 years old, this law was not created by abolitionists, but by the slavers themselves who didn't want to feed useless mouths. The only purpose of this law was to free the slavers of the one responsability they had, to feed all those they onwed even the old, after they were freed, most just starved to death because they didn't know how to do anything but work in the plantations and most were too weak after a life of bondage.

And like someone else said, she was happy to buy the unsullied, only she didn't have enough money so she had kill the astapori.

[fassreiter]

Burning people alive is not a problem for me that it is for you, sorry.

They are only executing people who deserve it.

Now these are some strange statements. So you think Stannis is actually just worried a hanging or beheading might go wrong, so he goes for the safety of execution by fire? For your information: Burning people alive IS torture, it has always been considered such by those using it. The pain it evokes is meant to cleanse the soul, so it's a much better sacrifice and, hey, does something for the victim, too. Therefore it is a form of execution that has been deliberately chosen as the one that causes the most agony. Nice, isn't it?

I could read to you the report of an eyewitness of an execution by fire in 16th century Germany. The criminal (who had coined false coin, and so, according to current law, perfectly deserved what he got) was bound to a ladder and pushed into the fire. But he didn't die at once, still, the ropes burned up, so he tried to crawl out of the fire three times, and each time the executioner had to drag him back und push him into it again, until he couldn't crawl anymore and died slowly and screaming. So this is the kind of justice you have in mind? There is a reason GRRM depicts the cruelty of those burnings very closely, with all the screaming. He doesn't want you to remain unmoved when you read it just because you like the character with the torch in hand. If he wanted to give you the impression that those who died deserved it, he would have let Stannis and Dany behead them, cleanly and with their own hands. GRRM has the choice, he is the author, you know? He deliberately chooses burnings. He wants to TELL you something. But apparently he is still too subtle.

And who deserves execution, by the way? Surely Aerys executed only those that deserved it, too. In his eyes. Who is to say who deserves death? I don't want to play Gandalf here, but - come on! Besides, Stannis also burned political prisoners - always the signum of the tyrant. Next to destroying religious symbols. And there is also a deliberate author's choice to some of the exact wording of the chantings that occur next to such an execution. Bad sign, in my opinion. VERY bad sign.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Now these are some strange statements. So you think Stannis is actually just worried a hanging or beheading might go wrong, so he goes for the safety of execution by fire? For your information: Burning people alive IS torture, it has always been considered such by those using it. The pain it evokes is meant to cleanse the soul, so it's a much better sacrifice and, hey, does something for the victim, too. Therefore it is a form of execution that has been deliberately chosen as the one that causes the most agony. Nice, isn't it?

Burning alive is no fun. It's brutal. But it's not some impassable line for me. Murdering children because some woman doesn't love you is a line. Burning alive murderers is not as much a problem.

In any case, we are talking about hypocrisy in this thread not whether burning alive is the best form of punishment, or even an ends/means argument w.r.t. blood magic. I am still not understanding how e.g. Dany executing a single traitor and murderer by burning makes her a hypocrite.

[fassreiter]

Burning alive is no fun. It's brutal. But it's not some impassable line for me. Murdering children because some woman doesn't love you is a line. Burning alive murderers is not as much a problem.

In any case, we are talking about hypocrisy in this thread not whether burning alive is the best form of punishment, or even an ends/means argument w.r.t. blood magic. I am still not understanding how e.g. Dany executing a single traitor and murderer by burning makes her a hypocrite.

Sorry, you lost me with the children and the woman - who did that?

And I think it's the perfect form of hypocrisy to assume you are the best ruler, the most justified ruler, the most just ruler, and that your ways are the best - if you are, in fact, a tyrant who burns your enemies alive and builds your power on fear and terror. Include sixty men on stakes in a marketplace into that, too.

[-jelena-]

Actually, what you said was:

Which is simply ridiculous. You know that as well as I do.

As to the issue at hand, I gave some examples about how she thought about slaves (and freed them) during the first book. So obviously you missed a lot if this was all you got out of it.

Sorry, I exaggerated a bit; her bath sessions, dragon blood, throne and Drogo make 90% of her POV's.

To be serious now. I am aware of her freeing the slaves at the end of the first book. As I said, Dany comes as a person who does not approve slavery all the way. But, when it suits her needs she's fine with it. And I even haven't mentioned her best friend Jorah who is sought for slavery. When he told her his story it didn't even cross her mind how that was bad thing for him to do. Or when he advised her to go to SB to sell some slavers for ships she didn't ditch that idea for being repulsive but because she didn't want to leave Drogo. I mean, we are in her head form the very beginning and she wasn't really paying too much attention to slaves much, their lives and troubles or judging Dothraki way of living too much. And, all of sudden, in ASoS she started to play moral vertical to all around her.

Yes I like Dany, but that's not really the point. The point is you clearly dislike her and are trivializing her perspective to suit an argument that simply doesn't hold water.

Yes, I dislike her but you are going all the way to stretch things in order to justify her behavior.

As to her feelings towards Drogo - they are very complicated - she does not consider him just "cool and noble" as you said. She is grateful that he's not a complete bastard, but realizes she's very lucky in that. She knows she has to keep him happy, because otherwise she's basically got no power (e.g. "it had taken all the pillow tricks Doreah had taught her, but eventually he agreed to let [Viserys] ride again"). She comes to love Drogo, but doesn't like the way the Dothraki work (several times in aCoK she considers how savage the Dothraki way is), and she realizes with a shock during the Lhazareen incident, that while he was good to her, his was not the type of kingdom that she would want to rule. And indeed, once she had the power she changed the way her Khalasaar was run by forbidding rape and slavery.

She knows there are savages from the beginning. Still, she wanted to bring them upon Westeros people. And I really doubt that she would've dropped her Westeros plan if Drogo had lived. So convenient that he died.

You next ask why in aCoK she doesn't demand that the Quartheen free all their slaves? She's there as a guest, and she's trying to get ships home. She's not going to accomplish much shitting all over the ways of the people she's trying to convince to help her. And it's ridiculous to say that Dany is a "hypocrite" for freeing some slaves but not others. There are more pressing matters to attend to and she does what she can for her people.

I didn't ask that. That would be pretty silly thing to do. I said that for someone who acted so harshly anti-slavery in ASoS you would have expected to put some more thoughts about slavery issue in the previous books. In ASoS she was all about slavery and how slavers are bad and evil people. I didn't expect her to rebel against Xaro and others but to give at least one single inner thought about him and his slavers and how she found all that repulsive and sad or whatever. She basically passed by one slaver bidding on the docks and she seemed fine with that. Its' not like she thought there: "Oh, those poor slaves, it must have been pretty hard for them. Those slavers are really bad people." No, she just passed by. She didn't need to mess things up right there but for someone who started to act like Queen of all free people you would expect to give more thoughts on slavery issues in first books. From Pentos to Qarth she was surrounded by slaves all the time and she seemed fine with that in her head. With torture and rape she had problems not slavery.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Aegon demanded fealty from the lords, and was good to his subjects once they bent the knee. He did not murder/exile them and all of their family as Robert did. Also to be maybe a little picky, Aegon wasn't exactly a usurper. Usurper implies killing a king and taking his seat - Aegon created a Kingdom that did not exist before and declared himself king of that kingdom.

Really? And what happened to the Storm King or to the family that controlled the Reach?

[Raksha the Demon]

I love Ned Stark, and i understand his motives for much of what he does GoT and he is a man of principle and integrity. But I found it ironic and sad that he is executed for the lie he tells, not the truth. It's so regrettable that he confesses his 'treason' and publicly forgoes his honor to spare his daughter and still dies for it.

I'm sure Sansa would have paid the price for Ned's honor & honesty, but i hated that he renounced the truth.

It is tragic that Ned, who was known for his honesty and honor, and prized both; died as a public, honorless traitor, his last words an utter, knowing lie. But I think it speaks to his goodness; Ned was prepared to die for his honor, but when his daughter's life was threatened, he valued her more than he valued honor. I just hope that Sansa will eventually learn the truth; that her father lied to save her, that he was not a traitor.

[Raksha the Demon]

Stannis is hypocritical. He has a strict code of conduct, but he himself is exempt from that code. He says he doesn't want to be king, but his actions speak otherwise. Probably a great example of that in ADWD

when he burns the soldiers for cannibalism despite the fact that he himself was preparing to eat the dead during the siege of Storm's End.

Tywin is also one. He is totally working for the good of the realm, not his own good.. No siree. The Red Wedding was totally justified for saving lives despite the fact that he didn't mind sending Gregor Clegane to kill and rape tons of peasants.

I'll believe that Stannis is no hypocrite when he volunteers to be burned for the greater glory of Rhlorr. He would probably order little Tommen and Myrcella, who he calls 'abominations', burned if he could get his hands on them. Burning alive is terrible torture, one of the most savage, inhumane methods of execution ever devised.

Tywin may have deluded himself; but I think he worked for the good of the Lannisters; and the security of the realm was just a lucky by-product; or a necessary secondary goal because his daughter was queen and his grandsons heirs to Robert's throne.

[Maester Luwin]

Cersei and Tywin.

She is top on my hate list for this reason alone.

[brashcandy]

Dear Brashcandy, King Stannis is'nt hipocryte.

"I definitely agree about Stannis -- he is extrememly dangerous".

He is'nt. He is just. He is stern. He is good military commander. He knew Westeros. He was in his brother's Council. He ordered his Hand always tell him true.

"His reliance on Melisandre in my opinion ultimately unmans him, and throws his entire quest for kingship in a negative light."

No.

"Stannis will never sit on the Iron Throne, simply because he is not worthy of it."

Stannis is more worthy of Iron Throne than Danaerys.

She knew nothing about Westeros, her father's madness, his favorite plays with fire etc. etc.

She is only teenager with crazy hormones and with three nuclear bombs in her little hands.

I'll leave your comments about Dany alone, since this is simply gross simplification of a very complex, misunderstood character.

Unto Stannis. What readers can possibly find attractive or worthy of admiration in this man truly confounds me. I once argued that Stannis must have some redeeming qualities since he inspired the love and loyalty of a worthy man like Davos, but I have since come to see the error of those statements.

In every description of the man, and in every interaction that he has with anyone, he comes across as pompous, arrogant, bitter, nasty, intolerant, insensitive and callous. Some persons might consider these to be "kingly" virtues, but I have gradually come to find him despicable. What others consider to be his greatest strength - his implacable resistance - I consider to be his greatest weakness. Yes, a King shouldn't be all about a good time and sex like Robert, but Stannis' lack of emotion or love isn't healthy either. He firmly believes that he has the right to rule because he is Robert's legitimate heir, but I think what GRRM has shown us is that the right to rule shouldn't always come down to who's next in line. Stannis has not displayed the correct mix of love and resolve to be a ruler. His policy of wrong is wrong and my right is always right cannot win the love of a people, and cannot win him the Iron throne.

What we know of Stannis is that he held Storm's End for his brother nearly to the bitter end - until he was rescued by his onion knight. Outside of this, all we know of him is through the comments of others- those which refer to him as joyless and emotionless. Since then, he has been relentless in pursuing what he thinks is his birthright. Yes, Joffrey and Tommen have no right to the Iron throne, but neither does Stannis. His relationship with Robert was never close, although it didn't have to be, he understands how to rule through harshness and the rule of law, but knows nothing about tempering it with love, mercy and understanding, and his reliance on Melisandre suggests that he would sit on the throne, but she would reign.

People are only worth as much as he can use them, evidenced by his treatment of Jon and Davos. I cannot imagine that GRRM would have created him except as a caricature of how not to be a King. He went to one extreme, and Robert to the next; maybe Renly would have been the best of both brothers, but we'll never know. We do have the two examples of Jon Snow and Dany however. And we see that no matter what the outcome, commanding with a mix of mercy and boldness is still the best way to go. A ruler needs to inspire confidence and respect, but also love and trust in order to truly reign over others.

[Tammy]

Biggest hypocrites:

Tyrion don't even get me started... he hates how others judge him for his appearance, but he is disgusted by ugly people and only wants beautiful women for himself.

I was just thinking this same thing while reading a Tyrion chapter. He seemed really quite disgusted with some of the women he saw and then seemed insulted when one looked him with revulsion.

[Kate Poem]

I'll leave your comments about Dany alone, since this is simply gross simplification of a very complex, misunderstood character.

She has three dragons. Am I right?

She dreamt constantly about Dario. Am I right?

"Usurper's dogs". Death of Elia and her children. Rhaegar's death. Jorah's treason. Robert's plan about killing her and her child. She knows that.

Her father's plays with fire? Rickard Stark's fate? Her father's "pyromaniacs"? Her father's plan about King's Landing? Her mother's treatment? Etc. etc.?

She knows nothing. She did'nt want to know.

I hope she begin learn, she is young, but I think she should'nt be Queen. She is'nt bad person, but...

Not yet. Maybe never.

Unto Stannis. What readers can possibly find attractive or worthy of admiration in this man truly confounds me. I once argued that Stannis must have some redeeming qualities since he inspired the love and loyalty of a worthy man like Davos, but I have since come to see the error of those statements.

What with Maester Cressen? And did'nt You remember these knights with their cries "Stannis! Stannis! Stannis", when he helped Night Watch with the wildlings?

I know, it was fight and joy from the victory, but.

Davos Seaworth. Ex-smuggler. Lowborn. Lord of Rainwood. Hand of the King. He has many reasons to change his decision about service for his King, but he'll not change it. He is loyal and he will be loyal and devoted to end. Why?

in every interaction that he has with anyone, he comes across as pompous, arrogant, bitter, nasty, intolerant, insensitive and callous. Some persons might consider these to be "kingly" virtues, but I have gradually come to find him despicable. What others consider to be his greatest strength - his implacable resistance - I consider to be his greatest weakness. Yes, a King shouldn't be all about a good time and sex like Robert, but Stannis' lack of emotion or love isn't healthy either. He firmly believes that he has the right to rule because he is Robert's legitimate heir, but I think what GRRM has shown us is that the right to rule shouldn't always come down to who's next in line. Stannis has not displayed the correct mix of love and resolve to be a ruler. His policy of wrong is wrong and my right is always right cannot win the love of a people, and cannot win him the Iron throne.

Hmm. Maybe You are right in some way, but I think You are wrong. My English is weak, but I must try explain.

I like king Stannis always wanted from his Hand true. I like king Stannis did'nt want any lies. If You were right, Davos Seaworth will be dead long time a go, maybe after Edric's escape, maybe earlier.

Good king should listen good council. King Stannis did it. He enjoyed his Hand's company.

The Lords and poor people of the Seven Kingdoms, when the King will sit on the Iron Throne (if), they will be know: punishment for that, reward for this. No debts of the Crown, no constant feasts and tourneys, peace and order.

Robert was loved by many people. He drunk, ate, went to hunts, slept with every woman in the realm, emptied the Crown's treasury, he had weak character etc. etc.

But he was loved by many. I like him too and what with it?

he has been relentless in pursuing what he thinks is his birthright. Yes, Joffrey and Tommen have no right to the Iron throne, but neither does Stannis.

Robert was the King. The male bastards of the King weren't legitimized. They haven't rights to the Iron Throne. Joffrey and Tommen Waters are the bastards of Cersei and Jaime. They haven't rights to the Iron Throne. Stannis Baratheon is younger brother of the King. Who is the heir?

he understands how to rule through harshness and the rule of law, but knows nothing about tempering it with love, mercy and understanding,

and his reliance on Melisandre suggests that he would sit on the throne, but she would reign.

I... disagree. You could say "his reliance on Davos suggests...etc. etc."It is'nt true.

Everyone knows, Stannis does'nt lie. Everyone knows, he is just, stern for others and himself. He hadn't pretty clothes, he did'nt like jokes, he drunk water with the salt, no wine, he ate poorly from his own choice.

People are only worth as much as he can use them, evidenced by his treatment of Jon and Davos. I cannot imagine that GRRM would have created him except as a caricature of how not to be a King. He went to one extreme, and Robert to the next; maybe Renly would have been the best of both brothers, but we'll never know.

Renly had charisma. Renly had pretty clothes. Renly had wonderful tent. Renly had beautiful young queen and beautiful Knight of Flowers. Renly had big army.

Ranly did'nt do his brotherly duty. He wanted kill his brother and become king. Why? Because he wanted. He did'nt know about Cersei.

"Fuck my nephews, fuck my OLDER brother, fuck my nieces, I am handsome and wonderful, I must to be king. Old, boring, stupid Stannis offered me position of heir to Iron Throne? Fuck it. I want the Throne now!!!"

I know.

[I hate Dorn]

I think it's Syrio, hands down

He tells Arya to say "not today" to death. And then he goes and dies

[RobSnow]

Tywin is by far the biggest hypocrite in ASOIAF

[Zar Lannister]

Hmm... Biggest Hypocrite? This is an interesting topic.

Definitely not Cersei. Everyone knows she's up to something all the time, except for the poor Stokeworths in the Crownlands, but they lack wits...

May I suggest Mace Tyrell? Didn't hesitate to switch sides as long as it meant putting a sweet crown on his Daughter's head.

Essos has way more hypocrites, though.

[longlivestark]

Tyrion is a hypocrite, don't get me wrong I love the little guy, but he does act pretty hypocritical in the second book but I'm pretty sure even he realizes it.

[snowzombie]

Just curious, why do people believe that Stannis and Melissandre are lovers? The only thing I've seen in the text that indicates that's the case is her POV stating that her bed had seen less use since Stannis left. I'd taken that to mean, in context, that she was up all hours looking for Stannis in the flames and trying to monitor his progress.

There's also the business of him spurning his actual wife and Melissandre being thought of as the "True Queen".

I think I resisted the idea that they were intimate because it seemed too cliche. I like to think that Melissandre mind-fucked him into doing what she wanted and that their relationship was even weirder than a typical sexual affair.

So - any other reasons to assume they are sexually intimate?

[Scooty]

If you can't understand the love Stannis gets, i imagine you don't take to magnetic characters. Stannis jumps off the page in every exchange. His personality is so clear, and yet the virtues of the character are smothered in rough edges and hard bites.

He is a righteous man.

He knows this, and has no regard for those who know the right thing, and does the expedient thing. And i love him for it.

He is fair. Not merciful, but fair.

Davos was a smuggler....Davos had to pay.

But Davos was a help and boon, so Davos had to be rewarded.

If Robb Stark had the sense Stannis did(and i loved Robb) he would've cut off Jamies thumbs and big toes, and kept him in a dungeon.

He would've cut off Karstarks hand(for the murder) and sent him to the wall with all the men who aided him in the murder of the lannister boys.

Punishing Karstark for the disobedience yet rewarding his service with life.