Who are the real Villains?

[Sun]

For Cersei, I'll redirect you to my explanation post about how she isn't evil at all: http://asoiaf.wester...ost__p__2819975

I Wholly disagree with your estimation of Cersie.

How is Janos Slynt a villian? Sure he's a crook, but so are most people in Westeroes. The worst thing he's done is betray somebody for money, where as there are plenty of people who have killed several innocent people that you are seemingly forgetting...

His character is entirely villainous, and so are his motives. Every action we see him take, he takes for his own personal interest with no consideration to the effect his acts may have on others. He displays no sense of guilt or remorse for any of his acts. He is thieving, petty, jealous, small minded, self-aggrandising, duplicitous, very possibly murderous (check Wiki http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Janos_Slynt), and entirely without honor, integrity or a sense of justice. That is the very definition of a villain, in my book. He doesn't have to be a mass murdering psychopath like Ramsay to be considered a villain, by me.

As to the plenty of people who've killed several innocents that I'm forgetting, it's very likely. I don't know these books by heart, and the names I listed in my post are the characters I remember most clearly.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

I totally agree that Theon is a villain, or at minimum guilty of the actions of one. I don't know what else you would call someone who killed innocent people just to save face.

[The King in the South]

I Wholly disagree with your estimation of Cersie.

His character is entirely villainous, and so are his motives. Every action we see him take, he takes for his own personal interest with no consideration to the effect his acts may have on others. He displays no sense of guilt or remorse for any of his acts. He is thieving, petty, jealous, small minded, self-aggrandising, duplicitous, very possibly murderous (check Wiki http://awoiaf.wester...php/Janos_Slynt), and entirely without honor, integrity or a sense of justice. That is the very definition of a villain, in my book. He doesn't have to be a mass murdering psychopath like Ramsay to be considered a villain, by me.

As to the plenty of people who've killed several innocents that I'm forgetting, it's very likely. I don't know these books by heart, and the names I listed in my post are the characters I remember most clearly.

Your acting like he's one of the few people in Westeros that acts in self-interest. Everyone acts for their own interest, including the Starks.

As for killing innocents. Arya Stark has killed several innocent people, some of them out of spite, some simply so she can increase her power within a murderous organization. Is she evil?

Arya's not the only example too. But the point is, if you start calling guys who have acted badly or for themselves evil or villians then you pretty much have to start calling hundreds of other people evil or villians, to the point that the heroes/good people are actually a stark minority. (not a pun)

[Ser-Arthur-Dayne]

because these villains are dead or going to die? or because you are a fan of those villains? ;)

Neither. Because I don't consider any of them "villians" :D

[Sun]

As for killing innocents. Arya Stark has killed several innocent people, some of them out of spite, some simply so she can increase her power within a murderous organization. Is she evil?

Arya's not the only example too. But the point is, if you start calling guys who have acted badly or for themselves evil or villians then you pretty much have to start calling hundreds of other people evil or villians, to the point that the heroes/good people are actually a stark minority. (not a pun)

LOL I started my post by saying "there is no shortage of villans in ASoIaF"

And thanks for reminding me of Arya, I completely forgot about her. She, for me, would fall into both the 2nd category (Characters who committed villainous acts but are not necessarily villains) and the 3rd (possible future villains).

[Ser-Arthur-Dayne]

I Wholly disagree with your estimation of Cersie.

To each his own :dunno:

[Sun]

To each his own :dunno:

It's what makes this forum so much fun. :D

[Grail King]

There is no shortage of villains in ASoIaF, the most obvious of which are:

Cersie, Joff, Tywin, Roose Bolton, Ramsay Bolton, Most of the Freys, Euron Greyjoy, Theon Greyjoy, Victarion Greyjoy, Lysa Tully, Littlefinger, Aeryn Targaryan, Rattleshirt, Janos Slynt, the Mountain, Lady Stoneheart (the name says it all, really), most of Slavers Bey.

Characters that are guilty of villainous acts, but are not necessarily villains:

Varys, Dany (Let's not go into this here, just check any Dany thread for which acts), Mellisander, Stannis, Jaime, Tyrion, Sandor, Bran (I consider hijacking a sentient being's consciousness a villainous act), Queen of Thorns, Loras (Killed 4 knights for no reason), the 4 NW who stabbed Jon, Bronn, Pycell.

Possible future villains:

Bloodraven, Dany, Bran,

I don't consider these two Villains, they did are doing villainous acts, one is a money grabber who was an opportunist looking to advance himself (look where it got him) with his end given by the son of the man he betrayed, too bad Jon could not have beheaded him numerous times.

A distraught mother who learned her husband and children are dead with the exception of one daughter who is held prisoner in a den of lions who is watching her eldest son being butchered by one of his own banner man.

To me she's justified killing anyone and everyone who was involved, add to the fact that she was dead for 3 days and last thing on her mind was vengeance is a breathing corpse NOT GUILTY I may not like the whole path she has taken but in todays world I call those mitigating circumstances.

[The King in the South]

LOL I started my post by saying "there is no shortage of villans in ASoIaF"

And thanks for reminding me of Arya, I completely forgot about her. She, for me, would fall into both the 2nd category (Characters who committed villainous acts but are not necessarily villains) and the 3rd (possible future villains).

Thats my point though? You can't just single out a few if you're going by "most people are villians" anyways.

Personally i think there is a difference between being bad and being a villian/evil. Janos Slynt is an ass, a corrupt pig, and several other things, but I'd hardly start calling him a villian. Villianism should be reserved for guys like Ramsay, etc, not simply people who have commited bad acts.

I'm curious by the way, if you think JS is a villian, what is your opinion on guys like Bronn, Tyrion, etc?

[Ramsay Gimp]

This gouges me into thinking, how did the Ironborn have such bad intelligence about how they would fare against the Boltons?

The Greyjoys are a naval power, and sent inadequate land resources to hold land in the north. Theon seems a sacrificial lamb for no good reason, even if he brought it on himself. Asha even notes the hopelessness of holding Deepwood Motte. Lack of planning , seems the Ironborn blew the whole deal their invasion.

One guesses Victarion will have better success.

Balon's death and Theon's clusterfuck really doomed the Ironborn in the North, I guess.

[Sun]

Thats my point though? You can't just single out a few if you're going by "most people are villians" anyways.

Personally i think there is a difference between being bad and being a villian/evil. Janos Slynt is an ass, a corrupt pig, and several other things, but I'd hardly start calling him a villian. Villianism should be reserved for guys like Ramsay, etc, not simply people who have commited bad acts.

I'm curious by the way, if you think JS is a villian, what is your opinion on guys like Bronn, Tyrion, etc?

Bronn is an interesting one. He is certainly capable of villainous acts, but is he truly a villain? I don't know. He commits those acts not for his own motives but for the motives of those who pay his wages. He's a henchman, a sellsword, a mercenary. Is he a villain? An argument can be made for it. For me, villainy required malicious motive, I'm not sure Bronn fits that category, but he may.

Tyrion: He's committed villainous acts, there is no doubt, Killing Shae and his father to name 2. But his motives are not villainous - anger, passion, revenge, a sense of injustice - not in my opinion, anyway. And he feels a real sense of guilt about his actions, which redeems him to some extent in my eyes. We've also seen Tyrion try to do the right thing, not for himself but for others - Penny for instance - which is something Slynt can never be accused of.

Personally, I don't see Tyrion as a villain... yet.

On the question of evil. I have trouble defining evil, to me it's an abstract concept with blurry boundaries. Therefor, I don't use it as a measure, because I don't really know what it is. My villains are defined on the basis of good or bad intentions. Do these characters manifest goodness, for its own sake, in any way? Are their actions motivated by malice, greed, pettiness, or a thirst for power? Have they displayed disinterestedness, in even the smallest measure? Do they display a sense of guilt or remorse from their actions? Do they derive a sense of satisfaction from them? Is their sense of right or wrong out of kilter by Westeros standards, not modern RL standards? Are they redeemable, imo?

The answers to all these questions is very much subject to how each of us sees a certain character, so I don't expect other readers to agree with my choices, or indeed with how I choose to define villainy.

[Sun]

I don't consider these two Villains, they did are doing villainous acts, one is a money grabber who was an opportunist looking to advance himself (look where it got him) with his end given by the son of the man he betrayed, too bad Jon could not have beheaded him numerous times. A distraught mother who learned her husband and children are dead with the exception of one daughter who is held prisoner in a den of lions who is watching her eldest son being butchered by one of his own banner man. To me she's justified killing anyone and everyone who was involved, add to the fact that she was dead for 3 days and last thing on her mind was vengeance is a breathing corpse NOT GUILTY I may not like the whole path she has taken but in todays world I call those mitigating circumstances.

I disagree with you on Slynt, and I already explained why in a previous post.

Lady Stoneheart, I think I should explain. I see her as a villain because so far her entire existence is centered on a need for revenge, and seems entirely incapable of mercy or forgiveness (I maybe wrong about this, if so please enlighten me). Vengefulness as an emotion is understandable but not when it's the only emotion.

Her motives are also entirely selfish, she's subverted the BWB from its original mission of protecting the smallfolk under Dondarion, into a vigilante assassination squad.

Was she bluffing when she threatened to kill Pod and Hyle? Did she kill them? Who else has she killed? Did she only kill Freys she remembered from the hall, or did she also kill Lannister's and Frey's bannerman soldiers that she happened to come across? On that last question, if my memory of the book is accurate, the answer is yes. For that, she is a villain, issuing summary justice based on her own need for retribution.

You can certainly make an argument of mitigating circumstances, and her being a zombie and all, perhaps I shouldn't judge her by human standards. But I'll stick to her being a villain, for now. Later books may shed a different light on her character. It would be awesome if we could get her POV as a prologue.

[LuisDantas]

You list the Kettleblacks, but not guys like Bronn or Brown Ben Plumm or basically any other sellsword out there?

Yes. Why the surprise? Bronn and the others are hired help. The Kettleblacks are far more involved in the intrigues of King's Landing, far more aware of the damage they cause. More to the point, they have a lot of choice on the matter as well, while Bronn has consistently caused less damage the more choices he has.

As for your points on Melisandre, if you are going to use that to justify her as a villian you could call the following people villians as well considering they have all used violence/manipulation/etc to achieve their own ends.

Arya

Tyrion

The Hound

The Tyrells and their Vassals

The Karstarks

Hoster Tully

90% of the Wildlings

90% of the Ironborn

Dozens of others, but I don't really feel like listing them. Must as well put 90% of the Lord of Westeroes for that matter.

Uh, on what justification? Are any of them religious nuts with a Messiah complex or something? Does any of them demand a tribute of blood or the humiliation of those who disagree with them?

A fair case might be made for the Ironborn, I suppose. Other than that, you are missing the point of what a villain is.

I just don't see how Arya killing a man because someone told her he was bad is any less evil than Melisandre killing a man because her gods told her too?

Really?

It is a matter of having a choice, of taking responsibility for one's beliefs, and of choosing whether or not to be destructive when the choice presents itself.

Arya is trying to survive and, perhaps, to enact vengeance. Melisandre is trying to buy her glory with the blood of anothers.

While I don't particularly like Arya's history in Braavos (and before that, in Harrenhall) she falls way short of the levels of evil that Melisandre pours from her body.

If we want to go by todays standards, pretty much everybody in Westeroes is a villian, except for a select few, which is I think we should limit the "villian" category to the true monsters like Ramsay, Gregor, the Blood Mummers, etc

Nope. Today's standards, apparently, are much too lenient. Many people have apparently lost sight of personal responsibility and lent their moral integrity to their political and religious leaders.

And by which measure is Melisandre (or Stannis) not a monster anyway?

[Grail King]

I totally agree that Theon is a villain, or at minimum guilty of the actions of one. I don't know what else you would call someone who killed innocent people just to save face.

I don't think he's inherently evil, he did some villainous acts to a family that treated him well yes he was a pampered prisoner.

And he has total guilt and remorse especially after he remembered and saw how he was treated by his father and the rest of the North.

Unfortunately for Theon he may and I think should pay for his treason.

And while I think of it Same for Jamie if he didn't push Bran out the window I could feel different for him.

[LuisDantas]

I don't agree that Cersei or Tywin are sadists.

Fair point. Tywin, however, is monstruously callous, and as a result his behavior is often difficult to tell apart from that of a sadist.

Cersei, I will agree, is not quite as bad as her father. But she has a far more damaged moral compass.

(...)

Cersei to me is simply the prototypical sociopath. If you read this description of sociopathy: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html ...it suits her to a T.

Point granted. :)

Tywin to me is more complex and cannot be easily pigeonholed into a psychological category. He seems to have a grasp of right and wrong, in that he tries to always send underlings to do his dirtiest work and keep his own activities and hands as clean as possible. Gregor, Walder Frey, the Boltons, Amory Lorch ...many have taken the blame and the fall for Tywin's plans and orders. So he is not the same as Cersei, he is much more cautious and aware of his image and how he will be perceived by people.

Cautious, yes. But complex? He is cunning, not complex at all. He is obsessed with his broken understanding of "honor" (which is actually a subversion of authority) and with not looking weak. Anything else is negotiable to him.

That is not really very complex at all.

[fluffywarthog]

With the end of ADWD, I had thought it pretty obvious that Varys at least was a Targareyan loyalist from the start. He organized Aegon's survival and upbringing as a 'good king,' helped every honorable or competent (Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, Kevan Lannister) administrator into an early death, while promoting and aiding the least-likable tyrants into power (Robert, Joffrey, Cersei). In the long view, every action he's taken is to divide and wreck Westeros as much as possible, presumably so that the dashing Prince Aegon, the one Who Was Promised, can return, and unite the Kingdoms again with a loyalist-led Riverlands, Vale, and Dorne.

Littlefinger seems to have his own agenda, but not necessarily a mutually exclusive one to Varys and Aegon's. He helped Joffrey into power, and brought the Tyrells into the Lannister coalition to eliminate the unpopular-but-competent Stannis, all the while making Cersei paranoid. Rather than bringing the Vale into the war for the Lannisters, he stymies its lords and paralyzes it. He replaces Joffrey, removes Tyrion, and drives a wedge between Dorne and the Lannisters even further in a single move, while letting Cersei come into her own craziness and cruelty. When he returns to the Vale, he removes the last Arryns from power, and arranges for a Vale-North-Riverlands bloc to be made between Sansa and Harold, with himself in charge. This conceivably means that only the marginalized Greyjoys, the Tyrells, and the now-hated Lannisters stand without Targaryean candidates between Aegon and the Seven Kingdoms.

Sure, Littlefinger's main goals are to get rich, bang Tullys, get revenge on the Starks, and rule the lands of those who have wronged him, but that doesn't mean he can't prep the way for Aegon at the same time.

[fluffywarthog]

Fair point. Tywin, however, is monstruously callous, and as a result his behavior is often difficult to tell apart from that of a sadist.

Cersei, I will agree, is not quite as bad as her father. But she has a far more damaged moral compass.

Point granted. :)

Cautious, yes. But complex? He is cunning, not complex at all. He is obsessed with his broken understanding of "honor" (which is actually a subversion of authority) and with not looking weak. Anything else is negotiable to him.

That is not really very complex at all.

I'm not sure about that- if you consider Tywin Lannister in the way modern historians tend to look at Louis XIV, then he looks a little more sympathetic. His goal is to create a Lannister dynasty that can rule the Kingdoms effectively, authoritatively, and cheaply. His childhood was defined by the incompetence, extravagance, and public excess of his family; his first actions were to shame the whore who had made his predecessor a public joke, call in his debts, and then show how far he would go by completely annihilating the first debtor who refused him.

None of his actions are without motivation or a clearly intended effect; his cruelty is a means to an end, no matter how much he hates those he victimizes or wrongs. The sack of King's Landing -not to mention Clegane and Lorch's rape and murder of the royal family- serve as a clear sign to the rebels that he is willing to play ball with them, to secure a Lannister's place on the throne, as well as to indicate exactly what will happen to the rebels if they cross him.

As for Tywin's right and wrong, "survive and thrive" is right, and "extinction and mockery" is wrong. He doesn't care for the opinion of others, except when it can directly serve his purpose. Jaime, in contrast, wanted desperately to be right and admired by his family and the smallfolk, but by acting for that end, alienated everyone by ignoring the means to that end. Tywin doesn't slave, doesn't murder or rape or pilage or kill priests or kings, unless he can spin it, wash his hands of it, or dispose of the guilty parties.

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure about that- if you consider Tywin Lannister in the way modern historians tend to look at Louis XIV, then he looks a little more sympathetic. His goal is to create a Lannister dynasty that can rule the Kingdoms effectively, authoritatively, and cheaply. His childhood was defined by the incompetence, extravagance, and public excess of his family; his first actions were to shame the whore who had made his predecessor a public joke, call in his debts, and then show how far he would go by completely annihilating the first debtor who refused him.

Fair enough.

None of his actions are without motivation or a clearly intended effect; his cruelty is a means to an end, no matter how much he hates those he victimizes or wrongs.

Or how little. That is my point exactly.

The sack of King's Landing -not to mention Clegane and Lorch's rape and murder of the royal family- serve as a clear sign to the rebels that he is willing to play ball with them, to secure a Lannister's place on the throne, as well as to indicate exactly what will happen to the rebels if they cross him.

Duly noted. But you expected that to make him look better? :dunno:

As for Tywin's right and wrong, "survive and thrive" is right, and "extinction and mockery" is wrong. He doesn't care for the opinion of others, except when it can directly serve his purpose. Jaime, in contrast, wanted desperately to be right and admired by his family and the smallfolk, but by acting for that end, alienated everyone by ignoring the means to that end. Tywin doesn't slave, doesn't murder or rape or pilage or kill priests or kings, unless he can spin it, wash his hands of it, or dispose of the guilty parties.

In other words, he is the worst kind of monster: that who hires other, less impressive monsters to do his bidding.

I thought you expected to make him look more justified... :dunno:

[The King in the South]

Yes. Why the surprise? Bronn and the others are hired help. The Kettleblacks are far more involved in the intrigues of King's Landing, far more aware of the damage they cause. More to the point, they have a lot of choice on the matter as well, while Bronn has consistently caused less damage the more choices he has.

Uh, on what justification? Are any of them religious nuts with a Messiah complex or something? Does any of them demand a tribute of blood or the humiliation of those who disagree with them?

A fair case might be made for the Ironborn, I suppose. Other than that, you are missing the point of what a villain is.

Really?

It is a matter of having a choice, of taking responsibility for one's beliefs, and of choosing whether or not to be destructive when the choice presents itself.

Arya is trying to survive and, perhaps, to enact vengeance. Melisandre is trying to buy her glory with the blood of anothers.

While I don't particularly like Arya's history in Braavos (and before that, in Harrenhall) she falls way short of the levels of evil that Melisandre pours from her body.

Nope. Today's standards, apparently, are much too lenient. Many people have apparently lost sight of personal responsibility and lent their moral integrity to their political and religious leaders.

And by which measure is Melisandre (or Stannis) not a monster anyway?

All of the sellswords have a choice. They don't have to take that person's gold. They can walk away. I don't see how you can call Osmund Kettleblack bad but not Bronn. Both are willing to murder children for money/favors. There is no difference.

The problem with your arguement against Melisandre is that your looking at her from an outsider perspective, but then for Arya/etc you're looking at them from their perspective. Melisandre believes she is saving the world by burning Lord Alester Florent, etc, Arya believes she is saving herself by killing a a Harrenhal guard.

Was it vengenace that made Arya kill the merchant in ADWD or made her kill Dareon? No it wasn't. It's because she's not actually as good a person as some people would like to believe.

Besides Arya's correlation, the others just are just as cruel. Melisandre is killing/humiliating people because they don't share her beliefs. Hoster Tully is killing innocent people because of what city they happened to be living in.

I think your placing too much focus into the religious part of Melisandre's action. In my eyes, a murder is a murder. Be it for personal gain or religious gain. Melisandre has never actually killed someone simply because she is sadistic (like Ramsay, etc), and neither have most of the examples I listed, so I don't see how one of them is a villian and the other is not.

As to your point on comparing today's moral standards to medieval standars, I personally think that by today's standards, 99% of people (at least the Nobles that is) are villianous, but by Westerosi standards, the percentage is far less. That's why I don't judge them by todays standards, because honestly, they're all terrible in that case.

[Mayhem]

During Robert's Rebellion, Hoster Tully put entire villages to the sword and torch.

just like every other lord