Character Evaluation "Game"

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

I had the idea of a thread, in which one would post abiding certain rules, which would diminish the endless circulation of discussions around certain controversial topics due to repetitive argumentation, as well as otherwise inevitable deviations, and therefore possibly make the disputes more productive. Those controversial topics often happen to be the characters and their controversial decisions, and I think the following model would fit such matters of discussion quite well.

Now I don't have the time to put that much thought in it, but a simple set of rules could be the following:

1) Poster A posts a statement, that poster B has to try to disprove. ( For example - "Stannis' passivity in AgoT should be considered treason" :devil: )
2) Poster B posts his response.
3) Various posters C1, C2, C3... post their reviews of poster B's response and his opinion on whether and how far the statement has been disproved. Then(after a reasonable amount of time has passed), poster A picks the poster C, who in his/her opinion had the best review of the brief exchange, and that poster C can post another statement.

I would be glad if someone would come up with a better idea with a similar thought behind it, or with rules that could be applied to other topics as well, such as more general theories.


(Until I am told otherwise, I don't believe this would belong in "Forum Games", as I expect this to have the same content as any other weekly Stannis/Dany/Jaime/Tywin/Sansa/Tyrion-discussion, but hopefully less chaotic)

Well, I hope someone is interested in such a topic like this and that it turns out to be no less fun than the others.

[EstEst]

That sounds really interesting to me. I even have an idea of a statement to discuss. However, for now I'd prefer to be a casual observer, to better catch a spirit of a thing. And, today is a working day, cannot be here a lot.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

Statement:

Victarion is a strongly moral character.

Evidence:

He has reason and desire to kill his brother, but he doesn't because kinslaying is wrong.

He loved his 3rd wife, but in his culture the punishment for unfaithful wives is honor killing. He chose what his culture believes is right over what he loved.

He is pious even when it's against his best interests. He sacrificed the prettiest bedslaves instead of taking them for his own pleasure.

He is planning to doublecross his king, but that's because Euron is an ungodly man and has no right to the Seastone chair.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

I fear I must apologize. I thought this thread was a great idea for debating controversial topics. It was never my intention to kill the thread by posting a statement of such flawless logic and astute analysis that none dared respond.

[Winter's Knight]

Statement:

Victarion is a strongly moral character.

Evidence:

He has reason and desire to kill his brother, but he doesn't because kinslaying is wrong.

He loved his 3rd wife, but in his culture the punishment for unfaithful wives is honor killing. He chose what his culture believes is right over what he loved.

He is pious even when it's against his best interests. He sacrificed the prettiest bedslaves instead of taking them for his own pleasure.

He is planning to doublecross his king, but that's because Euron is an ungodly man and has no right to the Seastone chair.

His treason is no longer forgiveable, for Euron was chosen by the men of the Iron Isles, in one of the oldest rituals of the Drowned God, a ritual called by a higly respected and deout priest of said God.

Plus, this treason means he will kill Euron.

[Dance Layder]

His treason is no longer forgiveable, for Euron was chosen by the men of the Iron Isles, in one of the oldest rituals of the Drowned God, a ritual called by a higly respected and deout priest of said God.

Plus, this treason means he will kill Euron.

Good counter to the piousness aspect, but it seems there's nothing to be said about the rest of the topics brought up

[EstEst]

I fear I must apologize. I thought this thread was a great idea for debating controversial topics. It was never my intention to kill the thread by posting a statement of such flawless logic and astute analysis that none dared respond.

:D Okay, let me try to respond, though I do like Victarion.

His moral qualities are more than questioned due to the following points:

1. He doublecrossed his God, not only his brother. Moreover, he's trying to sit on two chairs simultaneously which is not very pious. Gives credit to his pragmatism though, but not to his morality.

2. He kills people for no very moral causes. E.g., he killed Giskari captain for telling wrong things. Kerwin, for being a bad maester. A bit too cruel and not even pragmatic.

3. He's prepared to make Danaerys a widow to get her for himself, just like that, he doesn't even have any second thought about that. Despite it's not a crime committed yet, but the intention is plain and the whole easiness shows that he is not overly burdened with morality.

4. And he doesn't like animals! it's a first indication of immorality, IMO, even in real life.

Having said that, (and I hope you understand that it's mostly for fun), I can only repeat that I like the old guy. I'm amused by his thoughts and his life position. I root for him, like for some little and cocky football team that I know is not going to play in the finals, but still is worth rooting for.

[Winter's Knight]

Good counter to the piousness aspect, but it seems there's nothing to be said about the rest of the topics brought up

I picked the hardest point. It doesn't take a genius to argue that burning sex slaves alive is morally repugnant.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

His treason is no longer forgiveable, for Euron was chosen by the men of the Iron Isles, in one of the oldest rituals of the Drowned God, a ritual called by a higly respected and devout priest of said God.

Plus, this treason means he will kill Euron.

That highly respected and devout priest of said God intended for Victarion to win. It wasn't the Drowned God who chose Euron, but rather the mortal men of the Iron Islands, blinded by the heretic Euron's promises of glory.

Vic has wanted to kill Euron for several years now and when given the opportunity on the Shields, has restrained himself. (besides, it's the giant kraken Vic summons that will kill Euron, not Vic himself.

1. He doublecrossed his God, not only his brother. Moreover, he's trying to sit on two chairs simultaneously which is not very pious. Gives credit to his pragmatism though, but not to his morality.

2. He kills people for no very moral causes. E.g., he killed Giskari captain for telling wrong things. Kerwin, for being a bad maester. A bit too cruel and not even pragmatic.

3. He's prepared to make Danaerys a widow to get her for himself, just like that, he doesn't even have any second thought about that. Despite it's not a crime committed yet, but the intention is plain and the whole easiness shows that he is not overly burdened with morality.

4. And he doesn't like animals! it's a first indication of immorality, IMO, even in real life.

1.The Drowned God's enemy is the Storm God. Vic has no reason to believe the Drowned God is antagonistic towards the Red God. By giving sacrifices to R'hllor, Vic is simply giving thanks where thanks is obviously due. No disrespect.

2.Victarion's kills have all been tossed in the sea, and have on occasion bought favorable winds. Both pious and pragmatic.

3.Can anyone here objectively argue that Dany would be better off married to Hizdar rather than Victarion? Vic wants what's best for Dany, and luckily that coincides with what Vic was gonna do anyway.

4.I love animals, but monkeys are simply evil. In Thailand one of those fuckers stole my map out of my pocket and ate a quarter of it. In Indonesia another monkey jumped out at my bike and I almost crashed. Animals are great. Monkeys are too close to humans though. They're like spoiled kindergardeners. And once they start throwing poop? Who loves them then?

[EstEst]

<snip>

1.The Drowned God's enemy is the Storm God. i. Vic has no reason to believe the Drowned God is antagonistic towards the Red God. By giving sacrifices to R'hllor, Vic is simply giving thanks where thanks is obviously due. No disrespect.

2.Victarion's kills have all been tossed in the sea, and have on occasion bought favorable winds. Both pious and pragmatic.

3.Can anyone here objectively argue that Dany would be better off married to Hizdar rather than Victarion? ii. Vic wants what's best for Dany, and luckily that coincides with what Vic was gonna do anyway.

4.I love animals, but monkeys are simply evil. In Thailand one of those fuckers stole my map out of my pocket and ate a quarter of it. In Indonesia another monkey jumped out at my bike and I almost crashed. Animals are great. Monkeys are too close to humans though. iii. They're like spoiled kindergardeners. And once they start throwing poop? Who loves them then?

(You have your own numbering, so I'll use i and ii)

i. Believers in Red God are very insistent that he's the one and only God existing. if Vic is posing himself as a follower of the R'hllor than he's supposed to be a one-God follower. I'm not sure that it's similar with the believers in Drowned God (+Storm God), but as far as I understand they're too supposed to believe in those two being the only two gods existing. Following both sets of gods is hypocrisy, from either side, which is pragmatic but not overly moral.

ii. Vic is going to kill her husband, whoever it is! Perhaps it's indeed better for Dany (depends on what's Vic like as a husband, heh), but still it's an intention of a murder. We're talking about morality, so it's far from it.

iii. :-))