Making Game of Thrones about the "good guys" and the "bad guys". (Book spoilers)

[K12]

Whilst I do agree with the OP that over-obsessing on who "the good guys" are makes the show torture to watch. There are loads of great characters that I want to keep going despite the fact that they're twats (e.g. Littlefinger) I think that having characters you route for and characters who you want to see have some kind of comeuppance is an inevitable part of enjoying fiction.


Stannis and to a lesser extent Daenerys are suffering a bit because their motivations aren't made clear enough and they keep doing brutal things without it being obvious what their thought processes are.

Stannis burning Alester Florent to death was not but in it's proper context so the only interpretation you can take is "I guess he's just a dick".

 

[Tayh]

Why do people make out Littlefinger to be a bad guy?
To me, he's one of the more respectable and admirable characters.
Of all the players in the Game Of Thrones, he's the one that started with the least advantages. He has no House worth anything. No inheritance. No family to rely on. No ties to the other houses.
He's playing THEIR game. And winning.
Maybe I remember the books wrong, but he never seemed like a Bad Guy to me. More like a person who beat the odds - helped by a lot of ambition and skill.

 

[Ipsen]

Does anyone else have a slight problem with people making the series into some kind of good vs evil thing?
I really noticed this after the last episode, with people complaining how once again the "bad guys" have won.

I'm starting to NOT have a problem with it, if that makes sense. It's now 4 seasons of 'hope-dashing climax ~episode 8-9', and while nowhere NEAR boring, it is certainly noticeable. [user]StriderShinryu[/user] hit upon it as well, but this repeated arc pattern (adding a +year for new season/???? wait time for next book) can be disorienting for presenting the theme of story properly.

This sort of 'theme' of killing the honorable (I think Greg Tito put it quite well; Martin punishes virtue), especially when repeated on characters, starts to rub off as disenchanting. It compounded into something noticeable at this last season's climax, the Oberyn vs Mountain fight. If we're going to use 'reality' as a judge, we both HAVE to concede that the Mountain could have very well died from the wounds Oberyn inflicted in the fight. The Mountain was stabbed in the midsection/stomach, but if the spear hit his diaphragm or lung?

It seems fans in threads like this go on and on about how Oberyn was cocky, drunk, fan-favorite, seeking vengeance, etc., and while none of these are false, they don't actually explain the outcome of the match, in a 'real' perspective (which I sort of buy from GoT). These explanations, at least if not significantly just sound like the forming of the Mountain's plot armor[footnote]playing dumb here[/footnote]. He's the fuckin' Mountain, so RIP, Oberyn. (Slightly) Ridiculous.

Case in point, from the world, to the range of the characters and the challenges they face, I bought the notion that anything can happen in the world of Westeros. That's kinda not happening anymore, so now the show has to spin around a few central themes. I could say I'm slightly disappointed, but I find the quality of the show high enough to beat out even my own demands, so I have 0 qualms about continuing, wherever it goes.

Should start the books soon, though.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I agree with the OP 100%. However, as far as good vs. evil goes, the Mountain probably was one of the most pure embodiments of evil in the series. I mean, we've even seen some tiny redeeming qualities in Joffrey whereas we never look closely enough at the Mountain to see any (if there are any for that matter).

 

[mmmikey]

If there isn't good vs evil or black and white characterizations in GoT or ASOI&F, there surely is a very, very strong contrast between the likes of Oberyn and the Mountain. And for that matter the ethics and morals of the Starks and Lannisters. The Mountain has pretty much been established as a complete psycho out to rape, pillage, and murder to his content at the bidding of Tywin, and largely himself since he has no physical rival.

And while Oberyn is no saint, he has a lot more favorable character traits than Gregor. He's out to avenge his sister largely, and her children by extension, for being guilty of only being Targaryen. And he believes that Tywin orchestrated her fate, which isn't a stretch since Cersei got snubbed in favor of Oberyn's sister in been married to the throne. And if I had to distill it, Oberyn died of carelessness. He was arrogant, but he had reason to be, he put the Mountain down in a dominant fashion. While he could've been more prudent since the contest was pretty much won by him at that point, he wanted what he didn't have, which was a confession, and he got it at the cost of his life.

I recently watched a portion of season 1 again and it's not hard to see why fans think this paradigm of Black vs White. In the first book/season we're largely introduced to the Stark family that gets it's family head chopped off and later decimated, largely to the benefit of the Lannisters who have gained nearly all their ground on manipulation, which isn't an honor bound family's strong suit. Just personally speaking I'd rather be an ally of the Starks since I can take them for their word, or at least hold them to their honor, than I could any of the Lannisters. Readers/viewers are also strongly misled from the beginning that the Lannisters are behind the death of Jon Arryn and seek to kill the King and control Westeros in a Windfall. All the while incestously guaranteeing their continued inheritance for some time to come. Add in Jamie's disregard for the life of a child to hide his affair and I think it sets up the Lannisters as a pretty morally bankrupt family. Tyrion, the most empathetic and sympathetic of his group, ignorant but suspicious of details surrounding the events in season/book 1 is held in contempt by his own family, except for Jamie.

So far we've seen the Starks get cut down by the schemes of Littlefinger, Cersei, and Tywin. The Lannisters have pretty much won the Game of Thrones so far. Even with Joffrey dead (which is probably to their benefit) a thoroughbred Lannister sits on the throne at the counsel of the grand chess master Tywin. When it seemed like Tyrion was saved and Obreyn triumphed to finally vanquish one party who greatly wronged him and many others, he was killed savagely with grave consequences.

So as a viewer it's been pretty much every major victory in Westeros falling to the Lannisters. Hell Tywin has even driven a wedge between Danerys and her highest counsel. And then the new champion for the underdogs/wronged and rookie of the season has victory within his grasp but gets brutally killed in the end satisfying the reigning Westeros illuminati. There's a reason why GRR Martin is likened to a troll.

I'm reading a lot further into the future of the overall plot. I'm also pretty sure the White Walkers are pretty much a soulless, and evil force by any living creature's standard, for extinguishing/assimilating life to their/its will. & It seems as though Danerys and her dragons will be among the forces of fire who come to save Westeros from its most wicked Winter yet, while the strife of the major houses will put a big welcome mat out from the common folk for her arrival/save.

But people are right in saying there isn't a one-dimensional, binary good and evil figure (so far) in the series, and things aren't always as they seem (Gregor may be mentally ill for any number of causes). It's a twisted plot with conflicted characters and entertaining as hell. I look forward to whats to come even though most of the people I've invested in got snuffed out in some way or another.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I always thought it was funny that the audience naturally hates the lannisters for attempting to take power and rule Westeros but as soon as Robb Stark tries to rule despite having no claim then its all okay because he's not the first to attempt it.

Personally I think its lucky that the red god never brought Ned back to life, he'd probably have executed his son and wife on principle for their lack of 'honour'

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

For the record I have no idea how this was/is portrayed in the HBO series - I'm one of those stuffy purists who, whilst acknowledging that books need to be adapted for TV due to the differences in the mediums, cannot bear to see the original material messed with. I managed to harrumph and splutter my way through the first series - just - but haven't bothered with it since then.

I've generally been pleased with the show. Some of the actors give such a good performance, that characters I didn't care much about in the books become my favourites (for example Syrio Forel).
Nevertheless my only major issue is how (especially in Season 4) they seem to be forefully trying to make Game of Thrones even edgier(for example making a scene with consensual sex from the books into rape). It's like - this is ASoIaF, you don't need to make it any darker!

I can't really speak as to that without having seen more of the show, but it seems kind of inevitable that after having gained popularity and high ratings that the writers would try and keep the shock value up so as to try and keep the audience engaged. I agree with you, if the books are followed faithfully then there really is no need to try and add any extra shocks, but hey - this is how tv execs operate.

 

[Silvanus]

I always thought it was funny that the audience naturally hates the lannisters for attempting to take power and rule Westeros but as soon as Robb Stark tries to rule despite having no claim then its all okay because he's not the first to attempt it.

I think people tend to hate the Lannisters for a bit more than that. There's the Sack of King's Landing, the crippling of Bran Stark (and following assassination attempt), the unprovoked murder of Ned's retinue, the invasion of the Riverlands before war was actually declared, the murder of Beric's troop despite his carrying the King's banner...

 

[Lord Kloo]

I always thought it was funny that the audience naturally hates the lannisters for attempting to take power and rule Westeros but as soon as Robb Stark tries to rule despite having no claim then its all okay because he's not the first to attempt it.

I think people tend to hate the Lannisters for a bit more than that. There's the Sack of King's Landing, the crippling of Bran Stark (and following assassination attempt), the unprovoked murder of Ned's retinue, the invasion of the Riverlands before war was actually declared, the murder of Beric's troop despite his carrying the King's banner...

True, and that's missing out all of the Mountain's crimes which mostly come on the order of Tywin... I suppose I selectively remember that stuff because the Lannisters are all such bad-asses and Tywin seems to be the only man capable of actually ruling anything

 

[Silvanus]

True, and that's missing out all of the Mountain's crimes which mostly come on the order of Tywin... I suppose I selectively remember that stuff because the Lannisters are all such bad-asses and Tywin seems to be the only man capable of actually ruling anything

Well, he comes across as an efficient warlord. What else do we know? He cannot look past his own hateful prejudice; he cares about the family name above all, though doesn't care a fig for the actual happiness of his family members; he successfully alienates huge swathes of people for political capital (Dorne, among others).

 

[DeimosMasque]

I always thought it was funny that the audience naturally hates the lannisters for attempting to take power and rule Westeros but as soon as Robb Stark tries to rule despite having no claim then its all okay because he's not the first to attempt it.

Personally I think its lucky that the red god never brought Ned back to life, he'd probably have executed his son and wife on principle for their lack of 'honour'

I never got the impression that Rob was trying to take over Westros, but rather trying to win independence for the North. Hence why he was willing to ally with Renly. Renly could have the Iron Throne as long as he recognized that the North was it's own free kingdom again.

 

[lucky_sharm]

snip

I think its unfair to paint all the Lannisters as morally bankrupt. No matter how cruel their actions come across at times, there's reason behind why they behave the way they do. Tywin is an amoral but pragmatic leader whose father nearly ran his family into the ground despite his kind nature. Cersei is better explained in the books since she gets her own POV chapters and you can see from her perspective where her malice and paranoia comes from. Jaime, throughout the series, probably has as many acts of compassion to his name as he does cruelty.

Speaking of Jaime, why do people so desperately need Jaime to be "good" or "evil"? I'm fairly certain he won't have a clean 'redemption arc' that makes it easy for readers to stop asking questions and just explain him with a pithy lesson. He'll continue to do good things and terrible things and end in some ambiguous way that makes those debates continue forever.
More than any other character, he exists to play with a trope. He's the good-looking great swordsman, first son of a powerful family -- the traditional hero in every dragon-slaying story -- and he's written to make a complete mess of that easy story. He's sometimes insightful and sometimes petty, sometimes caring and sometimes cruel. He'll always be that way. He'll never be a clean, simple story you can explain in a sentence or two. That's the whole point of his existence as a character.
He exists because Thomas Jefferson wrote stirring words about freedom and then went out to fuck the woman he held captive. He exists because the soldiers who freed the world from the Nazis committed some war crimes in the process. He exists because, in our world, everyone has the capacity for good and evil and we rarely stick to one for long.
I'm fairly certain he'll do some atrocious things and some good things in the remaining 6, and die without giving us an easy moral to his story.

 

[mmmikey]

snip

snip, snip

I tried to take care on saying I trust the Starks ahead of the Lannisters, since Robb breaking his oath to Frey was a major plot point. Catelyn held a vicious grudge against Jon Snow for Ned's sins. The entire Stark clan couldn't stop themselves from reminding Theon he was their property. The Starks were forthcoming and honest to a fault. And also followed laws and rules to the detriment of their people/the northmmen and themselves.

I've only read the first book. I'd have to say you summarize the hypocrisy of the nobles and characters extremely well. If I had to pick a house to deal with I'd rather deal with one I could trust. I'd rather deal with none at all. I always found it strange how many people are thirsty to rule in Westeros when it seems like the worst place to be. Even the throne, while awesome and symbolic, is undesirable (at least to me).

snip

snip, snip

I think most of the Lannisters morals only come out with members of their own family. And even then that's not enough as the trial of Tyrion is proving quite well.

But going back to season 1 we're introduced to Jamie and Cersei being framed to have some hand in the death of the Hand to cover up their affair, that has resulted in bastard children who have no legitimate claim to the throne. From there he arrives at Winterfell to act like an asshole to his hosts, trying to instigate a fight with Ned and mocking Jon Snow. And by the end of the first episode he pushes Bran intending on killing him to cover up his affair (which again slants the viewers to thinking the Lannisters organized the death of Jon Arryn as well since he was investigating Robert's lineage).

Next thing we see Joffrey being a twat to his uncle and his hosts and slapped by Tyrion as a result. The Hound remorselessly kills the butcher boy at the whims of Joffrey with Cersei's backing, and seeking to do something to Arya. And clearly Cersei and Joffrey talk about killing the Starks, because they're not them. They also seem to take pleasure in making Sansa suffer. And she did everything in her power to have Robert die.

And in the end Joffrey goes back on his promise to spare Ned Stark to hurt Sansa, and because he has contempt for the rest of the Stark family.

This is the introduction to the Lannister family. The closest we get to any sort of redeeming qualities are held in Tyrion who is kicked to the curb and under threat by most of his own family. And hints at Jamie killing the Mad King for nobler reasons than clearing a path for his father's invading army.

Tywin makes a great head of state. He is largely credited the success of Westeros under the Mad King. And proves himself in GoT as well, even putting Joffrey under his thumb. He just has a shitty way of raising his kids, and completely fails to realize Tyrion's value in a never ending attempt to get his golden child to inherit everything and carry on the Lannister name. The kingdom prospers on his watch, but only to seal his family's legacy.