darkstar0155
Member
Like I said a tiny bit ago. It reminds me of people that try to justify the horrible things their spouses or significant others or family members do.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Game of Thrones *NO BOOK DISCUSSION* |OT| Season 7 - [Read the OP]
- Thread starter Cornballer
- Start date
- Status
Like I said a tiny bit ago. It reminds me of people that try to justify the horrible things their spouses or significant others or family members do.
More_Badass
Member
So little a deal that they killed people to cover it up.
Cornballer
Member
- Promo pics and logline for Sunday's new episode (not much in these that I can see, but please spoiler tag discussion as appropriate)
The Artisan
Member
What about the evil actions that Atomic Playboy posted above for you?
You're allowed to like evil characters doing evil things in fiction, but to rationalize the things they've done as if they weren't evil actions to begin with, raises eyebrows.
Um, does this actually make sense to you? So when Cersei chose to fight for power that gave her license to royally fuck anyone and everyone? She has at her disposal a vast amount of resources that she had other options beside being a ruthless tyrant and dying.
Some people rationalize it because they don't want to admit they're rooting for a villain, so they try to find some redeeming factor to it.
Robdraggoo
Member
She wasn't involved in any of those, and that was the posters point.
To be fair to cersei, and hate Being fair to cersai. She said all things joffrey did legit shook her. She tried to control the freak, be he was uncontrollable. Only tywin scared the shit out of the little devil.
The Artisan
Member
It is okay to root for the villain though. But supporting the villain's actions is a questionable position (clearly, from the past 2 days of discussion in this thread).
Cersei is a great character - I fucking hate her, she is evil without a doubt, the actress has done a PHENOMENAL job, but to say she is justified is very, very, strange in my opinion.
To be even fairer, Cersei was the one who put Joffrey on the throne. She knew he wasn't Robert's son, she knew he was a monster, but because she wanted power, she had Robert killed.
My point is that there are people who don't think it's okay to root for a villain, that's why sometimes people support/rationalize that stuff.
More_Badass
Member
You can root for a villain without trying to justify their actions.
Like Cersei is a fantastic villain, and it's very satisfying seeing her schemes and rise throughout the series. That doesnt change the fact those schemes and that rise is ruthlessly immoral and twisted and wrong
Both Cersei and Dani are extremely ruthless concerning their goals.
But there is also a huge difference between them, which may make the difference between borderline evil and merely being ruthless.
Countless times Dani has been talked down from extreme actions by pointing out the collateral damage involved, or what her father did when he went crazy.
In the relative same conditions, Circei's general answer is (paraphrased): Who gives a shit?
But there is also a huge difference between them, which may make the difference between borderline evil and merely being ruthless.
Countless times Dani has been talked down from extreme actions by pointing out the collateral damage involved, or what her father did when he went crazy.
In the relative same conditions, Circei's general answer is (paraphrased): Who gives a shit?
Yeah. Her managing to kill the Sparrow and Margaery along with all the others in one fell swoop was a fantastic move to watch. Pretty much the ultimate 'I don't give a fuck anymore' move.
The Artisan
Member
Are you sure man? The arguments that I've read on this thread certainly make it look like people fully support and rationalize Cersei's arc because they just genuinely believe in her over the other characters.
I also haven't come across people, at least here, who have explicitly stated, or sounded like they believe, that it's not okay to root for a villain.
I'm more speaking in a broader sense, not necessarily this thread (sorry, should have clarified), I've met people who act like that.
They get shocked when I tell them I think Clarence Boddicker in Robocop is awesome
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I mostly enjoy Cersei as a villain because they make it pretty clear she isn't actually good at it, she just gets around that because she's so much more ruthless than her peers.
And yet the Targaryens did it for thousands of years and that was fine. Calling her evil for having sex with the only person who treated her with respect, because it happens to be her brother is pretty weaksauce. That's, like, so low on the totem pole of "evil" things.
Again, either she kills Robert or Robert kills her. Roll over and let Robert kill you, Cersei, don't be evil and kill a "good" character.
Margery teamed up with Renly to start a war, and since you're so about rightfulness and whatnot, how is she not evil that she tried to take the Throne from Stannis? She was so obsessed with power that she would go to war and kill Stannis, the rightful king, which would end up with thousands upon thousands of death, all so she could be THE queen. Is she evil for this? Nah, not really, but she's not a good person either. Her actions, and that of her family, would've and did cause, the life's of many people.
Why did Stannis deserve to die? Why did Loras deserve to die? He didn't, but it's a byproduct of entering the game.
So she deserves to be in prison for the crime of having sex with her brother just as much as Loras does for being gay? Good thing he faced "consequences" for being gay. Cersei should've just rolled over and let that happen to her.
I hope to gain nothing but discuss Game of Thrones, which I assume is why anyone is here right now. It's more interesting to explore a character, and their motivations or what events caused them to do what they did, besides just saying, "they're evil". That's so boring. This show deserves better.
Those are the rules of Westeros. You try to get people? You better get them before you are got.
Robert could've had legitimate children with Cersei. He was always to drunk to actually have any. He was as much a product of her having Joffrey as she was.
Margery was a Baratheon, not a Lannister. Margery wanted power, she lost it.
She tortured the lady that tortured her. By the way, this is post Joffrey getting killed, where she went more "evil" than she was before, but again, a lot of her actions were either kill or be killed.
Joffrey tried to kill Tyrion, so Tyrion killed Joffrey, that doesn't not "make sense", that makes perfect sense. It's why everyone, including Cersei, thought he did it. Even Jaime wasn't sure at first.
The cause of the incest is the big deal.
Bits N Pieces
Member
It's only evil to us, for the residents of Kings Landing and Westeros as a whole it's simply par for the course.
FinalStageBoss
Banned
Cercei is a huge POS, lmao@ her not being evil.
Atomic Playboy
Member
You've defended a lot of Cersei's actions. I have yet to see your response to two. She ordered Sansa's direwolf killed after Arya's direwolf runs off. This is a completely unnecessary action done solely to wield power over the Stark family. Also, she attempts to undermine Margaery's sway with the poor people of King's Landing by preventing a food donation to starving people. What manner of action is that if not evil?
Daenerys does some messed up shit too, but the difference is motivation. Daenerys is trying to operate from a position of justice; the Masters tortured the slaves, therefore I must torture the Masters. Cersei cares ONLY about herself and her immediate family. There's no greater cause, no sense of justice that drives her to keep food from starving people; it's just "fuck Margaery." Cersei's only interest is in consolidating her personal power. She's a vain, narcissistic, sociopath who is incapable of feeling empathy or remorse. She's basically the Donald Trump of Westeros. Sure, boiling her down to just "evil" is needlessly reductionist, but you also have to take some pretty insane positions to say that the entirety of what she has done is justifiable.
You're under the impression that I think Cersei is a good person or something. No, she's not because she has done a lot of bad shit, just like a lot of the "good" characters have, too. The great thing about Game of Thrones is that pretty much all character, aside from Ramsay and Joffrey, aren't just evil for the sake of being evil, and a lot of their "bad" actions have merit and reason behind them.
The Direwolf thing, Arya left hers go so it wouldn't be have to die, and because Sansa wouldn't admit that Joffrey was at fault, someone had to pay for Joffrey being hurt. One Direwolf is just as good as the other, and they're wolves anyway, so kill one and the debt is paid for. I fucking hated that the dog died, but Ned understood why they had to die. Could Cersei have forgiven Joffey getting hurt? Yeah, I guess, but Cersei will ALWAYS protect her children. Always. She will do whatever it takes.
The food thing? Yeah, fucked up, again, she's not a good person but Margaery just did that for PR. It's not like she actually gave a fuck about those people, she was just trying to fuck with Cersei.
I see where you're coming from with a lot of this, but there is no "game". It's a twisted justification in Cersei's head to murder any political opponent.
"I want to be the queen" doesn't sign some contract where it's okay for anyone to brutally murder you.
There is a game, though.
She isn't the only who has mentioned it.
"Are you afraid? Good. You're in the great game now and the great game's terrifying." - Tyrion
Orochinagis
Member
Pretty sure Cersei passed the point of being a victim after the sept massacre happened
The Artisan
Member
I gotchu. I have seen some of the same stuff that you're talking about - for example Pablo Escobar's actions in Narcos.
Not really a fan of Robocop so I couldn't get that reference :\
It wasn't fine...
Point out where exactly I said it was evil of her to fuck her brother? I can think of pejoratives to describe her incestuous behavior but evil I'll leave out.
Robert was on his deathbed. He physically had no power to kill her, and Ned offered her leave.
She is not evil because she never tried to kill anyone or personally ruin anyone's lives over trying to get the throne. You can say she's selfish for it, but evil doesn't make sense.
That was Renly doing it too. And it's war. Cersei would have done the same thing and worse. There was nothing to indicate that Margery took pleasure in bloodshed or killing; there's plenty to indicate Cersei does.
This is no fucking "byproduct of entering the game" I don't buy into all the gospels that Cersei says because not everybody on the show is as power hungry as she is. Stannis deserved to die. Loras didn't, and Cersei kills her. Does Cersei not deserve ANY sort of reprimanding?
What about Mace?
What about the bystanders? Surely they did not give a fuck about this "game", so, why did they deserve to die?
She never even admitted to having sex with her brother publicly. Cersei certainly is guilty of a dozen other things, so you consider it justice to get away with it?
She's fucking evil. But she isn't a boring character.
Those aren't the fucking rule of Westeros, those are the rules Cersei made for herself for the power hungry lifestyle she wants to maintain.
They weren't happy with each other, and them cheating on one another is a different issue.
Cersei wanted power, lost some, and killed 100+ people to maintain it. Margery never killed anyone for power. Why is she as bad as Cersei?
It's evil to plenty of people in Westeros, otherwise there wouldn't have been wars with each side trying to stop the other.
darkstar0155
Member
Its not a simple as "Kill Robert or be Killed". She had a way out, its just that way out involved her losing power and influence. Something she wasn't willing to do. You say "well don't trust ned!" but that's just a cop out.
I honestly don't remember the Margery/Renly/Stannis piece of the Story, but that's a deflection anyways, because this isn't a discussion about if Margery was evil, but Cersei.
Unless I am wrong, as soon as Margery married Tommen she became a Lannister. Any children from that marriage would have been lannisters. The lannister line would have been continued. But to Cersei it wasn't from HER lannisters or something? No, the problem was that it meant Cersei losing power and influence, and that wasn't something she could accept and has never been shown to accept in the show.
Im not getting into the "she tortured the sept lady cause she was tortured by her" bit. That's like saying "judge X through me in jail because I committed x crime, so the guard at the jail should also be jailed"
Different context, different "game". Tyrion's talking about a literal war. You're talking about murdering allies.
The Artisan
Member
Cersei's reasons for evil actions are because she wants to stay in power, and that is the mindset of a purely evil person. She has ruined lives for her own selfish desires.
Nope, I am convinced that Atomic Playboy is on point; Cersei only ordered the killing of the (innocent) direwolf to show the Starks that she has more power than them.
Doing something for good PR is better than reversing that order out of spite.
darkstar0155
Member
Seriously, the "you play the game you take the risks" as a justification of Cersei's actions is one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen.
Atomic Playboy
Member
Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella were all Baratheons, not Lannisters. Even though we know they weren't Robert's children, publicly they still are recognized as such. Their claim to the throne was as Baratheons, not Lannisters.
Here's the latest Inside the Episode (I can't find the HBO link).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxFwQvH-pnk&t=15s
Even the producers call it like it is.
"She [Cersei] would do whatever she has to do to win. She'd blow up the Sept if that would allow her to win. Even if that means killing hundreds and hundreds, probably thousands of innocent people. She's capable of anything. Unlike Dany who is constrained a little bit by her morality, and her fear of hurting innocents."
darkstar0155
Member
For sure, almost every single evil thing Cersei does is solely to either stay in power, or acquire more power, and aren't just small things like feeding the poor for good PR. Btw, how do we even know it was 100% solely for PR. Yes that's what she told the sparrow, but I always got the impression she said that just because that was what he wanted to hear and she was manipulating him.
The Artisan, I like how you replied to everything besides this.
"Margery teamed up with Renly to start a war, and since you're so about rightfulness and whatnot, how is she not evil that she tried to take the Throne from Stannis? She was so obsessed with power that she would go to war and kill Stannis, the rightful king, which would end up with thousands upon thousands of death, all so she could be THE queen. Is she evil for this? Nah, not really, but she's not a good person either. Her actions, and that of her family, would've and did cause, the life's of many people. "
A lot of your reasons for why Cersei is evil, can be applied to Margery, who you think is a saint or something.
It's "the Game of Thrones". It's all the same game.
I honestly don't understand how all of these families killing each other, while playing the game, which is literally the name of the show, is somehow something that just Cersei made up? When you're going to wars, and getting thousands of people killed because of your personal reasons, and you fuck up and die because you didn't outsmart someone else, that's your own fault.
"Margery teamed up with Renly to start a war, and since you're so about rightfulness and whatnot, how is she not evil that she tried to take the Throne from Stannis? She was so obsessed with power that she would go to war and kill Stannis, the rightful king, which would end up with thousands upon thousands of death, all so she could be THE queen. Is she evil for this? Nah, not really, but she's not a good person either. Her actions, and that of her family, would've and did cause, the life's of many people. "
A lot of your reasons for why Cersei is evil, can be applied to Margery, who you think is a saint or something.
It's "the Game of Thrones". It's all the same game.
I honestly don't understand how all of these families killing each other, while playing the game, which is literally the name of the show, is somehow something that just Cersei made up? When you're going to wars, and getting thousands of people killed because of your personal reasons, and you fuck up and die because you didn't outsmart someone else, that's your own fault.
The Artisan
Member
Even the showrunners acknowledge that she's a fucking monster
darkstar0155
Member
Ahhh your correct thanks for clearing that up. Its been sooooo long since I watched the first few seasons that I forget some things lol.
Yeah, Dany's invasion is really happening at the worst possible time and it might end up turning people against her especially if she starts to lose some control over the Dothraki
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Again, this is why I'm worried that they are going to ignore this obvious situation and just gloss over how horribly wrong everything can possibly get.
The Artisan
Member
I agree, I don't think Margery was doing it just for PR only. She's from Highgarden that provides a lot of goods Crownlands and she's from the richest family there so for all we know, she actually did give a shit.
uhh, what? I did respond to it, so I'll just have to copy and paste like you did
"Margery teamed up with Renly to start a war, and since you're so about rightfulness and whatnot, how is she not evil that she tried to take the Throne from Stannis? She was so obsessed with power that she would go to war and kill Stannis, the rightful king, which would end up with thousands upon thousands of death, all so she could be THE queen. Is she evil for this? Nah, not really, but she's not a good person either. Her actions, and that of her family, would've and did cause, the life's of many people. "
"She is not evil because she never tried to kill anyone or personally ruin anyone's lives over trying to get the throne. You can say she's selfish for it, but evil doesn't make sense."
"That was Renly doing it too. And it's war. Cersei would have done the same thing and worse. There was nothing to indicate that Margery took pleasure in bloodshed or killing; there's plenty to indicate Cersei does."
So, now you have resorted to putting words in my mouth.
And no, my reasons for why Cersei is evil can't be applied Margery because what I have been saying post after post is that Cersei is willing to and HAS killed people for power and staying in power. Margery hasn't and there's no indication that she takes pleasure in bloodshed or killing but there's plenty to indicate Cersei does.
Y'all are acting like Dany has all of Westeros standing in unison to repel her. The North and the Vale are not involved with the fuckery down south. The Reach, Dorne, and half of the Greyjoys are already allied with her. The Riverlands just lost their ruling house, which leaves the Lannisters. A family that is already universally hated by almost everyone. When the majority of people on the continent you're about to land on, are already either on your side or preoccupied with other things, it doesn't evoke the sort of imagery some of you guys are depicting. The Lannisters under Tywin already burned, raped, and pillaged the Riverlands. The Lannisters have literally no friends outside of Euron Greyjoy.
The Targaryens aren't exactly liked in Westeros either though
Atomic Playboy
Member
This is kind of a strange line of reasoning, primarily because Stannis was never actually king. Stannis was going to start a war, and Renly started a different war to say, "actually my brother's a bit of a twat, I should be king." Margaery is obviously only interested in consolidating her own power; she literally mentions her motivation at one point is to be queen. But the difference is two-fold; how does she aim to get that power, and what does she do with it when she has it?
To the first point, she attaches herself to various claimants. Wars will be fought, sure, but it's between soldiers who have sworn fealty to a particular claimant, so innocent people aren't being killed. And Margaery proves perfectly willing to embrace non-violent means of consolidating her power by agreeing to marry Joffrey and then Tommen. So she's not specifically looking to harm people in her quest for power. Can the same be said of Cersei?
To the second point, Margaery, upon agreeing to marry Joffrey, starts communing with the poor and giving them charity. Now you can attack her motivations as corrupt, but you can't argue that the results are better than what Cersei does. Margaery gives food to the homeless, Cersei takes it away. Even if both actions are measured through the lens of "she just wants more power," which person is doing good deeds with that power?
It's entirely disingenuous to compare the two.
So, trying to kill the rightful heir to the Throne by teaming up with a usurper, and then having no issue with going to war with him, which would've caused thousands of innocent people to die is not bad just "selfish"?
"Cersei would have done the same thing and worse."
Exactly, people in this world do that is necessary for them to survive. Cersei does it. Margery does it. Everyone does it. Everyone in this world is shitty and do really awful things to get what they want.
I mean, good thing Margery doesn't enjoy killing, but she enjoys what killing will get her. So that's fine and she's completely blameless, for some reason. If someone kills Cersei because they're protecting themselves from what Cersei is doing, then that's fine. It's all part of the game.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
In fairness, Cersei isn't wrong that most people are out to get her.
I'd be really interested to know what would actually happen if Dany's army and the Wight Army weren't there and it was just the North and the South. I think Cersei would manage to lose that war fairly quickly because even though Sansa noted she was ruthless, the reality is that it would be a ridiculously poor decision for her to actually march her armies north in the middle of winter.
I'd be really interested to know what would actually happen if Dany's army and the Wight Army weren't there and it was just the North and the South. I think Cersei would manage to lose that war fairly quickly because even though Sansa noted she was ruthless, the reality is that it would be a ridiculously poor decision for her to actually march her armies north in the middle of winter.
By the old nobility. There's nothing that indicates to me that even at the height of his craziness, that the Mad King was harming the commoners. It was the nobility he was paranoid of, and most of the nobility now are on Dany's side or aren't involved. Remember what Barriston said about Rhaegar? The Mad King was feared and hated, but the prince was loved and respected by all. Then he had to go off with Lyanna. I hope they tell us what happened between those two.
I mean, Jon wouldn't go South in the first place since he knows better. If she tries to go North it's all over, if she waits for the Spring then the North will essentially become it's own nation in the interim. She wouldn't have the army to conqueror a united North by that point, given the debts the Lannisters hold.
I don't think there's a way for her to get what she wants in this situation, even if you remove Dany and the White Walkers.
Not, it's not all the same.
Do you honestly not see how "the game" as in rival families at war for the throne is different from murdering you allies and anyone else who gets in your way?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I mena, she'd have to somehow reconcile with the Tyrells to make it through winter and Dorne is another problem there. I mean, it seems like the idea of Cersei somehow living through this is so remote even if you take away half of the armies bearing down on her because she's burned bridges with practically every potential ally.
Preach. Everyone wanted Cersei to roll over and die, Cersei chose violence.
She's no different than a lot of the anti heroes in the series, doing whatever it takes to avoid her fate. The hate she gets is way too disproportional. No one shits on Tywin the way they shit on Cersei.
The first book is called "The Game of Thrones", in the first book/season, there was no war until the end, "the game" is just this world's politics but in this world, you can kill your political rivals via betray, assassination or just straight up war.
Tyrion talks about how he likes the game, because he is good at it, then he warns Dany that she should be scared because she is now part of the great game. The first time he was talking about just the betrayal and outsmarting part and the second was the part they were now entering, which deals with war. It's all The Game of Thrones.
Yeah, Cersei is pretty screwed at this point. Can't attack the North and by the time she can the North will likely be unified and fully battle hardened, if the North isn't ready that means she'll have an army of White Walkers coming for her. The Tyrells and Dorne hate her. And now Danny and her own army are gunning directly for her throne. Euron will almost certainly betray her at some point too.
- Status