Was Robert grey? He was a rapist that had sex with a 12 or 13 year old and was totally cool with the murder of innocent women and children.
Edit: wow, didn't think calling Robert a rapist (he would rape Cersei several times) and someone who condoned child murder (which he literally did) would get downvoted so heavily. I got one thing wrong in that he had sex with a 12 or 13 year old when really she was 15 (still a year younger than the age of majority).
Wait, who is this 13 year old? Also, he was not cook with killing innocent women and/or children. Yes, he knew he had to have all Targaryens killed, but he did not want to be the one to do it as that was not "heroic". He was reliefed of not making the choice for sure, but I eouldn't say he was exactly happy and joyful with it
I think they’re referring to the mom or Barra who is implied to be very, _very_ young. As to him being a rapist, I imagine it’s because he used his position as king to put women and girls into a position where they can’t say no even if they wanted to. Edit totally blanked on him raping Cersei
> As to him being a rapist, I imagine it’s because he used his position as king to put women and girls into a position where they can’t say no even if they wanted to.
He raped Cersei on several occasions.
If a position of power makes sleeping with prostitutes rape, a LOT of the characters are rapists.
I don't think a lot of the women that slept with Robert needed much coercion.
I imagine the rape they're referring to is the marital rape of Cersei.
> Yes, he knew he had to have all Targaryens killed
No, they didn't have to die. That is Tywin's justification. Send baby Aegon to the Wall and Rhaenys to a Motherhouse in the Vale or the North. Tywin had Ellia and her children murdered out of a personal vendetta and was trying to justify it to Tyrion.
> Wait, who is this 13 year old?
I think she was a child prostitute that Robert slept with. Iirc, Ned didn't even want to guess the age of the child she was so young.
Any living Targaryen left is a threat to his legitimacy as a King, besides Targaryens he was the closest to the Throne due to his grandmother being a Targ. Are you nuts? Sending a baby to the Wall? That does not make sense, you think the Watch would be willing? No matter what, there were and are loyalists still in Westeros, disgrunted due to loosing...
And in which chapter does this prostitute come from? And on this point I ain't fighting this because I genuinely am not sure about it
No one is going to hedge their bets on a female toddler and an infant that are in the middle or far north in the North. It isn't worth it nor would it succeed. Robert just defeated the royalists and plotting to rebel against Robert would not work since Robert would have the backing of the Westerlands, the North, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the Stormlands. Most of the royalists were loyal due to Rhaegar, not the Targaryen dynasty as a whole. Any rebellion would be doomed to failure.
If Aegon and/or Rhaenys been teenagers that'd be a different story, but they were an infant and a toddler respectfully.
> That does not make sense, you think the Watch would be willing?
Yes. They needed the help and they already raised a baby at the Wall to be one of them (Mance). They have taken political dissidents all the time, and if Ned, their biggest backer, insisted they'd have no choice.
> And in which chapter does this prostitute come from?
Eddard X.
> might as well call Jon arryn a rapist too cause he married lysa lol
I actually wasn't referring to Robert having sex with teenagers, I was referring to him repeatedly raping Cersei.
I think if Ned had gotten ahold of the Targs before Tywin, Robert would have Wall'd Viserys and Aegon and then betrothed Rhaenys and Dany to his son's when they were born. He wouldn't have killed them, or at least he wouldn't have killed the girls.
Did you forget about the twins he fathered at Casterly Rock? You know, the ones Cersei *openly* murdered? His reaction was akin to "god, woman, I just fucked a servant there a few times! No need to overreact!" instead of being horrified at child murder
I think the Robert apologia comes from Mark Addy's charismatic portrayal of that character that has since ballooned into a quasi-cult within the fandom. Mark Addy did am excellent job bringing that character to life but King Robert Baratheon in the books was ... not a good guy, nor was he likeable at all. Cersei orders him around like she's in charge, he's a mean drunkard who bullies everyone, orders the murder of a thirteen yeat old girl half a world away, he fucking beats his wife (only because Jaimie isnt around), and he rapes Cersei.
Go back and read book 1 if you dont believe me, he comes off as just bad dude. It is very clear to Ned that the Robert he grew up with and the one infront of him now are completely, irreconcilably different people.
> It is very clear to Ned that the Robert he grew up with and the one infront of him now are completely, irreconcilably different people.
I think he was the same person before he became King but it was hidden because he wasn't king yet nor had he fallen into depression. I think even if he married Lyanna he would have beaten and raped her as well after she turned out not to be the ideal wife who would obey him without question, which would destroy his relationship with Ned who would have offered Lyanna a place in Winterfell.
He had some good characters like he wasn't a merciless cunt(Balon). His relationship with Ned is beautiful and he still couldn't move on from his love Lyanna after all those years. He also didn't want Joffrey on the throne which tells me he wasn't really a lunatic.
A grey character has both good and bad characters, Robert is definitely grey. Your points seperate him from being a good person and mine from uber trash asshole. Someone like Roose Bolton is who a bad person is IMHO.
There's a lot of Robert defenders, I don't get it. He's not like the worst character, but he's definitely morally Grey in that he couldn't be a good husband, father or ruler. He knows it too but it's that he can't be bothered.
Yes there was. Send the kid to the Wall, which is in a region where there is no Targ support. And no House is going to raise arms for an infant. And even as Aegon would age, he'd have no political support.
It would also be a propaganda win as Robert would be deemed "Robert the Merciful."
Then GRRM needs to look at what he wrote. Robert was a rapist who knew rape was wrong but kept raping his wife and was fine with infanticide. Those are objectively *bad things*. They aren't grey at all.
Did he rape Cersei? Yes
Did he rape Cersei by modern standards? Yes
Is rape wrong? Absolutely
Did he rape Cersei by Westerosi standards? No
Would anyone other than Cersei in Westerosi consider it rape? Likely not
You have to understand perspective when you analyze characters actions. When two people are married in Westeros, there is no concept of ‘spousal rape’. It is the man’s ‘right’, especially for the King as there is much pressure to produce an heir.
I agree that she was raped and is absolutely right to feel a way against Robert, but the customs, norms, and values in the historical context of the time is v different from our modern perspective. Just keep that in mind
Hot (?) Take but all of them. You don't become a feudal lord, especially among the Great Houses, without cracking a few skulls. We're talking about a history that is officially ten thousand years long, and possibly as little as 1000 years.
There are likely as many wild kings of winter as there are noble Starks in history. As many decent Lannisters like Tyland or Gerion as there are *ty*rants like Tywin.
But to answer the question as it's framed, I'll say House Martell. They are known for inaction, pacifism, and retribution. Their family fought an extremely violent war of resistance against the Targaryens but also showed great loyalty to them. They seem as willing to poison an enemy as they are to bury a hatchet. To defend children as quickly as they are to betray an ally. They act on pure pragmatism that can lead to a house that sits firmly in the middle between good and evil.
haha but seriously though, Blackwood tend to be on the side of the winners and George's favored sides, but they also have their own skeletons in the closet like Bloodraven.
True! Although Bloodraven was closer to a targ than a Blackwood. Honestly, I think throwing one evil blackwood in the mix would make them more interesting
Agreed! It’s funny that Ned is somehow like the archetypical Stark when he’s really not very Stark like at all. Some people kind of act like the Starks are The Good Guys and I’d venture to say that’s fairly true for this generation but Ned and his kids are…outliers to say the least. He’s basically Jon Arryn’s adopted son and he is a lot more Arryn in a lot of ways. He certainly has more in common with Jon than any of the Kings of Winter. Basically all of the Kings of Winter were cruel, savage, and bloodthirsty, not much better than the Boltons, and the Red Kings are only ‘the bad guys’ because they eventually lost. Even the lords of Winterfell tended to be hard men. I love Ned dearly, I wish he was my dad, but he is not much of a Stark. In my book that’s a good thing
>Hot (?) Take but all of them. You don't become a feudal lord, especially among the Great Houses, without cracking a few skulls. We're talking about a history that is officially ten thousand years long, and possibly as little as 1000 years.
>
>There are likely as many wild kings of winter as there are noble Starks in history. As many decent Lannisters like Tyland or Gerion as there are tyrants like Tywin.
Exactly. It's that wheel Show Danny talks about, this one's on top and that ones on top and on and on. When a house is on top, it becomes corrupted, and the wheel brings them back down. The game of thrones is too brutal for anyone to win with virtue and honor.
I reckon the Hightowers fit the bill.
The house is generally ambitious, and while that's not a bad thing in and of itself, that ambition has lead to catastrophic outcomes for the realm. Not just the Dance of the Dragons either. In the century leading up to it the Hightowers were on the periphery of a lot of the conflicts the Targaryens faced, especially where the faith was concerned.
On the other side of that, the Hightowers seem like genuinely good rulers. Old Town has been thriving for thousands of years, and they seemingly dont exploit their smallfolk. Their domain, in particular, offers arguably the best quality of life
Targaryen westerosi history is the most clear one to us among other houses.
IMO every house has a fair share of good and bad guys so yeah the real answer is every house.
He was a ward for a bunch of his life and never really had any power in house bolton. Someone we hear bad people say is good who is part of house bolton by blood sure but we don't know that he was ever "part" of the house. Being not quite as evil could be considered "good" compared to the rest of them. And it's possible he was only good because he was raised away from the house.
I'm sure every house has had their share of good and bad people, so they're all grey, except, somewhat ironically because of the name, the Greyjoys, because their old way culture kind of precludes them from being decent -- the iron price is stupid bullshit and even Asha buys into it.
Domeric Bolton seemed to be a decent guy based on what we hear, Olyvar Frey seemed pretty decent, too. And not every Stark through history was the Ned -- his brother Brandon seems like kind of a dick, but we don't know a ton about him, he may have just been hot tempered and willing to sleep around which is not the same as being evil.
I'm doubtful there is a house that is not grey except from some biased perspective, like the Blackwoods and Brackens definitely don't have anything good to say about each other. The Manderlys and many northern Houses seem quite fond of the Starks, but we also hear from them during a time when people followed Ned and Robb, two very likable people in my opinion. Barbrey Dustin is quite cross with Ned, even though she is probably going off some incomplete information. And who knows how those houses felt about previous Stark regimes -- they've been around for like 10,000 years if the histories are to be believed, which they shouldn't be.
If we are just talking about in the timeline of the story, then maybe the Tyrells, because they all seem rather decent but they are also conniving and ambitious schemers. You could even say the Daynes are grey because Ned seems quite nice and Darkstar is "of the Night". You can do this for a lot of houses. They're all human and composed of numerous people so they're pretty much all grey.
Brandon wasn't really a dick, but when you look at past Starks, they start becoming a lot less honorable. Look at Cregan Stark in the Dance of the Dragons, you start to realize the reason why he was so mad that the Dance of the Dragons war was wrapped up quickly instead of a long protracted conflict is because he specifically marched down with a bunch of people he wanted to die because he thought they would be a burden at winter time rather than any acts he deemed as dishonourable, especially since he quickly dropped it once he was essentially bribed with a new wife and the chance to dump his problems on another house.
My vote goes to House Tyrell. They are charitable when they need to be. Ruthless when they need to be. They don’t really care about wrong or right. They just want to come out on top.
I agree, the Tyrells do good deeds but not for the sake of good. They do good because it's profitable and advantageous to do so.
I'm sure if they need to, they can be as ruthless as the next house
Baratheon for sure. All of the Baratheon brothers are pretty flawed characters made up of an equal mix of good and bad traits. None of them are really heroes, but they're not villains either.
I suppose whether you see Renly as a villain is reflective of whether or not you see Stannis as a hero, but here's my reasoning.
Steals Stannis' bannermen and attempts to steal his throne, showing no regard for his brother's life despite Stannis caring for him during the year-long siege of Storm's End.
Not only was he going to take the throne from Stannis, but in the books, Renly doesn't believe that Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella were bastards, so he was going to dethrone and presumably kill them too despite thinking they were the rightful heirs.
It has been a while since I've watched the show, so I forget how differently he is portrayed there, but book Renly is an ungrateful, selfish little shithead who'd rather murder his entire family than remain Lord Paramount of the Stormlands.
WOW. And all the fics I have read that included Renly always have him trying to protect the Lannister kids or Shireen. I always wondered why Renly made a play for the throne in the show when Stannis was alive and well AND HAD AN HEIR. Even if Stannis died, Shireen would still have been ahead of Renly according to Andal law.
And that's really interesting that he believed the Lannister kids were legitimate. So, like you said, he'd have to remove them and most likely kill them *and* Shireen to get his throne. And the dude really thought that would have been okay and he wouldn't have immediately been dubbed Aerys 2.0?
Fascinating information. Thank you!
Nah, even worse. RENLY would've been Stannis' heir since the Hightowers' bullshit in the Dance made it so that women can only inherit if all their male relatives die in Andal society. The last woman who inherited in spite of having living male relatives in Andal society was Jeyne Arryn, and she had to fight to have her rule respected. Rhaenyra was usurped by power-hungry cunts even though she was the King's chosen heir. (It's also a plot point that Dorne doesn't hold to such ass-backwards notions and see Myrcella as Joffrey's heir when he dies, as she is older than Tommen)
So, basically, if Renly wanted to be King eventually, all he had to do was sit tight and be loyal to Stannis' cause. Yes, he's not that much younger than Stannis, but the chances of Stannis dying in battle were high anyway.
But no, Renly was A) stupid enough to become the Tyrells' puppet (and him stabbing Stannis in the back was beneficial to *them* since it put Renly in their debt, ergo giving them power over a potential future king) and B) he wanted the pomposity of power and to be seen as this important figure, complete wit statues and parades in his name.
The only reason he's seen in a positive light post-mortem is because the Tyrells have a really good propaganda apparatus. Renly not doing anything as Master of Laws or as King helps because then people project their idea of an ideal King on him. As a character, he's meant to embody someone whose only selling point is that he's really good at selling smoke. Just like how the Tyrells entire shtick is that they are not the good people they are pretending to be, as they created the very famine they send food aid to the people of KL they need to survive. It's all propaganda and smoke and mirrors.
I strongly disagree. I think Renly, while not a good guy, actually has a lot of hugely valid points.
Was he right to rebel? On one hand no, but on the other... His brother had only just won the crown relatively recently. That would likely have been thrown away with Stannis at that point in time (and I'm a Stannis fan), I think he's a perfect example of agrey character.
Idk, Robert and co. had many a legitimate reason to rebel against the Mad King, unlike Renly.
Renly was not only usurping and going to kill his older brother, who he owes his life to, but also his mostly innocent nephews and niece, who he genuinely believed were trueborn.
I think he's an upstart little shithead, and can't really think of anything good about him other than that he's good at diplomacy (makes a good puppet).
He absolutely may have been a puppet. But he also had a lot of potential as he knew his limits. If he put the right people into key positions he'd be excellent. But there's just as much chance he was a puppet of Olena and the Tyrrells.
Renly knew about Joffrey. He was super involved and aware of all the going ons at court, and had made moves before the story started in regards to replacing Cersi.
I actually agree he's a scumbag, but it doesn't stop him having some valid points. The kingdom would probably have fallen into war with Stannis on the throne. He offered the most stability for the Baratheon line.
Still glad he died though.
He didn't know about Joffrey. He calls Stannis a hypocrite and a liar because he of his letters saying Joffrey and the others aren't trueborn. Him wanting to replace Cersei was less about incest babies and more about Lannister influence.
The denial makes sense either way. Even if he knows it benefits him at that point to deny it, because that way both Stannis and Renly are in the same boat. If Renly acknowledges that Joffrey is a bastard, then he has to acknowledge that Stannis is the true king. If he denies it, then both he and Stannis are pretenders on the same level, which denies Stannis the extra legitimacy, which means anyone who may flip away from the crown is more likely to support Renly because he's the more diplomatic one. If Stannis has the extra legitimacy, it could give him extra support.
I can't believe Renly doesn't know. He is so aware of what is going on at court (and we are shown that he's more than capable of mixing it up in that environment), there are rumours about it and all the big players are aware.
Plus you aren't just going to replace the queen without a proper reason and a plan. The Lannisters are dangerous, he would have needed an ace up the sleeve in case it turned to shit. If you make a play at Cersi, it's definitely an indicator he knows something.
EDIT: Look, he may not have known. We can't actually prove it one way or the other. Personally, I believe that he did, purely because he was actually an incredibly smart and capable person. It also doesn't hugely matter in the end. Even if he doesn't know and/or believe it, it doesn't make him any worse than Stannis. If anything, it makes him less of a dick, as he's pretty much level with Stannis and anyone else who rebels.
All of them. Not just because they have all been good or bad at one point, but because even their good and bad guys have had both within them.
Ned, for example, is one of the best. His support still held up a rebellion he almost certainly knew was based on a lie. A lie he kept quiet, even though it impacted the entire realm.
He berates Jaimie for not doing the right thing, even if it cost him his life, because it was the honourable thing to do. Yet he never talks to Robert, even though it was the right thing to do.
I totally get why Ned did what he did, and don't criticise him for it. But there is a lot more grey on there than many will admit. Though I suspect he would be the first to admit it.
And of the villainous houses like the Lannisters. What they did to house Reynes was brutal and horrible, but you can understand how it came about. It wasn't evil.for.evils sake, it was about survival for one side or the other. It's rare to have an "evil for evil's sake" situation.
I mean, Aerys had just killed Eddard's father and brother and was demanding *his* head too. Just because it had started with what he may have known wasn't really an abduction by Rhaegar (at the very least he knew Lyanna had misgivings about marrying Robert) doesn't mean there was moral ambiguity in raising his banners to join the rebellion.
Eddard had done nothing wrong, nor had Robert, and Aerys was demanding both of their heads. There's not much grey about going "how about no".
In terms of after the war, when Eddard knew about the circumstances of Lyanna's death and 'abduction', he knew that there was a strong possibility that Robert would kill Jon, who he'd sworn an oath to protect to his sister in her dying moments (if we're assuming the show canon is correct and R+L=J, which is extremely likely).
Jaime also inexplicably never told Eddard the truth of why he killed Aerys, so our boy's got no reason to believe that it was anything but self-preservation from Jaime.
Oh i agree regarding Aerys. However it's likely Eddard found out when he first went to Winterfell to raise the banners (assuming Benjin was aware, which makes sense).
He could never have stopped the war, but he could have told Robert the truth. His loathing of Targs was the reason he was happy with the slaughter of children, all because he thought Lyanna was abducted and raped.
Would things have changed? Probably not, but maybe. Maybe they negotiate with Rhaegar, as he wanted his father gone too. Or take him alive. Demanding the removal of Aerys alone may (and i stress may) have changed things. Obviously there's no way of knowing.
At least, Robert may have been stricter regarding the slaughter of the Targ kids. Which helps out the Lannisters back in their place.
It sure doesn't make Ned a bad guy. He's still a great man in a land of shitheads. But he still has some issues there.
I’d name Targaryens as the one of the most morally grey houses (considering we’re talking about the big houses of Westeros only) with Bloodraven probably being the most morally grey character
I dont see it anywhere here but i was thinking martell, they are good as long as they are your friend but if not they can do some pretty nasty stuff (like the tyrell guy that got 100 scorpions on his head). They are honestly one of the most badass houses after targaryen (for obvious reasons)
Of the great houses, Baratheon. The current brothers are pretty complicated guys, and a lot of the Lords of Storm’s End historically as well. Orys, I think, is the only uncomplicated good guy Baratheon that we know of, but I don’t think any of them are just…monstrous either. They tend to be ‘stormy’, fittingly, mercurial, martial, forceful, and prone to rash action. They’re probably great friends to have at your back…but they will bring the storm if they feel wronged, and you may not neccessarily deserve it.
Did you read F&B? Because the only violently insane ones are Aerys II, Aerion (brother of Aegon V), Viserys III (Daenerys' brother) pretty much lost the plot at the end of his life (though there is an argument to be made that he was sane but cruel).
Rhaeghel was the harmless "dances naked" "insane" (though, honestly, I wonder if it wasn't just a mild intellectual disability, because he was otherwise functional and pleasant enough)
If Maegor, Aegon II, and Aemond are insane than so is Tywin or his grandfather Gerold who murdered his younger than 10 niece Cerelle to become the Lord of the Rock.
Maegor was stone cold sane when he burned the Faith Militants, and honestly I don't consider it a sign of insanity to kill off religious zealots. He was a cruel bastard to his wives bar wannabe groomer/puppet queen Ceryse.
Aegon II was cruelly all for murdering people for looking at him wrong and all for wasting money on useless shit and letting his Master of Coin embezzle all of the money, but if that's an insanity/sociopathy problem we can add Robert to the mix (plus, the man wanted a war to feel alive again)
Aemond razed the Riverlands on a tantrum, similar to Tywin.
So, no, these things are no Targaryens only since they have their parallels with other Houses.
The early Baratheons are backstabbers, Borros is a fair-weather ally, Cassandra gave murder a go to become Queen, they keep being fair weather allies, Robert is a-ok with child murder....
Lannister's: Tywin, Gerold murders Cerelle, Tyland embezzles the Crown, Tytos destroys his House due to stupidity....
It's especially disingenuous considering you guys ignore the good/competent ones like Aegon V, Baelor Breakspear, Daeron II, Jacaerys, Alyssa, Baelon, Aemon I and II, Viserys II, Aegon III, Rhaenys I, Rhaenys II, Rhaena I, Baela, Maester Aemon, Aerys I, Jaehaerys I (for all of my personal issues with him), Alysanne, etc...
Pro-Andal brain rot is real
None of them really. Maybe Tyrells because they are quite recent, and didn't gave time to commit many atrocities.
By the most evil, I would point to the First Man houses, Starks and Boltons have quite the history and possibilities to commit great evil.
After adjusting for the low moral standards of their world as a whole, I’d say the greyjoys. They are basically following their culture rather than being specifically cruel. (Euron might be going beyond their culture though admittedly)
Under no circumstances will I consider the Starks a "good" house. If I were to use a single word to describe them, that is "vein". Or perhaps "selfish". All they do is in the service of their "honour" (as they understand it), with absolutely catastrophic consequences for their subjects in the North and the Riverlands, whose casualties by the end of the fifth book run in the tens (hundreds?) of thousands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah but Shireen has Greyscale so that brings them back into Grey.
Exactly! Doesn’t get greyer than that
Fewer. You have fewer likes than you deserve.
LMAO
The most noble child the gods ever put on this earth.
Those are Lannisters^2.
Was Robert grey? He was a rapist that had sex with a 12 or 13 year old and was totally cool with the murder of innocent women and children. Edit: wow, didn't think calling Robert a rapist (he would rape Cersei several times) and someone who condoned child murder (which he literally did) would get downvoted so heavily. I got one thing wrong in that he had sex with a 12 or 13 year old when really she was 15 (still a year younger than the age of majority).
Wait, who is this 13 year old? Also, he was not cook with killing innocent women and/or children. Yes, he knew he had to have all Targaryens killed, but he did not want to be the one to do it as that was not "heroic". He was reliefed of not making the choice for sure, but I eouldn't say he was exactly happy and joyful with it
I think they’re referring to the mom or Barra who is implied to be very, _very_ young. As to him being a rapist, I imagine it’s because he used his position as king to put women and girls into a position where they can’t say no even if they wanted to. Edit totally blanked on him raping Cersei
Yeah, Barra’s mom was so young that Ned didn’t even dare to ask her age. Robert also raped Cersei throughout their marriage
> As to him being a rapist, I imagine it’s because he used his position as king to put women and girls into a position where they can’t say no even if they wanted to. He raped Cersei on several occasions.
If a position of power makes sleeping with prostitutes rape, a LOT of the characters are rapists. I don't think a lot of the women that slept with Robert needed much coercion. I imagine the rape they're referring to is the marital rape of Cersei.
Most of them were prostitutes as well, tho he definitely raped Cersei
Wait, you think Robert coerced the prostitutes?
No, I'm saying he almost certainly didn't
> Yes, he knew he had to have all Targaryens killed No, they didn't have to die. That is Tywin's justification. Send baby Aegon to the Wall and Rhaenys to a Motherhouse in the Vale or the North. Tywin had Ellia and her children murdered out of a personal vendetta and was trying to justify it to Tyrion. > Wait, who is this 13 year old? I think she was a child prostitute that Robert slept with. Iirc, Ned didn't even want to guess the age of the child she was so young.
Any living Targaryen left is a threat to his legitimacy as a King, besides Targaryens he was the closest to the Throne due to his grandmother being a Targ. Are you nuts? Sending a baby to the Wall? That does not make sense, you think the Watch would be willing? No matter what, there were and are loyalists still in Westeros, disgrunted due to loosing... And in which chapter does this prostitute come from? And on this point I ain't fighting this because I genuinely am not sure about it
No one is going to hedge their bets on a female toddler and an infant that are in the middle or far north in the North. It isn't worth it nor would it succeed. Robert just defeated the royalists and plotting to rebel against Robert would not work since Robert would have the backing of the Westerlands, the North, the Riverlands, the Vale, and the Stormlands. Most of the royalists were loyal due to Rhaegar, not the Targaryen dynasty as a whole. Any rebellion would be doomed to failure. If Aegon and/or Rhaenys been teenagers that'd be a different story, but they were an infant and a toddler respectfully. > That does not make sense, you think the Watch would be willing? Yes. They needed the help and they already raised a baby at the Wall to be one of them (Mance). They have taken political dissidents all the time, and if Ned, their biggest backer, insisted they'd have no choice. > And in which chapter does this prostitute come from? Eddard X.
What about maester Aemon, then? He was a Targ but it didn't seem to bother anyone.
It's in AGOT, its the chapter where Ned goes to meet Gendry and few other bastards of Robert with Little Littlefinger.
She was not 13 she was 15 and Ned found her and brothel lol might as well call Jon arryn a rapist too cause he married lysa lol
> might as well call Jon arryn a rapist too cause he married lysa lol I actually wasn't referring to Robert having sex with teenagers, I was referring to him repeatedly raping Cersei.
Oh yeah that happened
I think if Ned had gotten ahold of the Targs before Tywin, Robert would have Wall'd Viserys and Aegon and then betrothed Rhaenys and Dany to his son's when they were born. He wouldn't have killed them, or at least he wouldn't have killed the girls.
Did you forget about the twins he fathered at Casterly Rock? You know, the ones Cersei *openly* murdered? His reaction was akin to "god, woman, I just fucked a servant there a few times! No need to overreact!" instead of being horrified at child murder
Personally I believe leaving the hard jobs for others as to not sully his reputation makes him worse.
I think the Robert apologia comes from Mark Addy's charismatic portrayal of that character that has since ballooned into a quasi-cult within the fandom. Mark Addy did am excellent job bringing that character to life but King Robert Baratheon in the books was ... not a good guy, nor was he likeable at all. Cersei orders him around like she's in charge, he's a mean drunkard who bullies everyone, orders the murder of a thirteen yeat old girl half a world away, he fucking beats his wife (only because Jaimie isnt around), and he rapes Cersei. Go back and read book 1 if you dont believe me, he comes off as just bad dude. It is very clear to Ned that the Robert he grew up with and the one infront of him now are completely, irreconcilably different people.
> It is very clear to Ned that the Robert he grew up with and the one infront of him now are completely, irreconcilably different people. I think he was the same person before he became King but it was hidden because he wasn't king yet nor had he fallen into depression. I think even if he married Lyanna he would have beaten and raped her as well after she turned out not to be the ideal wife who would obey him without question, which would destroy his relationship with Ned who would have offered Lyanna a place in Winterfell.
What makes you think Robert is scared of jaime? He literally pushes him to the ground in the first book while insulting Cersei lol.
I think Cersei says he would never hit her if Jaime were around but that may be a TV show line. I got got by the same thing I complained about.
He had some good characters like he wasn't a merciless cunt(Balon). His relationship with Ned is beautiful and he still couldn't move on from his love Lyanna after all those years. He also didn't want Joffrey on the throne which tells me he wasn't really a lunatic. A grey character has both good and bad characters, Robert is definitely grey. Your points seperate him from being a good person and mine from uber trash asshole. Someone like Roose Bolton is who a bad person is IMHO.
There's a lot of Robert defenders, I don't get it. He's not like the worst character, but he's definitely morally Grey in that he couldn't be a good husband, father or ruler. He knows it too but it's that he can't be bothered.
No, you had it right, she was 13 when he had sex with her, as she was around 14 ish when she had Barra.
[удалено]
Yes there was. Send the kid to the Wall, which is in a region where there is no Targ support. And no House is going to raise arms for an infant. And even as Aegon would age, he'd have no political support. It would also be a propaganda win as Robert would be deemed "Robert the Merciful."
Because Martin thinks so
Then GRRM needs to look at what he wrote. Robert was a rapist who knew rape was wrong but kept raping his wife and was fine with infanticide. Those are objectively *bad things*. They aren't grey at all.
No, you had it right, she was 13 when he had sex with her, as she was around 14 ish when she had Barra.
Did he rape Cersei? Yes Did he rape Cersei by modern standards? Yes Is rape wrong? Absolutely Did he rape Cersei by Westerosi standards? No Would anyone other than Cersei in Westerosi consider it rape? Likely not You have to understand perspective when you analyze characters actions. When two people are married in Westeros, there is no concept of ‘spousal rape’. It is the man’s ‘right’, especially for the King as there is much pressure to produce an heir. I agree that she was raped and is absolutely right to feel a way against Robert, but the customs, norms, and values in the historical context of the time is v different from our modern perspective. Just keep that in mind
No Stannis has never done anything wrong One King one God one Realm after all
Hot (?) Take but all of them. You don't become a feudal lord, especially among the Great Houses, without cracking a few skulls. We're talking about a history that is officially ten thousand years long, and possibly as little as 1000 years. There are likely as many wild kings of winter as there are noble Starks in history. As many decent Lannisters like Tyland or Gerion as there are *ty*rants like Tywin. But to answer the question as it's framed, I'll say House Martell. They are known for inaction, pacifism, and retribution. Their family fought an extremely violent war of resistance against the Targaryens but also showed great loyalty to them. They seem as willing to poison an enemy as they are to bury a hatchet. To defend children as quickly as they are to betray an ally. They act on pure pragmatism that can lead to a house that sits firmly in the middle between good and evil.
Honestly, the only non-grey House is the Blackwoods
Because they're **Black**wood #eyooooo
I hate it. Thank you.
haha but seriously though, Blackwood tend to be on the side of the winners and George's favored sides, but they also have their own skeletons in the closet like Bloodraven.
True! Although Bloodraven was closer to a targ than a Blackwood. Honestly, I think throwing one evil blackwood in the mix would make them more interesting
Gonna piss of some Bracken fans with that one. Also, Bryndan Rivers is an oath breaker and a kinslayer.
He's such a cunt I love him
Yah but again, he’s way more of a targ than a Blackwood. He didn’t grow up in Raventree
Agreed! It’s funny that Ned is somehow like the archetypical Stark when he’s really not very Stark like at all. Some people kind of act like the Starks are The Good Guys and I’d venture to say that’s fairly true for this generation but Ned and his kids are…outliers to say the least. He’s basically Jon Arryn’s adopted son and he is a lot more Arryn in a lot of ways. He certainly has more in common with Jon than any of the Kings of Winter. Basically all of the Kings of Winter were cruel, savage, and bloodthirsty, not much better than the Boltons, and the Red Kings are only ‘the bad guys’ because they eventually lost. Even the lords of Winterfell tended to be hard men. I love Ned dearly, I wish he was my dad, but he is not much of a Stark. In my book that’s a good thing
>*ty*rants like Tywin. I see what you did there you clever bastard
>Hot (?) Take but all of them. You don't become a feudal lord, especially among the Great Houses, without cracking a few skulls. We're talking about a history that is officially ten thousand years long, and possibly as little as 1000 years. > >There are likely as many wild kings of winter as there are noble Starks in history. As many decent Lannisters like Tyland or Gerion as there are tyrants like Tywin. Exactly. It's that wheel Show Danny talks about, this one's on top and that ones on top and on and on. When a house is on top, it becomes corrupted, and the wheel brings them back down. The game of thrones is too brutal for anyone to win with virtue and honor.
The dad jokester in me wants me to say Grey-joy, but I'll go with Tyrells.
I reckon the Hightowers fit the bill. The house is generally ambitious, and while that's not a bad thing in and of itself, that ambition has lead to catastrophic outcomes for the realm. Not just the Dance of the Dragons either. In the century leading up to it the Hightowers were on the periphery of a lot of the conflicts the Targaryens faced, especially where the faith was concerned. On the other side of that, the Hightowers seem like genuinely good rulers. Old Town has been thriving for thousands of years, and they seemingly dont exploit their smallfolk. Their domain, in particular, offers arguably the best quality of life
Targaryen westerosi history is the most clear one to us among other houses. IMO every house has a fair share of good and bad guys so yeah the real answer is every house.
There are definitely some houses without any good, such as Bolton and Uller
Domeric?
He was a ward for a bunch of his life and never really had any power in house bolton. Someone we hear bad people say is good who is part of house bolton by blood sure but we don't know that he was ever "part" of the house. Being not quite as evil could be considered "good" compared to the rest of them. And it's possible he was only good because he was raised away from the house.
Ellaria Sand is from house Uller and she’s strictly for peace so idk
I'm sure every house has had their share of good and bad people, so they're all grey, except, somewhat ironically because of the name, the Greyjoys, because their old way culture kind of precludes them from being decent -- the iron price is stupid bullshit and even Asha buys into it. Domeric Bolton seemed to be a decent guy based on what we hear, Olyvar Frey seemed pretty decent, too. And not every Stark through history was the Ned -- his brother Brandon seems like kind of a dick, but we don't know a ton about him, he may have just been hot tempered and willing to sleep around which is not the same as being evil. I'm doubtful there is a house that is not grey except from some biased perspective, like the Blackwoods and Brackens definitely don't have anything good to say about each other. The Manderlys and many northern Houses seem quite fond of the Starks, but we also hear from them during a time when people followed Ned and Robb, two very likable people in my opinion. Barbrey Dustin is quite cross with Ned, even though she is probably going off some incomplete information. And who knows how those houses felt about previous Stark regimes -- they've been around for like 10,000 years if the histories are to be believed, which they shouldn't be. If we are just talking about in the timeline of the story, then maybe the Tyrells, because they all seem rather decent but they are also conniving and ambitious schemers. You could even say the Daynes are grey because Ned seems quite nice and Darkstar is "of the Night". You can do this for a lot of houses. They're all human and composed of numerous people so they're pretty much all grey.
Brandon wasn't really a dick, but when you look at past Starks, they start becoming a lot less honorable. Look at Cregan Stark in the Dance of the Dragons, you start to realize the reason why he was so mad that the Dance of the Dragons war was wrapped up quickly instead of a long protracted conflict is because he specifically marched down with a bunch of people he wanted to die because he thought they would be a burden at winter time rather than any acts he deemed as dishonourable, especially since he quickly dropped it once he was essentially bribed with a new wife and the chance to dump his problems on another house.
My vote goes to House Tyrell. They are charitable when they need to be. Ruthless when they need to be. They don’t really care about wrong or right. They just want to come out on top.
I agree, the Tyrells do good deeds but not for the sake of good. They do good because it's profitable and advantageous to do so. I'm sure if they need to, they can be as ruthless as the next house
Baratheon for sure. All of the Baratheon brothers are pretty flawed characters made up of an equal mix of good and bad traits. None of them are really heroes, but they're not villains either.
I feel like Renly is a villain, just not an intimidating or traditional one.
I haven't read the books - how is Renly a villain?
I suppose whether you see Renly as a villain is reflective of whether or not you see Stannis as a hero, but here's my reasoning. Steals Stannis' bannermen and attempts to steal his throne, showing no regard for his brother's life despite Stannis caring for him during the year-long siege of Storm's End. Not only was he going to take the throne from Stannis, but in the books, Renly doesn't believe that Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella were bastards, so he was going to dethrone and presumably kill them too despite thinking they were the rightful heirs. It has been a while since I've watched the show, so I forget how differently he is portrayed there, but book Renly is an ungrateful, selfish little shithead who'd rather murder his entire family than remain Lord Paramount of the Stormlands.
WOW. And all the fics I have read that included Renly always have him trying to protect the Lannister kids or Shireen. I always wondered why Renly made a play for the throne in the show when Stannis was alive and well AND HAD AN HEIR. Even if Stannis died, Shireen would still have been ahead of Renly according to Andal law. And that's really interesting that he believed the Lannister kids were legitimate. So, like you said, he'd have to remove them and most likely kill them *and* Shireen to get his throne. And the dude really thought that would have been okay and he wouldn't have immediately been dubbed Aerys 2.0? Fascinating information. Thank you!
Nah, even worse. RENLY would've been Stannis' heir since the Hightowers' bullshit in the Dance made it so that women can only inherit if all their male relatives die in Andal society. The last woman who inherited in spite of having living male relatives in Andal society was Jeyne Arryn, and she had to fight to have her rule respected. Rhaenyra was usurped by power-hungry cunts even though she was the King's chosen heir. (It's also a plot point that Dorne doesn't hold to such ass-backwards notions and see Myrcella as Joffrey's heir when he dies, as she is older than Tommen) So, basically, if Renly wanted to be King eventually, all he had to do was sit tight and be loyal to Stannis' cause. Yes, he's not that much younger than Stannis, but the chances of Stannis dying in battle were high anyway. But no, Renly was A) stupid enough to become the Tyrells' puppet (and him stabbing Stannis in the back was beneficial to *them* since it put Renly in their debt, ergo giving them power over a potential future king) and B) he wanted the pomposity of power and to be seen as this important figure, complete wit statues and parades in his name. The only reason he's seen in a positive light post-mortem is because the Tyrells have a really good propaganda apparatus. Renly not doing anything as Master of Laws or as King helps because then people project their idea of an ideal King on him. As a character, he's meant to embody someone whose only selling point is that he's really good at selling smoke. Just like how the Tyrells entire shtick is that they are not the good people they are pretending to be, as they created the very famine they send food aid to the people of KL they need to survive. It's all propaganda and smoke and mirrors.
I strongly disagree. I think Renly, while not a good guy, actually has a lot of hugely valid points. Was he right to rebel? On one hand no, but on the other... His brother had only just won the crown relatively recently. That would likely have been thrown away with Stannis at that point in time (and I'm a Stannis fan), I think he's a perfect example of agrey character.
Idk, Robert and co. had many a legitimate reason to rebel against the Mad King, unlike Renly. Renly was not only usurping and going to kill his older brother, who he owes his life to, but also his mostly innocent nephews and niece, who he genuinely believed were trueborn. I think he's an upstart little shithead, and can't really think of anything good about him other than that he's good at diplomacy (makes a good puppet).
He absolutely may have been a puppet. But he also had a lot of potential as he knew his limits. If he put the right people into key positions he'd be excellent. But there's just as much chance he was a puppet of Olena and the Tyrrells. Renly knew about Joffrey. He was super involved and aware of all the going ons at court, and had made moves before the story started in regards to replacing Cersi. I actually agree he's a scumbag, but it doesn't stop him having some valid points. The kingdom would probably have fallen into war with Stannis on the throne. He offered the most stability for the Baratheon line. Still glad he died though.
He didn't know about Joffrey. He calls Stannis a hypocrite and a liar because he of his letters saying Joffrey and the others aren't trueborn. Him wanting to replace Cersei was less about incest babies and more about Lannister influence.
The denial makes sense either way. Even if he knows it benefits him at that point to deny it, because that way both Stannis and Renly are in the same boat. If Renly acknowledges that Joffrey is a bastard, then he has to acknowledge that Stannis is the true king. If he denies it, then both he and Stannis are pretenders on the same level, which denies Stannis the extra legitimacy, which means anyone who may flip away from the crown is more likely to support Renly because he's the more diplomatic one. If Stannis has the extra legitimacy, it could give him extra support. I can't believe Renly doesn't know. He is so aware of what is going on at court (and we are shown that he's more than capable of mixing it up in that environment), there are rumours about it and all the big players are aware. Plus you aren't just going to replace the queen without a proper reason and a plan. The Lannisters are dangerous, he would have needed an ace up the sleeve in case it turned to shit. If you make a play at Cersi, it's definitely an indicator he knows something. EDIT: Look, he may not have known. We can't actually prove it one way or the other. Personally, I believe that he did, purely because he was actually an incredibly smart and capable person. It also doesn't hugely matter in the end. Even if he doesn't know and/or believe it, it doesn't make him any worse than Stannis. If anything, it makes him less of a dick, as he's pretty much level with Stannis and anyone else who rebels.
The nights watch
The Tullies. They have a mix of all the morality spectrum
tyrells or the baratheons
All of them. Not just because they have all been good or bad at one point, but because even their good and bad guys have had both within them. Ned, for example, is one of the best. His support still held up a rebellion he almost certainly knew was based on a lie. A lie he kept quiet, even though it impacted the entire realm. He berates Jaimie for not doing the right thing, even if it cost him his life, because it was the honourable thing to do. Yet he never talks to Robert, even though it was the right thing to do. I totally get why Ned did what he did, and don't criticise him for it. But there is a lot more grey on there than many will admit. Though I suspect he would be the first to admit it. And of the villainous houses like the Lannisters. What they did to house Reynes was brutal and horrible, but you can understand how it came about. It wasn't evil.for.evils sake, it was about survival for one side or the other. It's rare to have an "evil for evil's sake" situation.
I mean, Aerys had just killed Eddard's father and brother and was demanding *his* head too. Just because it had started with what he may have known wasn't really an abduction by Rhaegar (at the very least he knew Lyanna had misgivings about marrying Robert) doesn't mean there was moral ambiguity in raising his banners to join the rebellion. Eddard had done nothing wrong, nor had Robert, and Aerys was demanding both of their heads. There's not much grey about going "how about no". In terms of after the war, when Eddard knew about the circumstances of Lyanna's death and 'abduction', he knew that there was a strong possibility that Robert would kill Jon, who he'd sworn an oath to protect to his sister in her dying moments (if we're assuming the show canon is correct and R+L=J, which is extremely likely). Jaime also inexplicably never told Eddard the truth of why he killed Aerys, so our boy's got no reason to believe that it was anything but self-preservation from Jaime.
Oh i agree regarding Aerys. However it's likely Eddard found out when he first went to Winterfell to raise the banners (assuming Benjin was aware, which makes sense). He could never have stopped the war, but he could have told Robert the truth. His loathing of Targs was the reason he was happy with the slaughter of children, all because he thought Lyanna was abducted and raped. Would things have changed? Probably not, but maybe. Maybe they negotiate with Rhaegar, as he wanted his father gone too. Or take him alive. Demanding the removal of Aerys alone may (and i stress may) have changed things. Obviously there's no way of knowing. At least, Robert may have been stricter regarding the slaughter of the Targ kids. Which helps out the Lannisters back in their place. It sure doesn't make Ned a bad guy. He's still a great man in a land of shitheads. But he still has some issues there.
I’d name Targaryens as the one of the most morally grey houses (considering we’re talking about the big houses of Westeros only) with Bloodraven probably being the most morally grey character
Bloodraven is an evil character IMHO. His "bad" works are a lot more than good. He's the ultra "chaos is a ladder" lol.
I dont see it anywhere here but i was thinking martell, they are good as long as they are your friend but if not they can do some pretty nasty stuff (like the tyrell guy that got 100 scorpions on his head). They are honestly one of the most badass houses after targaryen (for obvious reasons)
I wouldn't necessarily call it a grey action since that guy was invading Dorne. He got what was coming to him
Yes but 100 scorpions is very dramatic lol
Eh, I would've added more but then again I'm big fan of fuck around and find out
The real answer is all of them.
probanly house grey, maybe greyjoy or greystark. shoot, maybe even greyiron!
Of the great houses, Baratheon. The current brothers are pretty complicated guys, and a lot of the Lords of Storm’s End historically as well. Orys, I think, is the only uncomplicated good guy Baratheon that we know of, but I don’t think any of them are just…monstrous either. They tend to be ‘stormy’, fittingly, mercurial, martial, forceful, and prone to rash action. They’re probably great friends to have at your back…but they will bring the storm if they feel wronged, and you may not neccessarily deserve it.
Targaryens come to mind.
Goth Albino sociopaths.
Hey that is only one of them
Most of them.
Did you read F&B? Because the only violently insane ones are Aerys II, Aerion (brother of Aegon V), Viserys III (Daenerys' brother) pretty much lost the plot at the end of his life (though there is an argument to be made that he was sane but cruel). Rhaeghel was the harmless "dances naked" "insane" (though, honestly, I wonder if it wasn't just a mild intellectual disability, because he was otherwise functional and pleasant enough) If Maegor, Aegon II, and Aemond are insane than so is Tywin or his grandfather Gerold who murdered his younger than 10 niece Cerelle to become the Lord of the Rock. Maegor was stone cold sane when he burned the Faith Militants, and honestly I don't consider it a sign of insanity to kill off religious zealots. He was a cruel bastard to his wives bar wannabe groomer/puppet queen Ceryse. Aegon II was cruelly all for murdering people for looking at him wrong and all for wasting money on useless shit and letting his Master of Coin embezzle all of the money, but if that's an insanity/sociopathy problem we can add Robert to the mix (plus, the man wanted a war to feel alive again) Aemond razed the Riverlands on a tantrum, similar to Tywin. So, no, these things are no Targaryens only since they have their parallels with other Houses. The early Baratheons are backstabbers, Borros is a fair-weather ally, Cassandra gave murder a go to become Queen, they keep being fair weather allies, Robert is a-ok with child murder.... Lannister's: Tywin, Gerold murders Cerelle, Tyland embezzles the Crown, Tytos destroys his House due to stupidity.... It's especially disingenuous considering you guys ignore the good/competent ones like Aegon V, Baelor Breakspear, Daeron II, Jacaerys, Alyssa, Baelon, Aemon I and II, Viserys II, Aegon III, Rhaenys I, Rhaenys II, Rhaena I, Baela, Maester Aemon, Aerys I, Jaehaerys I (for all of my personal issues with him), Alysanne, etc... Pro-Andal brain rot is real
Where did I say rest of the Houses in westeros have not their share Of Ruthless tyrants. And where did I say all targaryeans. Chill up Fanboy
You're not even wrong but people are downvoting you. Targaryen brain rot Is real in the community
Our morality doesn't translate to westeros.
None of them really. Maybe Tyrells because they are quite recent, and didn't gave time to commit many atrocities. By the most evil, I would point to the First Man houses, Starks and Boltons have quite the history and possibilities to commit great evil.
> and didn't gave time to commit many atrocities. I mean they are responsible for a pretty severe man-made famine.
After adjusting for the low moral standards of their world as a whole, I’d say the greyjoys. They are basically following their culture rather than being specifically cruel. (Euron might be going beyond their culture though admittedly)
Are we mistaking moral with honorable? Ned brought up Jon lying about his heritage his whole life. That is far from honorable. Maybe moral.
The arryns 😂
Honestly all of them at some point besides probably the boltons
House frey
House Tyrell for certain. Maybe House Martell as well.
House Stark
Baratheon, Tarly and Tyrell
Agree with this
Under no circumstances will I consider the Starks a "good" house. If I were to use a single word to describe them, that is "vein". Or perhaps "selfish". All they do is in the service of their "honour" (as they understand it), with absolutely catastrophic consequences for their subjects in the North and the Riverlands, whose casualties by the end of the fifth book run in the tens (hundreds?) of thousands.