End of Game of Thrones (Spoilders!)

[marauder648]

And for those of us who are now lacking a good show to watch and still have a HBO sub. Their Chernobyl series is very very good.

[Frabby]

My wife and I haven't read the books (and won't start until the last volume is published - Wheel of Time kinda burned us here even though it did eventually get a proper ending).

That said, we felt there were some plot hooks left dangling.
Most importantly, in a world where magic and deities are manifest real, what exactly was their agenda?

The Lord of Light in particular made a poor showing: Melisandre did naaasty things in the name of a greater good that never really came to pass. Not only did she blunder in her pointless but painful support of Stannis (that essentially only caused pain and suffering on all sides, helping no one), but her appearance at Winterfell was an outright comical failure. Igniting the Dothraki blades only helped in making their demise more eerie but certainly did nothing for morale or combat effectiveness. Igniting the trench was convenient but felt shoehorned in and pointless in the overall terrible defense tactics. Not much of a payoff after all the buildup, especially when there are two firebreathing dragons around.
Resurrections for the good guys were nice but narratively pointless except for Jon Snow. But neither Melisandre nor Jon nor anyone associated with the Lord of Light actually made a significant contribution to the demise of the Night King. What gives?

Similarly, the Drowned God. For "never dying", his followers sure die a lot. (Btw is Euron really confirmed dead?)

Finally, the Many-Faced God. You've got an angry teenager walking into your cult and totally subverting it for her own purposes... yet she still retains the assassin superpowers bestowed upon her, with no price to pay.

Oh, and Cersei apparently outright killed off a religion?

Edit: Typos.

[Dubble_g]

Most importantly, in a world where magic and deities are manifest real, what exactly was their agenda?

One of the things I like about GRRM's take on fantasy is that MAGIC is manifest real, deities most definitely are not.

Melisandre, Thoros and Co certainly believe their power comes from the Lord of Light, but there is zero objective evidence to support that this is indeed the source of their magic, as opposed to any of the other million possible explanations (mana, ether, juju, some manifest force of fate or destiny, whatever). For example, it's clear the Night's King wields some kind of magic power, but nobody really thinks he goes to church every Sunday.

Ditto the Faceless Men. They claim to serve the God of Death in all his/her/its myriad forms, but again, we just have to take their word for it. As you said, Arya, who quite patently does not believe in their mission, is able to learn the face-stealing ability, which strongly suggests there's nothing especially divine about it.

I thought this was one of the more interesting takes on the fantasy genre, in that the characters all believe in their respective religions, but unlike say Lord of the Rings (where the existence of Eru, the Valar, Morgoth and Sauron is fact) we the audience are left to decide for ourselves whether they're right or wrong.

[Frabby]

Oh. That's an interesting take. In the presence of magic, I never questioned the existence of the deities.
Thinking about it, yes it could probably be said that the "deities" are just abstract personas ascribed to certain magic (or possibly even mundane)... somethings. The human mind likes pattern recognition so much that it sometimes assumes a pattern where there is none.

I'd need to re-watch the show with this in mind; but I am fairly sure that the Lord of Light (the most prominent deity) does seem to have an agenda after all that cannot be explained by random magic skills in random people alone. Melisandre, Thoros and even the Hound (the latter kicking and screaming) independently from each other seemed to come to the conclusion that they had some preordained fate that had to do with the Lord of Light and/or fire, in a way that - to me - suggested there was a mastermind of some sort behind it. Then again, while perhaps not random, the supposed agenda and how things played out made zero sense to me.

[Dubble_g]

I'd need to re-watch the show with this in mind; but I am fairly sure that the Lord of Light (the most prominent deity) does seem to have an agenda after all that cannot be explained by random magic skills in random people alone. Melisandre, Thoros and even the Hound (the latter kicking and screaming) independently from each other seemed to come to the conclusion that they had some preordained fate that had to do with the Lord of Light and/or fire, in a way that - to me - suggested there was a mastermind of some sort behind it. Then again, while perhaps not random, the supposed agenda and how things played out made zero sense to me.

There's definitely the suggestion that fate or destiny are real, but whether or not they are divinely guided is less clear. I think there's a stronger hint of divine presence in the show, e.g. Beric's resurrection and sacrifice being for a specific purpose, whereas his fate in the books is, er, quite different.

Notably, both a follower of the Lord of Light and Ian McShane's septon (from two completely different religions) thought the Hound had a destiny, which suggests whatever fate he had was independent of either religion. (Or both sets of gods wanted the same thing, I suppose...)

[Colt Ward]

I think its also a matter of confirmation bias for the religions- well, obviously it worked out so it was fated by our deity.  The books cover the Lord of Light following and its a much broader and pervasive religion that IS at some critical junctures.

I think they fumbled the ruler answer at the end, or were at least unclear, but we saw through most of this last season the idea that power should reside with the people who do not want it.  Bran combined the 'not wanting/chasing power' and the Lewis assertion* though you could say Cersei sort of fit that last part for the areas she controlled.  They did establish the thought that the sons of kings were tyrants in the making with the expectation of power.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."-  CS Lewis

[Elmoth]

I like the idea of Bran orchestrating everything in order to become king. And puting the Stark powerbase in a position to influence who is going to be king in the future.

Magic being real while gods maybe not is also a nice touch.

[I am Belch II]

I think it was dumb for Bran to be the king...but the King of Westros is not as powerful as before Dany went and burned it with fire. The reason for it was pretty dumb but I guess it is a less of a chance in 20 years start all over again. Like the BSG line " all this has happened before and will happen again" is the same as the "the wheel"

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Well since otherwise Bran becoming the Three Eyed Raven served no real purpose other than being the MacGuffin that the Night King wanted... I think it makes narrative sense he ended up King.  Besides, not only was his character too important to be nothing more than a MacGuffin (he's been around since the pilot) the story literally started with him.. Ned making him watch a beheading.

[Colt Ward]

Bran did more than that, but a lot of it was a intel 'conduit' while he was north of the Wall.  His becoming the 3ER also seems to have altered his personality to mute emotional responses, which is not a bad thing for the head of state.  For one thing, look at his response to Moira . . . which in hindsight is a preview, he cut loose a emotional attachment that could have turned into queenly problems.

Thought the awkward bit in the decision process IMO is Sansa saying he cannot have kids . . . how does sis know this?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Thought the awkward bit in the decision process IMO is Sansa saying he cannot have kids . . . how does sis know this?

Can't do the things biologically necessary to father children when you're paralyzed down there.

[carlisimo]

I would’ve been comfortable with Bran becoming king if, a) he hadn’t said, “Why do you think I came?”, and b) he had been humanized a little more in the last couple of seasons the way Arya was.  He’s still so… disconnected.

[grimlock1]

Can't do the things biologically necessary to father children when you're paralyzed down there.

Not necessarily true.  If his injury was T11 or higher, the odds are as high as 10% that he can... perform the required steps to father a child, without medical assistance.  If the injury involves the sacral nerves then odds are basically zip.

[JadeHellbringer]

Westeros has never struck me as being a place that has advanced medical care for even royalty. If he had a 10% chance under modern medicine, I'd cut another 50% off that to compensate for the 'use leeches' method likely popular at Winterfell. ;)

[Dubble_g]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."-  CS Lewis

Great find! This got me thinking. There's a lot of criticism of the show's (and Martin's) decision to end with Bran as king. But maybe we're looking at this the wrong way?

ASOIAF and to a lesser extent the show seem in large part an answer to the question "What was Aragorn's tax policy?" -- that is, What does it really mean to be a 'good ruler'?

Being a good guy doesn't work (Ned, Robb, Jon), being awful doesn't work (Joffrey, Roose, Ramsay, Cersei) even being a good guy to your friends and awful to your enemies doesn't work (Dany). At first glance, nothing works. Every form of monarchy is terrible.

So what makes the books or show think Bran is any better?

Well, let's look at those final scenes again. Yeah, if you didn't like them, down a quart of whiskey, whatever it takes, just watch them again. We've been arguing Bran will be a good king or he'll be a bad king, but watch the scene and tell me what you see:

Bran ain't ruling anything.

He wheelies in, makes a nonsensical comment about a spymaster (as everyone points out, an utterly unnecessary position now that he's king), Tyrion does the harried-middle-manager thing and tells his boss he's on it, and Pod carts Bran out again. Everyone lets out a breath and GETS ON WITH ACTUALLY RULING.

Every form of monarchy is terrible, except the one where the monarch doesn't do anything.

Bran isn't king because he's an "omnipotent moral busybody" the way both promoters and detractors have argued. They make him the king because he literally does not give a duck. He's a useful symbolic (What a great story, cries Tyrion) figurehead who allows the actual running of the realm to happen in the meantime. He's Robert Baratheon without the urge to spend all his money on booze and hookers.

Who is our 'good ruler'? Tyrion, Davos, Sam, Bronn and Brienne.
- Outsiders and marginalized people who never felt entitled to rule
- People with (possibly excluding Bronn) no hope of ever seizing greater power for themselves
- People with no particular agenda, vision or mission
Bureaucrats, in other words. Civil servants.

In short, in GoT's worldview there's no such thing as a 'good king'. The best ruler is a civil servant, a bureaucrat rather than a charismatic demagogue.

And that's why they made Bran king.

[nckestrel]

I have serious issues with "good king" and "lets Bronn control the money" being in the same universe.

[Scotty]

I have serious issues with "good king" and "lets Bronn control the money" being in the same universe.

The man who wants the money to keep lining his pockets keeps the money flowing best.  I would never trust someone of resolute integrity with a task like controlling the money.  They'd never swindle anyone! :D

[gyedid]

Who is our 'good ruler'? Tyrion, Davos, Sam, Bronn and Brienne.
- Outsiders and marginalized people who never felt entitled to rule
- People with (possibly excluding Bronn) no hope of ever seizing greater power for themselves
- People with no particular agenda, vision or mission
Bureaucrats, in other words. Civil servants.

Hey that sounds like the Canadian way!  ;D  What I mean by that is, even though we have elected representatives, the actual job of getting all the government work done falls on the federal civil service, a.k.a. the "mandarinate".  These are people who often keep their positions through several successive administrations regardless of which party is actually in power, and are (in theory, at least) politically agnostic.  (Naturally, it doesn't always work out that way.)  The highest-ranking members of the civil service are popularly thought of (and indeed have been portrayed as) a kind of shadow government--they're the ones who hold the real power because they make sure stuff actually gets done--or not, if they feel it rocks the boat too much.

cheers,

Gabe

[Frabby]

...but how's that different to the beginning of the show? Robert also let the Small Council handle things, with competent civil servants ranging from altruistic (Varys) to selfish *** (Littlefinger, like Bronn).

[Dubble_g]

Hey that sounds like the Canadian way!

I guess it is kind of like that. I hasten to add, for benefit of sensitive readers out there, we're talking (A) about the message of a work of fiction, not our own political views, and (B) how those political systems work in a magical, feudal kingdom, not the real world. The key point is "How does Game of Thrones try to answer the question, 'Who is a good ruler?' in the context of a feudal monarchy with magic and dragons."

...but how's that different to the beginning of the show? Robert also let the Small Council handle things, with competent civil servants ranging from altruistic (Varys) to selfish *** (Littlefinger, like Bronn).

Hence my comment, "He's Robert Baratheon without the urge to spend all his money on booze and hookers."

Up thread I said it, I'll say it again: Bobby B was probably as good as you get, king-wise. Overthrew a pyromaniac tyrant WITHOUT slaughtering half a city or getting nine-tenths of his own supporters killed, put down an attempt at secession rather than letting his kingdom get broken up and thereby deterred further civil wars, and then reigned in a period basically at peace. Only downside was his profligate overspending, a problem Bran won't have.

[Frabby]

There's still a world of difference between the two rulers though.

Robert Baratheon has few if any redeeming qualities, nor can his rule be described as successful in any way.

Robert positively was a liability to his position because he didn't even try to run a kingdom, except perhaps for running it into the ground. The entire Game of Thrones civil war that followed comes down to his utter failure to sort out the mess he created with his rebellion - he totally, deliberately squandered the power that others died for him to have because he was a nihilistic hedonist. Oh, and on the sidelines, he created the Cersei monster from a girl/woman who wasn't too different from Sansa or Danaerys at the onset, and could have walked a very different, better path if not for Robert.
His reasoning for taking the throne was essentially "get rid of a guy I hate and kill his family, because his son took my girl". Nothing particularly noble here, and certainly no care about anyone but himself. He incited a civil war that put incredible hardship on a lot of people including his brother Stannis ("I don't like dog, either" - I think Stannis is an underappreciated Boromir type fallen paladin character, but that is really a thread unto its own), and although I don't have numbers I'm fairly sure there was a considerable death toll to Robert's Rebellion.
Which was based on a lie. Either Robert lied knowingly, which marks him as a bad guy. Or he made himself believe the lie he so desperately wanted to believe. Which marks him as a pathetic loser.
Nope, not a Robert Baratheon fan.

Bran is neither selfish nor clueless. He decided to accept the position, knowing he would have little direct control and be mostly a figurehead leader. But he could at least chose competent and reliable people for the Small Council, and keep tabs on them. Bronn is the odd one out in the team. Not sure how/why Tyrion's promises had to be kept by Bran, but perhaps it indicates that Bran feels Bronn is a better person that the image he portrays for himself; or in any case a competent Master of Coin for the realm.

You could argue that Bran is too removed and ethereal to be king. My counter argument is that this is exactly the right fit for this position - be a figurehead most of the time, but keep control of and tabs on your agents so that they may ably rule in your name. Even Bronn must know that this is a king he cannot double-cross.

What I'm saying is that while little seems to have changed on the outside (save for the scorched ruins), the internal condition of the monarchy has improved significantly.

Under Robert Baratheon, things somehow worked in spite of the king. Until they didn't. He never had a stable rule (nor cared to have one), and the most surprising fact is that it lasted for so long until it collapsed.

Under Bran, there's all reason to assume he'll proactively bring a competent Council team to actually improve things with a lasting effect.

[roosterboy]

His reasoning for taking the throne was essentially "get rid of a guy I hate and kill his family, because his son took my girl". Nothing particularly noble here, and certainly no care about anyone but himself. He incited a civil war that put incredible hardship on a lot of people including his brother Stannis ("I don't like dog, either" - I think Stannis is an underappreciated Boromir type fallen paladin character, but that is really a thread unto its own), and although I don't have numbers I'm fairly sure there was a considerable death toll to Robert's Rebellion.

Not a book reader, but from what I've gleaned from online sources, the war wasn't started "because [the King's] son took my girl" but instead because the King murdered Ned's father and brother (and others?) when they complained about Lyanna's alleged abduction and then demanded the heads of Robert and Ned as well. And Jon Arryn—whose wards Robert and Ned were—was the one who actually raised the cry for rebellion. Robert just became the figurehead of the rebellion because he was the one with a claim—however distant—to the throne due to a Targaryen ancestor.

If Aerys hadn't been such a dick and had smoothed things over with the Starks instead of killing them, the rebellion probably never would have happened.

Book readers, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Which was based on a lie. Either Robert lied knowingly, which marks him as a bad guy. Or he made himself believe the lie he so desperately wanted to believe. Which marks him as a pathetic loser.

Not necessarily based on a lie. It was only a lie if Robert, Ned, et al. knew that Lyanna went with Rhaegar willingly. I didn't get the impression from the show, at least, that Robert did know that. Ned might have after the fact, but not at the time the rebellion broke out.

[JadeHellbringer]

Quick reminder- keep the political commentary focused on Westeros, not the real world.

[Kit deSummersville]

Oh, and on the sidelines, he created the Cersei monster from a girl/woman who wasn't too different from Sansa or Danaerys at the onset, and could have walked a very different, better path if not for Robert.

Eh, she was already sleeping with her twin brother....

[Colt Ward]

I am going with Frabby on this, the only way to call a ruler successful in a monarchy is if the continuity of government goes through without a disturbance in the realm.  And that was NEVER going to happen with Robert- who was so indifferent he did not notice that none of his bastards had blonde hair yet all three of 'his' kids did!  Its part of the reason 3145 makes me nuts- part of the duty of a ruler is an heir & a spare . . . yet we now have NONE of that in 3145, which means they are ALL failures except the Republic b/c they are a oligarchy.

[carlisimo]

I dunno.  Sansa was portrayed as having become a competent ruler, and she was pretty hands-on.  She worried about logistics and called Jon out for making short-sighted political moves in regard to the minor regional houses – not a whole lot of examples for us to work with, but still positive.  So what’s the lesson there?
 
The Starks seem to be a family with an unusually small number of bad eggs.   Doesn’t seem quite fair!  Maybe it’s the relatively Spartan lifestyle, or judicious use of sending Starks to the Wall.  But there’s no indication that keeping the old system up there is going to be a problem.
 
As for Bran, I get it, but his line, “What do you think I came here for?” was very much at odds with the rest of his dialogue this season (“I don’t want anymore.”)  I would’ve preferred a few scenes showing him becoming a little more human again, like Arya got.  And I do think he’ll need a Master of Whispers – someone to tell him where to apply his powers.  It’s more that he can see anything, as opposed to everything.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The Starks seem to be a family with an unusually small number of bad eggs.   Doesn’t seem quite fair!  Maybe it’s the relatively Spartan lifestyle, or judicious use of sending Starks to the Wall.  But there’s no indication that keeping the old system up there is going to be a problem.

The Starks are afflicted with stupidity rather than evil.  And they are well represented with characters that suffer the family curse: See Ned, Robb, and in many cases Jon.

Even Sansa had to intern under Cersei, Littlefinger, and Ramsay before she became a competent player of the Game of Thrones.

[Colt Ward]

Bran actually has a problem with what he can see . . . part of it is linked to the Weirwood trees, many of which were cut down in the south when the religion of the Seven took prominence.  Now, he CAN warg but its not like in the North or Far North where the trees offer him access to the past- even 5 minutes ago, so if his controlled creature does is not in the right place he cannot see.

Eddard's behavior was fine in the North where as ruler he could make folks follow his system- Roose Bolton never did anything against the Warden of the North until the chaos.  Sansa will be a superior ruler to Eddard because she can control/use the chaos, and with all the dead leading houses of the North she is not likely to have anything else in her reign- its going to take time for the established rut to form.  Pretty sure Alyce Karstark died against the Dead, so that means the Umbers, Karstarks, Boltons, and Glovers are gone . . . leaving the 'recent' Manderlys as the only other established bannerman to the Starks.  I think she would be smart to select second sons from Vale nobles that supported her to take up a title in the North as well as looking to any standouts in the Battle of Winterfell.  Hold the Karstark land & title in trust . . . and maybe snagging a bastard born north of the Wall to take that title though cousin Sansa would be that Karstark's ward.

[gyedid]

  Its part of the reason 3145 makes me nuts- part of the duty of a ruler is an heir & a spare . . . yet we now have NONE of that in 3145, which means they are ALL failures except the Republic b/c they are a oligarchy.

And they're about to fall to the Clans, so they've failed even in that way too.

cheers,

Gabe

[I am Belch II]

The Starks were to Nobel to play the Game on their own. They would do good things and bad things at the wrong time. That is why people took advantage of them.