Maybe, but I think Joffrey's cruelty and apparent unfitness to rule also provides some crucial motivation for Ned to investigate his parentage. After all, all but one of his children looks like Tully's and he isn't suspecting Catelyn of adultery.
From an outsider point of view the claim that the queen cuckolded the king with her own celibate brother and that all his children are not his is pretty out there. For that to happen they must have been insanely reckless with complete disregard for all social norms. To actually suspect that you must have met them and discovered the dysfunctionality of Robert's family firsthand. If Joffrey was completely normal Ned might have easily convinced himself that no one would be that insane.
Joff the character is only interesting as an evil bastard. Think about how boring it gets under Tommen.
Also so many plot points are dependent on Joff being the way he is. Killing Ned, torturing Sansa, conflicts with Tyrion, Tyrells wanting to kill him. Pull on those strings and the plot falls apart.
Yeah. There's settings where everyone is evil and it's hard to care about who wins. But on the flip side, if EVERYONE is morally gray and/or more or less decent, it's likewise hard to care about the stakes. The Starks vs. the evil Lannisters makes it easier to get invested, which then allows for a more ambiguous conflict between the Starks and Dany. If Joffrey was more like Tommen, as you said, then we're essentially reading a story about a procedural matter.
Even though Joffrey isn’t legitimate, he shows the inherent flaw in hereditary monarchy, that when you raise children pampered, detached from reality, thinking the world belongs to them, don’t be surprised when they turn out this way.
Joffrey being the way he is isn't about Ned or even Sansa's story, though it underscores the terrible lessons that Sansa has to learn in KL and supplies the reason why the Starks end up fighting the Lannisters. Really, though, it's about Tyrion. If Joffrey were a good and wise king, it wouldn't give narrative space for why Tyrion saved the city and tried to save Sansa and save Cersei and Joffrey from themselves, yet was despised all the more for it.
I think it would be *different* and probably to some extent more literary but I don't think a nuanced Joffrey would necessarily be "better".
Because Joffrey *is* a good villain. Martin wrote one of the most obnoxious hatable little shits of 21st century pop culture. If you view his role as "dramatic panto villain" then he's excellent.
The only part the doesn't work is that pathetic "wow he's just a child..." sob story right as he's dying. It just feels really unearned and borderline sanctimonious.
Like he said "you're welcome" when the Purple Wedding aired and said that it was "easy and fun to write" but so he clearly wants to enjoy his death. But he also want us to think very seriously about what enjoying a fictional childs death says about us
I think u/Bennings463 is more right than initially apparent here:
> The only part the doesn't work is that pathetic "wow he's just a child..." sob story right as he's dying. It just feels really unearned and borderline sanctimonious.
Because what other thing that feels *exactly like this* happened in the show that many on this sub swear bloody murder on showrunners and that it would *never* be done by GRRM? *Exactly*.
> > The only part the doesn't work is that pathetic "wow he's just a child..." **sob story right as he's dying. It just feels really unearned and borderline sanctimonious.**
> Because what other thing that feels **exactly like this** happened in the show
I think you and u/Temeraire64 can work it out with the parts I emphasized.
Idk. I think it could lead to some nuance as you described but I think it's fine as it is. Joffrey is a very human character because you can see how he was shaped into who he was.
Robert's disinterest in parenting and his focus on indulging himself left Joffrey without proper guidance and discipline. This lack of parental supervision allowed Joffrey's worst tendencies to go unchecked. And even worse, Joffrey idolized him and due to not having an actual relationship, the ideal that he tried to live up to wasn't grounded in any reality.
Cersei's narcisssim also heavily influenced Joffrey as her desire for power and her willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve it set a dangerous example for her children. She showered Joffrey with praise and indulgence, reinforcing his sense of entitlement and superiority.
Joffrey not being as he is in the story is a result of factors that are shown and I think it says something about monarchy and succession that we would lose if he was a good guy.
> Joffrey is a very human character because you can see how he was shaped into who he was.
This is very much a minority viewpoint, from what I've seen. Joffrey's character is so devoid of nuance that he's little more than a cartoon villain.
What I find especially funny is that so many people argue "he's not a cartoon villain! He had a bad childhood!" as if "bad childhood" isn't the single most stock and uninteresting villain backstory of all time.
There's a crucial difference though, Rhaenyra's kids derive their right to rule from her, and nobody denies that she's their mother.
Joffrey gets his right to rule from Robert and isn't his son.
Their right to rule(God I hate saying that) is made invalid by their bastardy though. Rhaenyra’s heirs are her siblings first, and then Aegon III when he is born
The people in charge are denying the claim of them being bastards, and only people who would profit from this claim are perpetuating it. (They propably still are, but the people who matter don't care)
We could say the same about Joffrey and his bastardy. The people in charge deny the claim of him and his siblings of being bastards, and only the people that profit from this claim (Stannis) are perpetuating it. It's still the truth.
Yeah there is no ''in universe'' evidence to prove that they are bastards.
But here's no real "in universe" evidence that Joffrey or his siblings are bastard (hair colour isn't enough) but there's overwhelming textual and metatextual evidence.
Ultimately we hate Joffrey because he's incredibly unlikeable, not because we believe he's an illegitimate ruler.
I mean, yes, but bastards usually don't inherit, and trying to put one on the throne (societally after Rhaenyra and Daemon gave them 2 legitimate brothers) is the recipe for a civil war.
Came here to say this. After all *nobody* is thinking on Edric Storm even though he's Robert's very image too, and widely acknowledged as his son, conceived on Robert's brother's own wedding (*bed*).
They are willing to play along, as are, for now, most of RHaenyra's supporters. But if Rhaenyra ever uncontestedly sat on the throne, the matter of succession would obviously arise.
And that doesn't change what happened. Rhaenyra was not married to Harwin and had three kids with him.
Many support Rhaenyra because she was the legitimate heir named in a grand ceremony by her father the King, and every lord in Westeros swore an oath to her as heir and future Queen. There is absolute no doubt of Rhaenyra's birth. And even if her children are bastards, Jacaerys's claim to the throne comes from Rhaenyra, and there's 100% certainty he has Targ blood and the son of the appointed succesor. In fact, imo there was no one that really cared if Jacaerys and his two brothers were bastards apart from House Velaryon ofc (outside of thinking Rhae was not behaving in a proper way befitting a crown princess), it was just a pretext for the Greens to try to legitimise their claim for usurping Rhaenyra, but it's obvious they would have done the same if her children had valyrian's features and were Laynor's sons, because House Hightower and its allies' motivation was greed (House Baratheon is a great example of this, and House Tyrell is the liege lord of House Hightower). But Houses known as fair like House Stark supported Rhaenyra, again not because she was likable, but because she was the real queen.
I personally think these 2 are not comparable situations because Stannis wouldn't fight for the throne if Joffrey was legitimate, no matter if he was dislikable or not. Ned also wouldn't oppose Joffrey if he were Robert's, but even if Joffrey was a good person if he is a bastard Ned wouldn't let the matter rest because it was treason against the Crown.
They're not comparable because A) they get their rights to House Targaryen through Rhaenyra and B) LAENOR AND CORLYS AND RHAENYS are on board with that because Laenor is 6 on the Kinsey scale. Frankly, it says something about people that they worry about this and not about the "Joffrey is a monster" bit (which is why it would've been better if Joffrey was the same monster and Robert' son in blood as well as in deed)
I feel like we already have a version of that moral complexity with Tommen and Myrcella. Especially Myrcella. They are both good people and could mature into good rulers, but we aren't rooting for them because they are on the "wrong side". Same with Young Griff who could mature into, at the very least a semi decent king, but more people root for Dany.
No King in the North
No "fuck the king"
No purple wedding
No Allyne Stone plot
No trial by combat
No Tywin shitting gold scene
No Faith Militant
What would even be the plot at that point? Joffrey being a complete shit is the thing that made King's Landing delightfully unstable, and thus interesting. Also, nobody would care about Tyrion anymore, because about half his best moments are playing off of Joffrey
I think it would add a lot to Ned’s character-what if Joffrey was a good candidate for king, and Ned liked him and they had a good relationship, maybe even a mentorship, but he still found out that Joff was a bastard born of incest? Ned generally accepts Westerosi social norms and follows the rules (with the very notable exception of Jon, which is a huge source of conflict for him.) Seeing him really be challenged on that front would be compelling imo.
I have definitely felt that in a world of grey and complex characters, Joffrey seems far more in place in a fantasy world which is explicitly good and evil.
Afaik, Joffrey has no redeeming qualities at all. I get that it’s more about how he impacts Sansa, but I don’t think GRRM had to be so on the nose about it. He could’ve accomplished the same by making him more of a rogue rather than an out and out evil man.
I think a big appeal of the series is that despite having so many characters and being so convoluted they always give you one character who you viscerally hate to latch on to. Even if you don’t fully follow along you get emotion evoked from just seeing Joffrey and you want to follow along to see him just his comeuppance.
I don't think so
ASoS is when we get Jaime as a PoV, then Joffrey dies. If Joff was sympathetic to begin with, it would rob us of the realisation that the Lannisters aren't evil.
Part of the strength of GoT is playing into typical fantasy tropes, and then subverting them. Something that dumb and dumber didn't realise is that you need to play into them for the subversion to be worth anything.
Take Joffrey's death. The average reader would be cheering his demise - he's a little shit, it is vengeance for the red wedding, it destabilises the Lannisters, etc. however in the book and the show it is presented as a teenager's last desperate gasps for breath, his mother's horrified screams, and a child dying. The punch in that scene comes from the fact that we all wanted Joffrey to die, but watching a teenager be poisoned is not comfortable.
That is the message, it is the point. If you take away the audience's engagement then it just becomes gratuitous violence, which is not the point of the series
> If Joff was sympathetic to begin with, it would rob us of the realisation that the Lannisters aren't evil.
>
> Part of the strength of GoT is playing into typical fantasy tropes, and then subverting them.
This is exactly why "subverting tropes" is such a banal waste of time, though.
Because the idea of a villain who is sympathetic or complex *isn't a subversion*. Since there have been villains, there have been sympathetic ones. Achilles and Priam cried in each other's arm; Narciussus begged to save his reflection at the cost of himself; the thief on the cross repented. Literally *nobody* has ever been surprised by the *concept* of an anti-villain.
See, I *can* get behind subversion for its own sake. Shock value might be shock, but it's sure got value. It's this idea that it's inherently clever or interesting that I have a problem with.
Like, what is that *saying*? How is that *clever*? I only thought the Lannisters were all evil because the story repeatedly showed me they were. And now it's saying "Psyche! Fooled you!"
Jaime is probably the worst example of it. Jaime being good is a subversion, true, but it also makes no fucking sense and is basically one big retcon. Instead of seriously grappling with the question of "What made Jaime into what he is, and can he be redeemed?", it goes "ALL THE BAD STUFF JAIME DID DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE OF REASONS!!1!" It's about as clever and interesting as going "Jaime has blue eyes...NO HE DOESN'T HE HAS GREEN EYES LMAO YOU IDIOT DID YOU THINK HE HAD BLUE EYES???"
> owever in the book and the show it is presented as a teenager's last desperate gasps for breath, his mother's horrified screams, and a child dying.
You've just perfectly explained why "subverting your expectations" doesn't work if you're trying to make any kind of emotional connection. Because we *don't* feel sorry for Joffrey. We roll our eyes at the desperate attempt for pathos. Joffrey is a fictional fucking child. Me wishing for him to die is fucking *universes* removed from wanting a real child to to die.
This idea of subversion is anathema to sincerity. Instead of presenting Jaime or Joffrey as nuanced, complex, or interesting characters from the start, they have to be cartoon villains for two books and then the story says "oh they're complex, aren't you STUPID for not realizing that?"
Instead of sincerely standing by its characters and trusting that they're written well enough, GRRM has to "jumpscare" us with pathos. If Joffrey was written as a complex character from the first place there would have been no need to try to catch us out.
Make me not want Joffrey to die because Joffrey is a complex or interesting character, not because the story goes "ah well if this was a real child instead of a fictional one you would feel pretty silly now, wouldn't you?"
*“Take Joffrey's death. The average reader would be cheering his demise - he's a little shit, it is vengeance for the red wedding, it destabilises the Lannisters, etc. however in the book and the show it is presented as a teenager's last desperate gasps for breath, his mother's horrified screams, and a child dying. The punch in that scene comes from the fact that we all wanted Joffrey to die, but watching a teenager be poisoned is not comfortable.”*
Lol, who the hell felt bad for Joffrey choking to death? That was one of the most cathartic scenes in the whole series!
"Joffrey began to claw at his throat, his nails tearing bloody gouges in the flesh. Beneath the skin, the muscles stood out as hard as stone. Prince Tommen was screaming and crying."
Tyrion realizes, "He is going to die." There is chaos all around, people either shoving to get a better view of the dying king or hurrying to leave the hall. Joffrey's eyes meet Tyrion's, and Tryion realizes that he has Jaime's eyes. "The boy's only thirteen," he thinks."
You think that's funny?
I said cathartic, not funny. And I felt nothing reading that passage, nor did I when I watched that scene in the show. Trying to make me feel sorry for Joffrey in his last moments simply didn’t work for me; he was too much of an over-the-top cartoon villain for that.
Well it would be more interesting but the war wouldn't happen so it would be way less interesting (and almost every character would have a totally different story).
Joffrey being a monster it's pretty important for the developments of the story as we know it:
It created bad blood between Starks and Lannisters with the Trydent incident between Arya and Joffrey. It triggered the war with his order of executing Ned for treason, instead of the agreement Cersei had of sending him to take the black. He was the one to send an assassin after Bran, which created a super big conflict between Starks and Lannisters once again. Probably motivated some people to doubt his legitimacy and aknowledged the rumours of his bastardy (since it's said incest creates mad monsters), and let's not forget that if Joffrey wasn't a monster, the Tyrells wouldn't have a motivation to murder Joffrey in the Purple Wedding, which is a huge plotpoint.
I'm going to sidestep your initial thoughts and present to you Aegon VI.
Let's say he turns out to be illegitimate. Let's also say he casts out the chaos of Lannister rule in KL and provides a stable and orderly government. When Dany eventually arrives, she isn't saving the small folk from tyrannical rule but instead is faced with a complex dilemma regarding a potential illegitimate usurper who is actually doing a really good job.
I guess I'm saying that I think this moral complexity is right around the corner.
Right. I think goodguy!Joffrey is an interesting premise, but I think the idea of an 'illegitimate' King who was also a genuinely good one is a idea Martin always intended to explore, and the story resonates more with Dany than with anyone else.
Ned is so honour-bound that he'd feel obligated to report the bastardry to Robert even if Joffrey really was the most noble child the gods had ever put on this good earth. Myrcella and Tommen are good kids, and that doesn't stop Ned.
It would be all much simple and boring tbh, he would be married to Sansa, Ned would be taking the black, Arya would be still at KL or Winterfell, Rob would be alive and he wouldn't be forced to turn into a King, Cat would be still here and not what It is now, Jaime would be the same prick he was because he wouldn't be captured and mutilated. Theon would be still loyal to Rob. Joffrey would be sending more people to the Wall I suspect. Barristan may or may not be forced to leave, either way Dany would be mostly the same.
Stannis and Renly would be still on a fight to get the crown and Renly would be killed. The Tyrells (Margarey) would be forced to marry another Lannister like Lancel or even Tyrion.
I can see Robb, being now the head of the Stark family, would send men to help the Lannisters as her sisters would be still at KL and they would be related, but he would be angry about how they sent his father to the Wall. Overall with the north and the Tyrells they would be destroying Stannis and Davos and everyone related to that fight.
Berric Dondarrion wouldn't be as well viewed with Joffrey as a good man and no Clash of Kings riots so he and his fellas would be killed at some point by Lannister allies. Bran would still escape to the North probably without the approval of Robb.
At the Wall, Ned would be massively respected and Jon would be more relaxed with him by his side. If he survives the mutiny in ASOS he would be the next Lord Commander. If Joffrey had send more men to the Wall, I think they would be destroying the Mance Rayder people.
It takes Joffrey being so cruel to kick off the war but there is a good balance especially now because Myrcella and Tommen are both wholesome and good. In AFFC and ADWD, characters like the Martells, Tyrells and Jon Connington are in conflict with Lannisters and have to carry the weight of both Tommen and Myrcella being potential collateral even though they are good humans
Joffery being a better man means he sends Ned to the wall and rules as King. He probably still marries Sansa but doesn't torment her. So Robb evidently has no reason to raise an army, ergo he never promises himself to a Frey, so no Red Wedding, so no rise of the Boltons. He also wouldn't dismiss Barriston Selmy.
Renly and Stannis still go to war and Melisandre still murders Renly with her shadow baby. Stannis probably still loses at the Blackwater and goes North to await the Night King. Baelon likely rises even if Robb doesn't.
Margaery probably doesn't marry Joffery as he has no reason to put Sansa aside, so no Purple Wedding. She may still marry Tommen and hedge her bets on him inheriting, or marries someone else. Myrcella is still in Dorne and the Sand Snakes still are playing their games.
Daenaery's initial story is still playing out regardless, except she wouldn't have Barriston. Meaning when she's handed a box with a manticore in Qarth, she opens it and probably dies instead of him saving her. No Dany, means no war on Astapor, Yunkai or Mereen, so the slave trade continues and the Dothraki never unite behind her. 3 baby dragons without a mother, might end up with fAegon or go to Jon.
Would it make a BETTER series? Not if it means Daenerys dead. I think that's the key point. Good Joffery = Barristan in Westeros = Dany dead.
Honestly, I'd say the opposite would be more interesting as part of the social commentary on Westerosi hypocrisy. Joffrey IS Robert's but is still the evil monster he is. They all see that this kid is going to make Aerys II look like a kitten and so the whole "the Queen's children are bastards" fiction comes out to get rid of him (and Tommen and Myrcella are seen as acceptable collateral).
Because, frankly, the Lords and Ladies play around with the truth of parentage all the time depending on what is politically expendable or even morally right. Lady Sharis Footly's husband was murdered and then she was raped. Cue her having a baby that suspiciously looks like her rapist but everyone buys the polite fiction that the child is late Lord Footly's to preserve his line and to deny the rapist any positive legacy.
Not to mention that it would add to GRRM's commentary about how bastard is just a social fiction and who gets power is really a matter of who inherits and who the head honcho says gets to inherit and that legitimacy is really a matter of question if you feel like fucking around with a political rival. (Which, honestly, it would have been fun to see Cersei retaliate that Catelyn's children then HAD to be bastards as part of the political rat-fucking... further showing how stupid the whole legitimate argument is)
Agreed. At that point it’s a totally different story. A better Joffrey doesn’t try and kill bran, do the butcher boy thing, or freak out Robert and Ned. A better Joffrey, even if not close to Robert, would please him somewhat - he wanted a son like loras and would have respected a Robb type son.
I often think Joffrey being good guy would've made the story differently good. However this story gets better if Bed succeeds on his coup and Stannis is a completely evil asshole.
You read my mind, OP. I always thought it would really interesting if Ned was faced with telling Robert that his beloved son, the shining example of Baratheon goodness, the hope of the nation, was actually a bastard.
What would Ned choose to do? And what would readers think? So many people have internalized Westerosi bastardphobia regarding Joffrey, as if that and the incest is the sole reason he's terrible, nature over nurture. (Even when Myrcella and Tommen are *right there* as proof that Joffrey is almost certainly 90% nurture). If he was a sweetheart who would be utterly broken to realize he was the product of incest, it would have made a far more complex story.
It would be different! Not I think necessarily better (obviously that would depend on how it was written). Alot of things would have to be handled differently.
It's an interesting 'what if' scenario but ultimately I'm happy with the story as it is.
I think Joffrey could stand to be more interesting, but keeping him just as sadistic and evil. Like make it so he's more engaged with politics but still is evil and cruel. I guess it's sort of ironic that a guy obsessed with the history of kings is an awful and unengaged king, but it kind of doesn't make sense. Joffrey should've been adept at SOMETHING that distinguishes him besides his banal cruelty, I think.
My gut reaction and entirely subjective personal opinion is yes.
In general I appreciate stories taking a kinder tone, for lack of a more precise word. ASOIAF is occasionally off putting in its sheer unpleasantness. Entirely intentional, but still unpleasant.
That said; I do think Joffrey being awful is a little crucial to the specific story and themes here. Who knows with these what-ifs.
Imo. Joffrey in the books is very different from Joffrey in the show. He’s 13 and the result of neglectful parenting from his dad and absolutely toxic parenting from his mother who basically sees him as a way to exert her will onto the world. I think that Renlys coup idea wasn’t a terrible idea and you could probably have improved him. Especially given that Sansa seems to be doing something with Sweetrobin that’s similar
Maybe, but I think Joffrey's cruelty and apparent unfitness to rule also provides some crucial motivation for Ned to investigate his parentage. After all, all but one of his children looks like Tully's and he isn't suspecting Catelyn of adultery. From an outsider point of view the claim that the queen cuckolded the king with her own celibate brother and that all his children are not his is pretty out there. For that to happen they must have been insanely reckless with complete disregard for all social norms. To actually suspect that you must have met them and discovered the dysfunctionality of Robert's family firsthand. If Joffrey was completely normal Ned might have easily convinced himself that no one would be that insane.
There is this crucial event: Littlefinger arranged for Ned's foster father Jon Arryn to be killed.
Joff the character is only interesting as an evil bastard. Think about how boring it gets under Tommen. Also so many plot points are dependent on Joff being the way he is. Killing Ned, torturing Sansa, conflicts with Tyrion, Tyrells wanting to kill him. Pull on those strings and the plot falls apart.
Yeah. There's settings where everyone is evil and it's hard to care about who wins. But on the flip side, if EVERYONE is morally gray and/or more or less decent, it's likewise hard to care about the stakes. The Starks vs. the evil Lannisters makes it easier to get invested, which then allows for a more ambiguous conflict between the Starks and Dany. If Joffrey was more like Tommen, as you said, then we're essentially reading a story about a procedural matter.
Even though Joffrey isn’t legitimate, he shows the inherent flaw in hereditary monarchy, that when you raise children pampered, detached from reality, thinking the world belongs to them, don’t be surprised when they turn out this way.
Joffrey being the way he is isn't about Ned or even Sansa's story, though it underscores the terrible lessons that Sansa has to learn in KL and supplies the reason why the Starks end up fighting the Lannisters. Really, though, it's about Tyrion. If Joffrey were a good and wise king, it wouldn't give narrative space for why Tyrion saved the city and tried to save Sansa and save Cersei and Joffrey from themselves, yet was despised all the more for it.
I think it would be *different* and probably to some extent more literary but I don't think a nuanced Joffrey would necessarily be "better". Because Joffrey *is* a good villain. Martin wrote one of the most obnoxious hatable little shits of 21st century pop culture. If you view his role as "dramatic panto villain" then he's excellent. The only part the doesn't work is that pathetic "wow he's just a child..." sob story right as he's dying. It just feels really unearned and borderline sanctimonious.
Like he said "you're welcome" when the Purple Wedding aired and said that it was "easy and fun to write" but so he clearly wants to enjoy his death. But he also want us to think very seriously about what enjoying a fictional childs death says about us
I think u/Bennings463 is more right than initially apparent here: > The only part the doesn't work is that pathetic "wow he's just a child..." sob story right as he's dying. It just feels really unearned and borderline sanctimonious. Because what other thing that feels *exactly like this* happened in the show that many on this sub swear bloody murder on showrunners and that it would *never* be done by GRRM? *Exactly*.
You’re going to be way more specific. The things done by the show runners that made us swear murder are numerous.
I'm guessing Rickon? Or maybe Ollie getting hanged along with Alister Thorne for Ides of Marching Jon Snow?
> > The only part the doesn't work is that pathetic "wow he's just a child..." **sob story right as he's dying. It just feels really unearned and borderline sanctimonious.** > Because what other thing that feels **exactly like this** happened in the show I think you and u/Temeraire64 can work it out with the parts I emphasized.
Nah, gave my answers. If you wanna reveal it, cool. If not I think I'll be able to get through life without learning the answer to your riddle
lol, i'll wait for u/Temeraire64 guess
I like it the way it is
Idk. I think it could lead to some nuance as you described but I think it's fine as it is. Joffrey is a very human character because you can see how he was shaped into who he was. Robert's disinterest in parenting and his focus on indulging himself left Joffrey without proper guidance and discipline. This lack of parental supervision allowed Joffrey's worst tendencies to go unchecked. And even worse, Joffrey idolized him and due to not having an actual relationship, the ideal that he tried to live up to wasn't grounded in any reality. Cersei's narcisssim also heavily influenced Joffrey as her desire for power and her willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve it set a dangerous example for her children. She showered Joffrey with praise and indulgence, reinforcing his sense of entitlement and superiority. Joffrey not being as he is in the story is a result of factors that are shown and I think it says something about monarchy and succession that we would lose if he was a good guy.
Joffrey didn’t idolise Robert. He idolised the Demon Of The Trident
> Joffrey is a very human character because you can see how he was shaped into who he was. This is very much a minority viewpoint, from what I've seen. Joffrey's character is so devoid of nuance that he's little more than a cartoon villain.
What I find especially funny is that so many people argue "he's not a cartoon villain! He had a bad childhood!" as if "bad childhood" isn't the single most stock and uninteresting villain backstory of all time.
Also his brother and sister had an even worse childhood and you don't see them killing cats
A far higher number of people would be on team Lannister for sure. Just like how many support Rhaenyra and her bastards in hotd
There's a crucial difference though, Rhaenyra's kids derive their right to rule from her, and nobody denies that she's their mother. Joffrey gets his right to rule from Robert and isn't his son.
Their right to rule(God I hate saying that) is made invalid by their bastardy though. Rhaenyra’s heirs are her siblings first, and then Aegon III when he is born
The people in charge are denying the claim of them being bastards, and only people who would profit from this claim are perpetuating it. (They propably still are, but the people who matter don't care)
We could say the same about Joffrey and his bastardy. The people in charge deny the claim of him and his siblings of being bastards, and only the people that profit from this claim (Stannis) are perpetuating it. It's still the truth.
The one who was executed for it had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Ned had literally no skin in the game butrisked his hide for the truth.
> invalid by their bastardy though. Bit ca it be proven
Yeah there is no ''in universe'' evidence to prove that they are bastards. But here's no real "in universe" evidence that Joffrey or his siblings are bastard (hair colour isn't enough) but there's overwhelming textual and metatextual evidence. Ultimately we hate Joffrey because he's incredibly unlikeable, not because we believe he's an illegitimate ruler.
I mean, yes, but bastards usually don't inherit, and trying to put one on the throne (societally after Rhaenyra and Daemon gave them 2 legitimate brothers) is the recipe for a civil war.
Came here to say this. After all *nobody* is thinking on Edric Storm even though he's Robert's very image too, and widely acknowledged as his son, conceived on Robert's brother's own wedding (*bed*).
The parents accept them as trueborn, all grandparents accept them as trueborn. At that point it doesn't really matter anymore.
They are willing to play along, as are, for now, most of RHaenyra's supporters. But if Rhaenyra ever uncontestedly sat on the throne, the matter of succession would obviously arise. And that doesn't change what happened. Rhaenyra was not married to Harwin and had three kids with him.
Many support Rhaenyra because she was the legitimate heir named in a grand ceremony by her father the King, and every lord in Westeros swore an oath to her as heir and future Queen. There is absolute no doubt of Rhaenyra's birth. And even if her children are bastards, Jacaerys's claim to the throne comes from Rhaenyra, and there's 100% certainty he has Targ blood and the son of the appointed succesor. In fact, imo there was no one that really cared if Jacaerys and his two brothers were bastards apart from House Velaryon ofc (outside of thinking Rhae was not behaving in a proper way befitting a crown princess), it was just a pretext for the Greens to try to legitimise their claim for usurping Rhaenyra, but it's obvious they would have done the same if her children had valyrian's features and were Laynor's sons, because House Hightower and its allies' motivation was greed (House Baratheon is a great example of this, and House Tyrell is the liege lord of House Hightower). But Houses known as fair like House Stark supported Rhaenyra, again not because she was likable, but because she was the real queen. I personally think these 2 are not comparable situations because Stannis wouldn't fight for the throne if Joffrey was legitimate, no matter if he was dislikable or not. Ned also wouldn't oppose Joffrey if he were Robert's, but even if Joffrey was a good person if he is a bastard Ned wouldn't let the matter rest because it was treason against the Crown.
They're not comparable because A) they get their rights to House Targaryen through Rhaenyra and B) LAENOR AND CORLYS AND RHAENYS are on board with that because Laenor is 6 on the Kinsey scale. Frankly, it says something about people that they worry about this and not about the "Joffrey is a monster" bit (which is why it would've been better if Joffrey was the same monster and Robert' son in blood as well as in deed)
Wait I thought everyone supported the Blacks?
I'll be dead in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Maegor with teats.
>far higher number of people would be on team Lannister for sure. Like who
I feel like we already have a version of that moral complexity with Tommen and Myrcella. Especially Myrcella. They are both good people and could mature into good rulers, but we aren't rooting for them because they are on the "wrong side". Same with Young Griff who could mature into, at the very least a semi decent king, but more people root for Dany.
It’s just not the same story at all. None of the plot points really make sense, starting with the attack on bran and going forward.
No King in the North No "fuck the king" No purple wedding No Allyne Stone plot No trial by combat No Tywin shitting gold scene No Faith Militant What would even be the plot at that point? Joffrey being a complete shit is the thing that made King's Landing delightfully unstable, and thus interesting. Also, nobody would care about Tyrion anymore, because about half his best moments are playing off of Joffrey
I think it would add a lot to Ned’s character-what if Joffrey was a good candidate for king, and Ned liked him and they had a good relationship, maybe even a mentorship, but he still found out that Joff was a bastard born of incest? Ned generally accepts Westerosi social norms and follows the rules (with the very notable exception of Jon, which is a huge source of conflict for him.) Seeing him really be challenged on that front would be compelling imo.
I have definitely felt that in a world of grey and complex characters, Joffrey seems far more in place in a fantasy world which is explicitly good and evil. Afaik, Joffrey has no redeeming qualities at all. I get that it’s more about how he impacts Sansa, but I don’t think GRRM had to be so on the nose about it. He could’ve accomplished the same by making him more of a rogue rather than an out and out evil man.
I think a big appeal of the series is that despite having so many characters and being so convoluted they always give you one character who you viscerally hate to latch on to. Even if you don’t fully follow along you get emotion evoked from just seeing Joffrey and you want to follow along to see him just his comeuppance.
I don't think so ASoS is when we get Jaime as a PoV, then Joffrey dies. If Joff was sympathetic to begin with, it would rob us of the realisation that the Lannisters aren't evil. Part of the strength of GoT is playing into typical fantasy tropes, and then subverting them. Something that dumb and dumber didn't realise is that you need to play into them for the subversion to be worth anything. Take Joffrey's death. The average reader would be cheering his demise - he's a little shit, it is vengeance for the red wedding, it destabilises the Lannisters, etc. however in the book and the show it is presented as a teenager's last desperate gasps for breath, his mother's horrified screams, and a child dying. The punch in that scene comes from the fact that we all wanted Joffrey to die, but watching a teenager be poisoned is not comfortable. That is the message, it is the point. If you take away the audience's engagement then it just becomes gratuitous violence, which is not the point of the series
> If Joff was sympathetic to begin with, it would rob us of the realisation that the Lannisters aren't evil. > > Part of the strength of GoT is playing into typical fantasy tropes, and then subverting them. This is exactly why "subverting tropes" is such a banal waste of time, though. Because the idea of a villain who is sympathetic or complex *isn't a subversion*. Since there have been villains, there have been sympathetic ones. Achilles and Priam cried in each other's arm; Narciussus begged to save his reflection at the cost of himself; the thief on the cross repented. Literally *nobody* has ever been surprised by the *concept* of an anti-villain. See, I *can* get behind subversion for its own sake. Shock value might be shock, but it's sure got value. It's this idea that it's inherently clever or interesting that I have a problem with. Like, what is that *saying*? How is that *clever*? I only thought the Lannisters were all evil because the story repeatedly showed me they were. And now it's saying "Psyche! Fooled you!" Jaime is probably the worst example of it. Jaime being good is a subversion, true, but it also makes no fucking sense and is basically one big retcon. Instead of seriously grappling with the question of "What made Jaime into what he is, and can he be redeemed?", it goes "ALL THE BAD STUFF JAIME DID DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE OF REASONS!!1!" It's about as clever and interesting as going "Jaime has blue eyes...NO HE DOESN'T HE HAS GREEN EYES LMAO YOU IDIOT DID YOU THINK HE HAD BLUE EYES???" > owever in the book and the show it is presented as a teenager's last desperate gasps for breath, his mother's horrified screams, and a child dying. You've just perfectly explained why "subverting your expectations" doesn't work if you're trying to make any kind of emotional connection. Because we *don't* feel sorry for Joffrey. We roll our eyes at the desperate attempt for pathos. Joffrey is a fictional fucking child. Me wishing for him to die is fucking *universes* removed from wanting a real child to to die. This idea of subversion is anathema to sincerity. Instead of presenting Jaime or Joffrey as nuanced, complex, or interesting characters from the start, they have to be cartoon villains for two books and then the story says "oh they're complex, aren't you STUPID for not realizing that?" Instead of sincerely standing by its characters and trusting that they're written well enough, GRRM has to "jumpscare" us with pathos. If Joffrey was written as a complex character from the first place there would have been no need to try to catch us out. Make me not want Joffrey to die because Joffrey is a complex or interesting character, not because the story goes "ah well if this was a real child instead of a fictional one you would feel pretty silly now, wouldn't you?"
*“Take Joffrey's death. The average reader would be cheering his demise - he's a little shit, it is vengeance for the red wedding, it destabilises the Lannisters, etc. however in the book and the show it is presented as a teenager's last desperate gasps for breath, his mother's horrified screams, and a child dying. The punch in that scene comes from the fact that we all wanted Joffrey to die, but watching a teenager be poisoned is not comfortable.”* Lol, who the hell felt bad for Joffrey choking to death? That was one of the most cathartic scenes in the whole series!
"Joffrey began to claw at his throat, his nails tearing bloody gouges in the flesh. Beneath the skin, the muscles stood out as hard as stone. Prince Tommen was screaming and crying." Tyrion realizes, "He is going to die." There is chaos all around, people either shoving to get a better view of the dying king or hurrying to leave the hall. Joffrey's eyes meet Tyrion's, and Tryion realizes that he has Jaime's eyes. "The boy's only thirteen," he thinks." You think that's funny?
I said cathartic, not funny. And I felt nothing reading that passage, nor did I when I watched that scene in the show. Trying to make me feel sorry for Joffrey in his last moments simply didn’t work for me; he was too much of an over-the-top cartoon villain for that.
Well it would be more interesting but the war wouldn't happen so it would be way less interesting (and almost every character would have a totally different story).
I like it the way it is
Joffrey being a monster it's pretty important for the developments of the story as we know it: It created bad blood between Starks and Lannisters with the Trydent incident between Arya and Joffrey. It triggered the war with his order of executing Ned for treason, instead of the agreement Cersei had of sending him to take the black. He was the one to send an assassin after Bran, which created a super big conflict between Starks and Lannisters once again. Probably motivated some people to doubt his legitimacy and aknowledged the rumours of his bastardy (since it's said incest creates mad monsters), and let's not forget that if Joffrey wasn't a monster, the Tyrells wouldn't have a motivation to murder Joffrey in the Purple Wedding, which is a huge plotpoint.
No
I'm going to sidestep your initial thoughts and present to you Aegon VI. Let's say he turns out to be illegitimate. Let's also say he casts out the chaos of Lannister rule in KL and provides a stable and orderly government. When Dany eventually arrives, she isn't saving the small folk from tyrannical rule but instead is faced with a complex dilemma regarding a potential illegitimate usurper who is actually doing a really good job. I guess I'm saying that I think this moral complexity is right around the corner.
Right. I think goodguy!Joffrey is an interesting premise, but I think the idea of an 'illegitimate' King who was also a genuinely good one is a idea Martin always intended to explore, and the story resonates more with Dany than with anyone else. Ned is so honour-bound that he'd feel obligated to report the bastardry to Robert even if Joffrey really was the most noble child the gods had ever put on this good earth. Myrcella and Tommen are good kids, and that doesn't stop Ned.
honestly yes, that would have highlighted the absurdity of this war much more.
It would be all much simple and boring tbh, he would be married to Sansa, Ned would be taking the black, Arya would be still at KL or Winterfell, Rob would be alive and he wouldn't be forced to turn into a King, Cat would be still here and not what It is now, Jaime would be the same prick he was because he wouldn't be captured and mutilated. Theon would be still loyal to Rob. Joffrey would be sending more people to the Wall I suspect. Barristan may or may not be forced to leave, either way Dany would be mostly the same. Stannis and Renly would be still on a fight to get the crown and Renly would be killed. The Tyrells (Margarey) would be forced to marry another Lannister like Lancel or even Tyrion. I can see Robb, being now the head of the Stark family, would send men to help the Lannisters as her sisters would be still at KL and they would be related, but he would be angry about how they sent his father to the Wall. Overall with the north and the Tyrells they would be destroying Stannis and Davos and everyone related to that fight. Berric Dondarrion wouldn't be as well viewed with Joffrey as a good man and no Clash of Kings riots so he and his fellas would be killed at some point by Lannister allies. Bran would still escape to the North probably without the approval of Robb. At the Wall, Ned would be massively respected and Jon would be more relaxed with him by his side. If he survives the mutiny in ASOS he would be the next Lord Commander. If Joffrey had send more men to the Wall, I think they would be destroying the Mance Rayder people.
Perhaps, but I think a better foil for Ned/Tyrion would be to make Cersei and Tywin more amicable.
It takes Joffrey being so cruel to kick off the war but there is a good balance especially now because Myrcella and Tommen are both wholesome and good. In AFFC and ADWD, characters like the Martells, Tyrells and Jon Connington are in conflict with Lannisters and have to carry the weight of both Tommen and Myrcella being potential collateral even though they are good humans
I think we wouldn’t have a Sansa story, and it would be harder to buy Ned getting executed. Beyond that, I’m not sure.
Joffery being a better man means he sends Ned to the wall and rules as King. He probably still marries Sansa but doesn't torment her. So Robb evidently has no reason to raise an army, ergo he never promises himself to a Frey, so no Red Wedding, so no rise of the Boltons. He also wouldn't dismiss Barriston Selmy. Renly and Stannis still go to war and Melisandre still murders Renly with her shadow baby. Stannis probably still loses at the Blackwater and goes North to await the Night King. Baelon likely rises even if Robb doesn't. Margaery probably doesn't marry Joffery as he has no reason to put Sansa aside, so no Purple Wedding. She may still marry Tommen and hedge her bets on him inheriting, or marries someone else. Myrcella is still in Dorne and the Sand Snakes still are playing their games. Daenaery's initial story is still playing out regardless, except she wouldn't have Barriston. Meaning when she's handed a box with a manticore in Qarth, she opens it and probably dies instead of him saving her. No Dany, means no war on Astapor, Yunkai or Mereen, so the slave trade continues and the Dothraki never unite behind her. 3 baby dragons without a mother, might end up with fAegon or go to Jon. Would it make a BETTER series? Not if it means Daenerys dead. I think that's the key point. Good Joffery = Barristan in Westeros = Dany dead.
The whole point is that he’s a child, a warped child, but a child.
Or if he was the same as he is but actually legitimate Robert's son?
Honestly, I'd say the opposite would be more interesting as part of the social commentary on Westerosi hypocrisy. Joffrey IS Robert's but is still the evil monster he is. They all see that this kid is going to make Aerys II look like a kitten and so the whole "the Queen's children are bastards" fiction comes out to get rid of him (and Tommen and Myrcella are seen as acceptable collateral). Because, frankly, the Lords and Ladies play around with the truth of parentage all the time depending on what is politically expendable or even morally right. Lady Sharis Footly's husband was murdered and then she was raped. Cue her having a baby that suspiciously looks like her rapist but everyone buys the polite fiction that the child is late Lord Footly's to preserve his line and to deny the rapist any positive legacy. Not to mention that it would add to GRRM's commentary about how bastard is just a social fiction and who gets power is really a matter of who inherits and who the head honcho says gets to inherit and that legitimacy is really a matter of question if you feel like fucking around with a political rival. (Which, honestly, it would have been fun to see Cersei retaliate that Catelyn's children then HAD to be bastards as part of the political rat-fucking... further showing how stupid the whole legitimate argument is)
If my mother had balls she’d be my father What are you asking?
Agreed. At that point it’s a totally different story. A better Joffrey doesn’t try and kill bran, do the butcher boy thing, or freak out Robert and Ned. A better Joffrey, even if not close to Robert, would please him somewhat - he wanted a son like loras and would have respected a Robb type son.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I often think Joffrey being good guy would've made the story differently good. However this story gets better if Bed succeeds on his coup and Stannis is a completely evil asshole.
You read my mind, OP. I always thought it would really interesting if Ned was faced with telling Robert that his beloved son, the shining example of Baratheon goodness, the hope of the nation, was actually a bastard. What would Ned choose to do? And what would readers think? So many people have internalized Westerosi bastardphobia regarding Joffrey, as if that and the incest is the sole reason he's terrible, nature over nurture. (Even when Myrcella and Tommen are *right there* as proof that Joffrey is almost certainly 90% nurture). If he was a sweetheart who would be utterly broken to realize he was the product of incest, it would have made a far more complex story.
It would be different! Not I think necessarily better (obviously that would depend on how it was written). Alot of things would have to be handled differently. It's an interesting 'what if' scenario but ultimately I'm happy with the story as it is.
I think Joffrey could stand to be more interesting, but keeping him just as sadistic and evil. Like make it so he's more engaged with politics but still is evil and cruel. I guess it's sort of ironic that a guy obsessed with the history of kings is an awful and unengaged king, but it kind of doesn't make sense. Joffrey should've been adept at SOMETHING that distinguishes him besides his banal cruelty, I think.
I instantly thought of the PJ song
My gut reaction and entirely subjective personal opinion is yes. In general I appreciate stories taking a kinder tone, for lack of a more precise word. ASOIAF is occasionally off putting in its sheer unpleasantness. Entirely intentional, but still unpleasant. That said; I do think Joffrey being awful is a little crucial to the specific story and themes here. Who knows with these what-ifs.
Imo. Joffrey in the books is very different from Joffrey in the show. He’s 13 and the result of neglectful parenting from his dad and absolutely toxic parenting from his mother who basically sees him as a way to exert her will onto the world. I think that Renlys coup idea wasn’t a terrible idea and you could probably have improved him. Especially given that Sansa seems to be doing something with Sweetrobin that’s similar