The trailer is posted, but if you don't want to watch it, I shall explain. The riddle is asked by Varys and it goes like this. "Three great men . . . a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies?"
Varys asks the riddle to discuss the idea that power, like most concepts, is just an illusion. People have power when we allow them to have power, and more importantly, because we believe they should. In this case, it is the sellsword's perceptions that are important, as he is the one who can act or not act.
Now, because each of the three men is asking for the other two to be killed, it can be assumed they have no weapons of their own or lack other means by which to commit the murders. This means, in actuality, the three "great men" are without power. All true power lies with the sellsword as he is the one who will decide everyone's fate. On one level, this could be seen as a "might makes right" situation.
Society is rarely that simplex. For as long as their has been civilization as we know it, brute force has been a type of power, but not the dominating power. Most often, it becomes a tool by which those in power keep their positions. In the case of the riddle, this means the three great men. One holds the power of rule by law. One holds power by belief in the divine. The last holds power because he has means to buy a lot of stuff.
Now, it's kind of fun to really dig into this riddle, as I've been watching the Borgias. Rome in 1492 (and in many other years) was certainly a place centered around power via faith, law, and wealth. At the end of the day though, quite often you see this same riddle playing out. Everyone needs soldiers to help them hold what they have.
So . . . who lives and who dies?
This depends on the paradigm of the sellsword. What does his really believe? Some people would say that if the man is a sellsword, a mercenary, then he will save which ever man offers him the best deal. The great man who promises the most wealth, the most blessing, a title, a home . . . this man will be saved. Others would argue that most mercs would see even that as pipe dreams and just go with which ever man had the most money on hand at the moment. It's practical, after all.
In both of these scenarios, it's likely the rich man will be the one to live. He has the best chance of having money on hand and the one most likely to be able to make offers the sellsword will see a viable for him. He's also the one who probably has the most experience convincing people to do what he wishes. The king and the priest can do this within their own realms of influence, but won't have the skills on practical matters (probably).
Those are just two possible paradigms though. We tend to believe someone who is a sword for hire has no loyalty, but that doesn't take into account his history or the truths he made not always admit to, but really believes.
If he believes in the divine, he won't kill the priest. The king and the rich man die. It will not matter what the other two offer him. If he truly accepts the idea of a god (or in this case, gods) that rule over everything, no amount of earthly wealth will matter. This life is temporary.
Now, on the other hand, some people have these really strong emotional bonds with their leaders. I think in a way, this is something we lack as Americans because we trade our leaders out so often (and should). In places where the leaders rarely change and people see them as the focus of what makes things stable and good, people develop strong ties to them. They become, in the minds of some people, like family. So, if the sellsword, at the core of his being, is a loyal subject of his king, then the priest and the rich man die.
What happens if the sellsword has no strong paradigm leanings? What if he isn't that practical, has no religion, doesn't like the king, and just kind of doesn't care? Then it will depend on any number of other factors. Who is the least annoying? Who hasn't been rude to him before? Which one looks the most like the man who stole his wife?
Of course, and this is where those of the upper classes get nervous, if the sellsword thought about it, the best course would just be to kill all three of them. More than likely, each of the "great men" has done enough stuff in his life that he would deserve to be put to the sword. The world would be rid of them and better off in the long run.
However, it takes the common classes a long time to reach this point. Quite often, society does everything it can to keep them from it. Usually whatever conflicts happen between the rich, the powerful, and religious can be pushed aside when they need to unite to smack the common people back down.
What would I do personally? For me, it comes down to a matter of trust. I don't think I could trust a king who ordered the death of others simply to push his agenda, nor could I trust a priest under those circumstances. In both cases, there is this assumption that they should put the needs of others before themselves. The rich man on the other hand, I can trust him. Will he lie and backstab me? Yes, of course he will if it benefits him. He never said he wouldn't though. In the end, I'd rather deal with an obvious bastard than a skulking one.
No comments:
Post a Comment