Game of Thrones and Philosophy

by Jacoby, Henry, Irwin, William

  If your mind is somewhere else, you cannot “see with your eyes,” and you’re likely to get hit, kicked, or whacked with a stick. When you are doing a technique, you must do the technique and nothing else. The idea is to be able to have this level of presence—being in the now, or what the Buddhists call “mindfulness”—throughout your everyday life. Again, every encounter in life is part of your training.

  Without mindfulness, negative emotions can gain control: “Fear cuts deeper than swords.” Arya’s familiar mantra reminds us that our fears must be conquered before we can lead lives of well-being. Prominent among these fears, of course, is the fear of death. “Valar morghulis”—all men must die—as they say in Braavos. Because of its certainty, Syrio refers to death as “the one true god.” But until we die, we must live, and so we say to death, “Not today.”

  In her training with the Faceless Men, Arya learns about their “Many-Faced God,” and learns a good deal more about death. Her training in part prepares her to bring death to others; but there is also the death of the self alluded to earlier. While Arya’s entire journey illustrates this key idea of Zen (think of the different identities she has, the different roles she plays; yet none of them is her), her training at the House of Black and White takes this stripping of the self to a frightening extreme, as her face is literally removed at one point before it is later returned to her. The Faceless Men can magically change their appearance; Arya witnesses Jaqen H’ghar do this. To be able to do this requires that you become “no one.” This idea parallels what occurs in another sort of martial arts training from the East known as Ninjutsu.

  Ninjutsu and the Faceless Men

  In The Spiritual Practices of the Ninja, Ross Heaven tells us that the word “Ninjutsu” (the Way of the Ninja) is often translated as “the art of stealth” or “the art of invisibility.” The word implies two things: first, the use of stealth to uncover the hidden self so we can discover our inner truth and know what our real purpose is. Second, the skill of remaining true to ourselves but blending so effectively with the prevailing ways of society that we remain almost unseen, leaving no footprints in the sand, while still achieving our purpose.13

  From the movies, we picture Ninjas as secret assassins, clad in black, performing amazing, acrobatic feats. But as we see from the definition above, Ninjutsu is more than just deadly martial arts training. Like all martial arts, when done properly, it is also a spiritual practice.

  “Spiritual” here must be understood in a naturalist way. It refers to a specific sense of self and a felt connectedness to everything that exists. The spiritual person, like the Taoist sage or the Zen master, lives in the present moment, in harmony with nature, and in possession of a self-awareness that leads to effective living.

  Arya doesn’t seem to fit the mold of the spiritual person—she is still very young and has a long way to go. But her training at the House of Black and White closely mirrors both Ninja training and the rituals and trials common to initiation processes found in many cultures. Such initiation processes usually involve three stages:14 First, the initiate must leave behind the past; Arya’s main teacher, the kindly man, makes her throw away all of her possessions, which are the only remaining ties to her past identity as Arya of House Stark. (While she mostly acquiesces, she can’t bear to part with Needle and hides it.) Second, challenges are presented that must be overcome in order for growth to take place. Arya is being trained to fully experience reality, and to do this, she must use all her senses. Therefore, she is given a potion that temporarily renders her blind. And third, there is a celebration of rebirth, which requires the initiate to remember her true self. Arya has not yet reached this stage, but the master is impressed with her ability to carry out her mission—an assassination—successfully, and she is then ready to begin her true apprenticeship as a Faceless Man.

  The Faceless Dance of Virtue

  Needlework—the traditional kind—and being a lady are not for Arya. Her journey begins long before she must flee King’s Landing with Yoren; it begins with Jon Snow’s gift, which empowers her. Learning the Water Dance serves her well, as she is introduced to a new way of being in the world. She survives and eventually reaches Braavos. While there, Arya continues her quest for awareness, and against this Eastern backdrop she can still be considered virtuous, even though we’ve now left behind traditional ideas of good and evil. Even an assassin can avoid the suffering that comes from living according to who we think we are, rather than who we really are. She now dances faceless. “Who are you?” the kindly man continues to ask. “No one,” she continues to reply.

  Each of us takes part in rituals and processes on our individual paths of self-discovery. Usually, these don’t involve temporary blindness or assassinations, and that’s a good thing; but drastic measures are often needed to break from the past and remember who we truly are, which is necessary for enlightenment. We each have our own version of the Water Dance as well. The “Zen” part of it isn’t about learning the moves, and that’s why I haven’t written about them. I also haven’t really written a lot about Zen, because Zen isn’t about anything—you have been paying attention, right? You can’t teach Zen; one can only point at some stuff designed to make you stop thinking so you’ll spend more time just being. What’s being pointed at must be experienced; like Aristotle’s virtues, it can’t be taught. But I can tell you this: the secret to living a good life is to dance faceless like a Zen-Ninja-Aristotelian. Sort of like Arya. Got it? Now try not to stab anyone.15

  NOTES

  1. George R. R. Martin, A Feast for Crows (New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), p. 446.

  2. In Richard McKeon, ed., The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 1941).

  3. I don’t mean to suggest that Aristotle is anti-thinking! Reason, of course, is crucial for him in obtaining the virtues initially, but once one has the virtues, the responses, like those of the martial artist, should be instinctive and automatic.

  4. There are many wonderful versions of this great spiritual masterpiece. One I especially like is Lao-tzu’s Taoteching, translated by Red Pine (San Francisco: Mercury House, 1996). The commentaries it contains are highly recommended.

  5. Ibid., verse 81.

  6. Even though their practice swords are wood, he refers here to steel swords that would be used in a real battle (although Syrio himself does pretty well with just a wooden one!).

  7. Koans are mind puzzles designed to challenge our normal modes of thinking. For an excellent discussion of this and all things Zen, see Roshi Philip Kapleau, The Three Pillars of Zen (New York: Anchor Books, 1980).

  8. The classic text on this approach is Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery (New York: Random House, 1999).

  9. George R. R. Martin, A Game of Thrones (New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), pp. 531–532.

  10. Ibid.

  11. Ibid., p. 531.

  12. Martin, A Feast for Crows, p. 137.

  13. Ross Heaven, The Spiritual Practices of the Ninja (Rochester, VT: Destiny Books, 2006), p. 2.

  14. Heaven, Spiritual Practices, pp. 15–16.

  15. I am grateful to R. Shannon Duval, who kindly and generously shared her wisdom and insights with me and helped make this chapter much better than it otherwise would have been.

  Chapter 19

  THE THINGS I DO FOR LOVE: SEX, LIES, AND GAME THEORY

  R. Shannon Duval

  And I shall say: “games” form a family.

  —Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations1

  “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die,” Cersei Lannister whispers to Ned Stark in the godswood at King’s Landing.2 These words might serve as the Lannister siblings’ unofficial credo as Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion Lannister pursue their family’s forbidden games and lovers’ logics in George R. R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones. As we’ll see, the field of game theory has traditionally been limited to rational play only, but it can be adapted to offer compelling insight into House Lannister’s games of
cunning artifice.

  What Is Game Theory?

  Any situation where agents employ strategies toward a desired end can be considered a game. Game theory mathematically models the architecture of rational choice and suggests the best strategy based on a player’s preferred outcomes. In philosophy, game theory has become particularly relevant as philosophers attempt to resolve the tension between self-interest and cooperation in moral, social, and political settings. In essence, game theory can serve as each player’s personal Hand—advising the best course of action, predicting the likely actions of others, and crafting the most successful strategies. Though game theory was originally both defined by and expressed in specifically mathematical terms, it is possible to set the specific calculations aside while applying the principles of game theory to particular options faced by players in A Game of Thrones. We can further profit from the insights game theory provides into the choices of our most favorite, and least favorite, characters.

  While game theory is effective in seeking a certain outcome, game theory itself is not concerned with whether the outcome is right or wrong. In other words, game theory can tell us how to support our favorite contender for the Iron Throne—Baratheon or Targaryen, for example—and even tell us which contender it may be most to our advantage to support, but aside from those considerations it has nothing to say about whether Robert Baratheon or Mad King Ayres would be the “better” king, unless we add additional information from outside game theory itself. Like the maesters who are sworn to serve the realm regardless of who is king, game theory serves the stated outcome but does not make any judgment on its worthiness or its morality.

  House Rules

  In a world where “might makes right,” game theory can help us to understand the successes of unlikely players as well as the downfalls of promising heroes. Tyrion Lannister makes this point to Jon Snow when Tyrion reflects,

  Well, my legs may be too small for my body, but my head is too large, although I prefer to think it is just large enough for my mind. I have a realistic grasp of my own strengths and weaknesses. My mind is my weapon. My brother has his sword, King Robert has his warhammer, and I have my mind . . .3

  Game theory offers a means to model humans’ interactions and to predict future moves based on three criteria: rationality, self-interest, and investment. If it is true that when playing the game of thrones Lannister-style, “you win or you die,” then all players have an important stake in the game. It is also safe to assume that players are ultimately concerned with their expected payoffs, although discovering a player’s true endgame is often half the game itself. The first criterion, however—that players are rational—turns out to be a critical element in evaluating game theory’s usefulness as a predictive tool.

  A Game of Thrones is steeped in the chivalric milieu of knighthood with its ideals of courtesy, honor, and fair play. “Give me an honorable enemy and I will sleep better at night,” quips Jaime Lannister.4 And well he might. An honorable enemy is a predictable one. An honorable enemy does not lie, cheat, steal, or poison. An honorable enemy will not break an oath or turn his cloak. In other words, an honorable enemy’s sense of fair play is not altered by love or war. Game theory is considerably simplified if our enemies are honorable, but we must ask: “Is honor rational?”

  Knights are honored because they have chosen service above self-interest and thus can be entrusted with the protection of the interests of others. Opponents may not always be as true as Ser Barrison Selmy, however, because they may have calculated that it better serves their interests, and thus is more rational, to lie. Although game theory may sometimes advise a lie, it can also help us spot deception if we know enough about a player to understand his goals. If a promise is not rational—if it does not support a successful strategy toward an opponent’s goal—then it should not be believed. A talented liar may be difficult to detect, however, especially if he is able to mask his true endgame. This strategy is perhaps best articulated by Littlefinger when he advises Sansa Stark:

  Always keep your foes confused. If they are never certain who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next. Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you. Remember that, Sansa, when you come to play the game.5

  Because prodigious liars can be difficult to recognize before the damage of the lies is realized, the penalties to turncloaks and oathbreakers are severe. In explaining to Bran why he must behead the Black Brother who deserted his post at the wall, Ned Stark tells his young son that an oathbreaker is the most dangerous of all criminals. Having lost the currency of his good name, there is no crime an oathbreaker will not commit.6

  Games of complete information in which all moves are known by all players are easier to control than games of incomplete information in which players may not even know which game they are playing.7 Deception obscures the true nature of the game, thus rendering the deceived player disadvantaged at best. In effect, lying makes a game difficult and dangerous. Reliable information is worth more than Lannister gold in the game of thrones, because without it, players cannot form an effective strategy.

  Eros’s Aim

  If liars are unwelcome participants in the game of thrones, lovers are even more poorly received. The Greek philosopher Plato (428–348 BCE) described love as a type of madness.8 Game theory agrees with the ancient philosopher in this respect and recommends taking a preemptive stance toward lovers. Women, historically considered to be most vulnerable to the sway of love, were traditionally excluded from the games of politics, law, and war because they were thought to be too enmeshed in emotion to be reasonable. This sentiment is echoed in the wisdom of ancient Westeros. “Love is the bane of honor, the death of duty,”9 Maester Aemon tells Jon Snow when explaining why the Black Brothers take no wives and sire no children. The men who formed the Night’s Watch “knew that they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve.”10 In the cases where the most extreme forms of loyalty and honor may be required, marriage and families are forbidden. Not only do the Black Brothers not marry, but neither do the Kingsguard, maesters, septas, or septons.

  Yet even when love is outlawed, it cannot be exiled. Black Brothers do love, Kingsguard forswear their oaths, and maesters, septons, and septas are not always the chaste practitioners that duty demands. If the very rules of rationality and fair play that govern game theory are truly inapplicable in love, not to mention war,11 it would seem that game theory has to remain feckless at the keep during the most important game of all. However, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) amends Plato’s view, claiming, “Always there is a drop of madness in love, but always there is a drop of reason in madness.”12

  Nietzsche’s remark reminds us that if we can detect the drop of reason in madness, we can envision a world in which the lover is sane and his actions therefore predictable. In game theory, the objection to love is that it is irrational, and the objection to irrationality is that it is erratic and therefore cannot be systematized. If we are able to see our opponents’ outcomes as they do, however, seemingly irrational behavior often resolves into a coherent strategy. “Irrationality” usually signals that we have misidentified either the type of opponent we face, the opponent’s endgame, or both. This information can be invaluable in restoring our position in the game. Consider the following example. After the mystifying attack on Bran Stark’s life at Winterfell, Robb Stark expresses the senselessness of the event:

  “Why would anyone want to kill Bran?” Robb said. “Gods, he’s only a little boy, helpless, sleeping . . .”

  Catelyn gave her firstborn a challenging look. “If you are to rule in the north, you must think these things through, Robb. Answer your own question. Why would anyone want to kill a sleeping child?”13

  “Someone is afraid Bran might wake up,” Robb said, “Afraid of what he might say or do, afraid of something he knows.”14

  By placing a seemingly irrational actio
n into a rational context, Catelyn is able to use a process that game theory calls “reverse induction” to reveal information that would have otherwise remained hidden.15 After swearing her closest advisers to secrecy, she tells them,

  “It comes to me that Jaime Lannister did not join the hunt the day Bran fell. He remained here in the castle.” The room was deathly quiet. “I do not think Bran fell from that tower,” she said into the stillness. “I think he was thrown.”16

  Jaime is a knight of the Kingsguard, Cersei is queen of the realm, and it may seem irrational to suppose they would need to harm an eight-year-old boy. Lady Stark’s own master at arms, Rodrik Cassel, is shocked at the notion that even a knight as dishonored as the Kingslayer would stoop to an attempted murder of an innocent child. Yet by starting with the irrational act and using reverse induction to hypothesize a game in which that action made a type of strategic, if not moral, sense, Catelyn is able to plan a future strategy that is both more informed and more likely to succeed. If we expand our understanding of rational actions to embrace people in relation to others and all the emotional, psychological, and social commitments that entails, we can expand our understanding of rationality itself and thus of predictable behavior. When unpredictable events occur, they need not be seen as destabilizing the game. In fact, it is just such events that can guide players in asking the right questions and thus gaining the information needed to put a game of incomplete information aright. Recognizing a diversity of commitments, each of which may be reasonable from some player’s point of view, allows players to adapt and adjust their own strategies with the agility that high-stakes games such as the game of thrones demand.

  The Nature of the Game