Beware, long wall of words.
IMO, the big difference between GOT and LOTR is that characters in LOTR represent classes of people, and with a few exceptions, are pretty static. Characters in GOT have a base motivation, but how that plays out depends on their circumstance. IMO, there appears to be a lot of characters with the same base motivation, but different circumstance, and the circumstance results in different outcomes.
So, the paired conflict is not nessasarily on a character by character basis. Some characters have multiple dual conflicts with multiple characters. I will start with the series protagonist, Jon Snow.
The best paired conflict with Jon Snow is with his "brother" Rob Stark. Both of these guys are motivated by their father's teachings about honor, and both seek honor. How? Treat people fairly, follow up on your promises, have courage to lead people down difficult paths. The desire was the same. The motivation seemed different. Rob wanted to be admired, respected and loved by his people. Jon wanted to honor and love his dad. Those two motivations lead to very different decisions. In the end, Rob's selfish choice to not honor his promise cost him his life; Jon's sense of duty to do what was right sent him to exile north of the wall. Same lesson: honor is everything. Different execution, different ends.
Jon's second paired conflict was with Jamie. Two who did regicide. On the one hand, you have Jamie, who killed the Mad King before he burnt down Kings Landing, and lived with the stigma of "kingslayer" all his life. On the other hand, you have Jon, who didn't have the guts to stand up to a mad killer before she went crazy, and will live with the regret of inaction for his entire life north of the wall. Both men had to deal with the consequence of regicide, but both experiences are very different.
I find that these kinds of pairings are rife within game of thrones. Without going into detail, some other ideas, at a high level:
1) Arya and Gergor. Both driven by revenge. In the end, revenge killed one of them, and the other chose life and moving on over revenge.
2) Vyrus vs Balish: both dealt in information, misinformation and influence. Neither were confrontational and dealt with issues head on. The difference was the end goal. Vyrus really was a protector of the people, even if he was an "end justifies the means" type of guy. Balish had one goal: everything. in the end, both dead.
3) Cerci vs Night King: one wanted the end of Westeros. The other wanted ultimate power over Westeros at any price. In the end, the result is the same: no one power can resist the rest of the world united against you.
4) Mountain vs Hodor: both went from human to pretty dumb in service of higher powers. Moral: don;t be a dumb grinder, don't be 1984's Boxer.
5) Onion knight and Milisandra: one would risk his life and his fingers to keep the common people alive during a siege, the other would burn the most vulnerable of the common people at the stake for the good of the cause.
There are others that I do not list here. The prevalence of these dualities are too thick to believe they are just coincidence. The pairing is subtle in most cases. I don't think this device is unique, just the prevalence of it in this series is worth noting.
Thoughts?
IMO, the big difference between GOT and LOTR is that characters in LOTR represent classes of people, and with a few exceptions, are pretty static. Characters in GOT have a base motivation, but how that plays out depends on their circumstance. IMO, there appears to be a lot of characters with the same base motivation, but different circumstance, and the circumstance results in different outcomes.
So, the paired conflict is not nessasarily on a character by character basis. Some characters have multiple dual conflicts with multiple characters. I will start with the series protagonist, Jon Snow.
The best paired conflict with Jon Snow is with his "brother" Rob Stark. Both of these guys are motivated by their father's teachings about honor, and both seek honor. How? Treat people fairly, follow up on your promises, have courage to lead people down difficult paths. The desire was the same. The motivation seemed different. Rob wanted to be admired, respected and loved by his people. Jon wanted to honor and love his dad. Those two motivations lead to very different decisions. In the end, Rob's selfish choice to not honor his promise cost him his life; Jon's sense of duty to do what was right sent him to exile north of the wall. Same lesson: honor is everything. Different execution, different ends.
Jon's second paired conflict was with Jamie. Two who did regicide. On the one hand, you have Jamie, who killed the Mad King before he burnt down Kings Landing, and lived with the stigma of "kingslayer" all his life. On the other hand, you have Jon, who didn't have the guts to stand up to a mad killer before she went crazy, and will live with the regret of inaction for his entire life north of the wall. Both men had to deal with the consequence of regicide, but both experiences are very different.
I find that these kinds of pairings are rife within game of thrones. Without going into detail, some other ideas, at a high level:
1) Arya and Gergor. Both driven by revenge. In the end, revenge killed one of them, and the other chose life and moving on over revenge.
2) Vyrus vs Balish: both dealt in information, misinformation and influence. Neither were confrontational and dealt with issues head on. The difference was the end goal. Vyrus really was a protector of the people, even if he was an "end justifies the means" type of guy. Balish had one goal: everything. in the end, both dead.
3) Cerci vs Night King: one wanted the end of Westeros. The other wanted ultimate power over Westeros at any price. In the end, the result is the same: no one power can resist the rest of the world united against you.
4) Mountain vs Hodor: both went from human to pretty dumb in service of higher powers. Moral: don;t be a dumb grinder, don't be 1984's Boxer.
5) Onion knight and Milisandra: one would risk his life and his fingers to keep the common people alive during a siege, the other would burn the most vulnerable of the common people at the stake for the good of the cause.
There are others that I do not list here. The prevalence of these dualities are too thick to believe they are just coincidence. The pairing is subtle in most cases. I don't think this device is unique, just the prevalence of it in this series is worth noting.
Thoughts?