Game of Thrones Thread

[SteelPlatedHeart]

 

[Lemmingwise]

It may not make sense to you that there was one standard for the nobility and another for peasants. That's how it was during the middle ages and that's how it is in the books.

It's de facto right now-the wealthy and connected evade responsibility/punishment while the lower classes do time if they don't pay traffic tickets.

I don't have a problem reading a story that operates by different rules/morality than my own. These are fictional characters with iffy morals. I don't have to share their morals/motivations to understand and enjoy the story.

You understand there is a difference between morality and practical punishment, right? Morality is a code of conduct for goodness. Whereas the practical punishment and responsibility is a function of laws put in place and the degree to which they are held up. Tyrion was condemned by law, but it is clearly seen that this condemnation is morally wrong, and injust, to show just one example where they differ.

Morality is independant of standing.

This whole thing started with my criticism of viewing dany's opposition to slavery in slaver's bay as morally good, as it's in a far more grey area. If you want to say that it's morally good, fine, you're free to apply your own morals. Nothing wrong with that.

But you can't defend that as morally good and then defend that there are different moral standards for different social classes. If you defend that, then you attack the idea of abolishing slavery. Repression of smallfolk may not quite be as tyrannical as slavery but it can come pretty close.

Besides the characters have a clear perception of this morality (and the injustice of the different standards) . You notice this when Tyrion points out how some of the boys ended up at the wall in unfair circumstances.

 

[Gaat]

Isn't morality written by the winners though?

I mean the main thing about the Targaryean dynasty was it was dynastic incest and that didn't sit well with the Faith of the Seven or the Old Gods. (The Jamie/Cersei arc dealt with the whole incest and the potential for the kids being batshit insane)

I'll agree with you each had their own view of morals, and Tyrion (even the more morally grey version in the books) realized when people were given a shit deal.

Anyway my last comment: Dany started off well but they showed in Seasons 1 and 2 she had some of her Daddy's tendencies (Blood witch and the 'Where are my Dragons'). People just saw how she was setting her friends free and cheered. Ignoring the fact that..maybe..people didn't like the old Targ rule. Or the Lannisters had a better stranglehold over the poor. Or maybe the Night's Watch and the North were like 'Fuck. Y'all'.

Emila had a good chance as Dany. But this was choppy as fuck because unless you saw the 'behind the scenes' you couldn't pierce together just why she fell and made it believable, imo. You just saw a fucking spoiled princess who got her ass handed because her lover/nephew was more popular. And most people are lazy as fuck and don't want to 'watch' behind the scenes or do research unless they wanna sperg out.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

You understand there is a difference between morality and practical punishment, right? Morality is a code of conduct for goodness. Whereas the practical punishment and responsibility is a function of laws put in place and the degree to which they are held up. Tyrion was condemned by law, but it is clearly seen that this condemnation is morally wrong, and injust, to show just one example where they differ.

Morality is independant of standing.

This whole thing started with my criticism of viewing dany's opposition to slavery in slaver's bay as morally good, as it's in a far more grey area. If you want to say that it's morally good, fine, you're free to apply your own morals. Nothing wrong with that.

But you can't defend that as morally good and then defend that there are different moral standards for different social classes. If you defend that, then you attack the idea of abolishing slavery. Repression of smallfolk may not quite be as tyrannical as slavery but it can come pretty close.

Besides the characters have a clear perception of this morality (and the injustice of the different standards) . You notice this when Tyrion points out how some of the boys ended up at the wall in unfair circumstances.

I'm not defending anything. These are facts as stated in Martin's books and facts IRL. If you want to discuss philosophy and legal theory then those topics deserves a separate thread..

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm not defending anything. These are facts as stated in Martin's books and facts IRL. If you want to discuss philosophy and legal theory then those topics deserves a separate thread..

It really boggles my mind that you first engage in a moral argument, where you argue for martin's world as a world with "relative morals". You've also argued for a might makes right moral system. And finally for a stratified moral system based on class and claim that it is similar to our world.

And now you sidestep it, because I suppose you don't have anything more to say on it. That's fine. You didn't have to engage in comparisons between the morality between show/book/reality in the first place, but don't pretend that wasn't also what you were doing.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

We're discussing a fantasy work of fiction. Nothing I wrote states that I believe what X character does is fine because I personally agree that's how it should be done in our real world society.

Stating something is a fact does not mean I agree how it came to be. I mean, I can state for a fact JFK was murdered. That's a fact. You can't infer from that statement I believe he should have been murdered.

And if you believe that everyone in the real world is equal and faces equal rewards and consequences then all I can say is that's naive or exceptional.

 

[дядя Боря]

Morality is relative in Martin's fictional world, others point out Tywin wiped out an entire family by drowning, Robert, Jaime and Tywin/The Mountain murdered, killed and raped Aerys and his family, Arya killed, cooked and served Frey his own children I mean wtf it's a nasty brutal world ...

That's an excellent point. Arya is all hero and righteous, but if they would stage and film her slaughtering the kiddos, dismembering, cutting chunks of meat out ... it's much more gruesome and personal than spreading fire from a far. There is that detachment phenomenon that drone operators aren't exactly as involved emotionally strafing heat signatures, vs bayoneting another human at close range. Changing perspective, it may be that Arya is probably more fuckt in the head than Dany ever was.

 

[Silent Observer]

There are plenty of characters that display no moral failings and as a result, do have a moral high ground. Brienne. Jon. Podrick. Barristan. Eddard.

Brienne killed Stannis in cold blood, Jon killed a child in cold blood, and literally the first thing we see Eddard do is execute someone for the oh-so-evil crime of GTFO of a zombie ambush. Morality has always been grey on this show. That's what made it so great. When you look back at the Battle of Blackwater and the Wildling Attack on the Wall, they were exhilarating because in those battles, both combatants had reasonable yet amoral reasons to wage their war. That's why Dany's genocide of King's Landing is so baffling and disappointing. There were a million different ways that they could have made her antagonistic towards Jon while still being rational, but instead, they decided to abandon all subtlety and make her commit the most evil act possible just so Jon would have to kill her.

 

[The Estatist]

Well no, Bloodraven has only lived that long because he's got a weirwood up his arse and through his eyesocket ,though that costs money so he probably looks normal in the show.

The crow was said to have lived for a millenium. Regardless of the book being different we can't disregard that.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Brienne killed Stannis in cold blood, Jon killed a child in cold blood, and literally the first thing we see Eddard do is execute someone for the oh-so-evil crime of GTFO of a zombie ambush. Morality has always been grey on this show. That's what made it so great. When you look back at the Battle of Blackwater and the Wildling Attack on the Wall, they were exhilarating because in those battles, both combatants had reasonable yet amoral reasons to wage their war. That's why Dany's genocide of King's Landing is so baffling and disappointing. There were a million different ways that they could have made her antagonistic towards Jon while still being rational, but instead, they decided to abandon all subtlety and make her commit the most evil act possible just so Jon would have to kill her.

Um I think you'll find Stannis had the right and did absolutely nothing wrong at any point.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The crow was said to have lived for a millenium. Regardless of the book being different we can't disregard that.

Are you sure? Even in the books conversation with the three eyed crow make it clear that it's lord brynden and likely the brynden rivers of history, which puts him somewhere at 150 years old.

Though he might well be correct, as Brynden was 75ish when he left beyond the wall. If he got settled in his weirwood seat pretty quick, that may well have been what sustained him.

Um I think you'll find Stannis had the right and did absolutely nothing wrong at any point.

At least not until the show, kid thing. And maybe the burning alive of other people.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

At least not until the show, kid thing. And maybe the burning alive of other people.

They had it coming.

 

[The Estatist]

Are you sure? Even in the books conversation with the three eyed crow make it clear that it's lord brynden and likely the brynden rivers of history, which puts him somewhere at 150 years old.

Though he might well be correct, as Brynden was 75ish when he left beyond the wall. If he got settled in his weirwood seat pretty quick, that may well have been what sustained him.

He (Crow) said that he waited over a thousand years for Bran. We're shown he doesn't need to be stuck in weirwood 24/7 mind you. Both examples are in the show not so much the book.

Again, even if Bran somehow can't have such longevity (not even if he wargs into a dragon) nothing rules out selecting his successor from another greenseer and so on, ensuring Westeros has a new magical dynasty.

 

[Silent Observer]

Um I think you'll find Stannis had the right and did absolutely nothing wrong at any point.

What he did wrong was go against Sir Twenty of House Goodmen

 

[Lemmingwise]

And if you believe that everyone in the real world is equal and faces equal rewards and consequences then all I can say is that's naive or exceptional.

If that's what you took from what I wrote, you need to reread. I clearly differentiate consequences from morality. If they were equal, we would be talking about a perfectly just world, which is neither the case for our world or that of westeros.

We're discussing a fantasy work of fiction. Nothing I wrote states that I believe what X character does is fine because I personally agree that's how it should be done in our real world society.

Nor did I say that you did. I said you made comments about morality and comparisons between ours and that of westeros and then later pretended like I was the only one talking about that subject. It was a little disingenuous. That's all.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Brienne killed Stannis in cold blood, Jon killed a child in cold blood, and literally the first thing we see Eddard do is execute someone for the oh-so-evil crime of GTFO of a zombie ambush. Morality has always been grey on this show. That's what made it so great. When you look back at the Battle of Blackwater and the Wildling Attack on the Wall, they were exhilarating because in those battles, both combatants had reasonable yet amoral reasons to wage their war. That's why Dany's genocide of King's Landing is so baffling and disappointing. There were a million different ways that they could have made her antagonistic towards Jon while still being rational, but instead, they decided to abandon all subtlety and make her commit the most evil act possible just so Jon would have to kill her.

Wasn't Martin quoted saying he wrote fantasy for adults? That's what's infuriating about D&D dumbing the series down for the Burlington Bar crowd.

 

[RadicalCentrist]

Eddard do is execute someone for the oh-so-evil crime of GTFO of a zombie ambush.

A zombie ambush the deserter said nothing about, despite his literal duty being to prevent said zombies from munching on civilians. Not even as a warning, or anything. Dead silent, you could say.

You can argue that he was too 'shellshocked' or whatever but that doesn't change the fact that Ned merely executed a deserter.

 

[Silent Observer]

A zombie ambush the deserter said nothing about, despite his literal duty being to prevent said zombies from munching on civilians. Not even as a warning, or anything. Dead silent, you could say.

You can argue that he was too 'shellshocked' or whatever but that doesn't change the fact that Ned merely executed a deserter.

You don't "merely" execute a "deserter" (aka a guy whose entire crew got slaughtered and was hit with a natural self-preservation instinct to retreat to safety), which is why Ned carried out the responsibility of his execution, because he knew it was tragically senseless and morally reprehensible, yet it was the law of their world.

 

[RadicalCentrist]

You don't "merely" execute a "deserter" (aka a guy whose entire crew got slaughtered and was hit with a natural self-preservation instinct), which is why Ned carried out the responsibility of his execution, because he knew it was tragically senseless and morally reprehensible, yet it was the law of their world.

Ned carries out all executions himself. It was nothing special.

"(aka a guy whose entire crew got slaughtered and was hit with a natural self-preservation instinct)"
Seem to be missing the point there lad. HOW would Ned KNOW that? He didn't upload fire pics to his instagram. Just a man in black, running south. Didn't say a word.

"Morally reprehensible"- Men with training (to kill people) with weapons they received (to kill people) don't tend to become flower salesmen. Also, how is not warning someone about the literal magical apocalypse that is coming not "morally reprehensible?"

 

[Silent Observer]

Wasn't Martin quoted saying he wrote fantasy for adults? That's what's infuriating about D&D dumbing the series down for the Burlington Bar crowd.

Yep. He wrote the story to be subvert childish notions of good vs evil and explore the motivations, logistics, and horrors of actual medieval warfare, but D&D decided to turn it into an TV-MA CW-tier-melodrama with Tyrion and the Starks vs Hitler Dany and Ice Satan.

Ned carries out all executions himself. It was nothing special.

"(aka a guy whose entire crew got slaughtered and was hit with a natural self-preservation instinct)"
Seem to be missing the point there lad. HOW would Ned KNOW that? He didn't upload fire pics to his instagram. Just a man in black, running south. Didn't say a word.

"Morally reprehensible"- Men with training (to kill people) with weapons they received (to kill people) don't tend to become flower salesmen. Also, how is not warning someone about the literal magical apocalypse that is coming not "morally reprehensible?"

The dude was scared out of his mind, literally too scared to speak. Not to mention, nobody believed him because at that point white walkers were still a myth. Ned killed him just for being a deserter which again is not exactly the pinnacle of morality.