Game of Thrones Thread

I agree with most of what you write, but not that her arc was breaking the chains of tyranny. She did not liberate slaver's bay, she took slaver's bay. She didn't break the chains of tyranny, she took the chains of tyranny. She tried to some degree lessen the tyranny, to be sure, but she didn't leave them for self-governance or identified nobles open to non-slavery governance, when she left, she had a loyalist (daario) control the part of slaver's bay that she controlled so that she could potentially return.

She stole the things offered to her in return for her leaving on a ship to westeros, she stole the slaves of the army, she pillaged qarth for goods and ships when only the necromancers and a broke sauron saxon ducksauce had crossed her. Most of her immorality is not really shown directly but only indirectly, but it was there nonetheless. Those were all themes of ambition.

And that's what they tried and failed to write for; ambition. That she had come to the conclusion that she could only rule over westeros and particularly, jon, the starks and tyrion, if she was properly to be feared. Her about face happened in that one scene where said "fear it is then".

And it's not true at all that everyone lost more than Dany either; she lost her husband, her brother, her fertility, her dearest servant, her dearest friendzone, she was starting to be rejected by her new love, she was an outsider in the land she planned to rule and was starting to feel the alienation. There was a lot of her loss to play off (if they wrote it well and if she acted it well). Her ambition to go full trotsky makes sense, even if it was flatly written. Her choice to burn the city and innocents, you're right, no reason for her to do so under the current circumstances and out of line with her character, even with her ambition and fire hunger included.
I get a lot of what you’re saying but making people think that stealing slaves in order to free them is somehow immoral is a tough sell
 
I get a lot of what you’re saying but making people think that stealing slaves in order to free them is somehow immoral is a tough sell

That's because some people view it through their own sense of morality, not the morality of the world that the story takes place in, as they should.

And they don't then apply that sense of morality further, say, the Dothraki horde. If people are free to see commanding a raping dothraki horde as moral, there is no reason to make an explicit exclusion rule for slavers.

Also, I don't really know if Missandei and the Unsullied were really free; Daenerys may have said they were free to follow her or not and Missandei may have said she had no doubt Daenerys would give her a ship to leave if she asked it.... this type of loyalty from Dany to her followers has never been tested.

Hey look, there's another way they could have given Dany motivation to make a more organic character development. The Dothraki could have started their raping, and she could have tried to stop them. And then when they wouldn't she torched them and unfortunately also burned part of the city and either killed all dothraki or drove the last dregs from the city.

That's how her ambition and intention to stand for the downthrodden could have backfired and you could still have at least a semi-torched city. Of course you'd need two or three more episodes to get to her beyond redemption (she didn't even need to go as extreme as she did to make it reasonable for Jon to sword her, and it would have made her death sadder and more nuanced).
 
Last edited:
That's because some people view it through their own sense of morality, not the morality of the world that the story takes place in, as they should.
It's a world where the seven kingdoms were forged by three foreigners, a Targaryen and his two sister wives on their dragons who burned anyone who didn't bend the knee and repeatedly burniated the shit out of Dorne for decades and everyone was fine with this for centuries. In that context aunt/nephew incest, burning everyone/everything you took a dislike to and Hitler Khaleesi did nothing wrong, she's merely re-establishing the status quo.

If Martin/D&D wanted to show Westeros moved beyond that then they did a piss poor job. Sansa Queen of the Independent North, Sellsword Master of Coin, Ruling Council and Bran Immortal God-King don't convey political maturity in any significant way; in fact, it portends instability and conflict.
 
@Lemmingwise What exactly did Tywin Lannister and Robert Baratheon do, that they are not considered mad, especially Tywin.
Tywin wiped the Reynes by drowning them all in their basement, women and children too. And when he sacked Kings Landing he ordered the Mountain to brutalize targaryens babies.
Robert holocausted the Targaryens, innocent or guilty. Even tho he did not care much about ruling he was using fear. Both of these do the things they do for selfish reasons. No one gets to gain anything from their actions but themselves only.
Sure Dany needed more time to become insane, but I have a feeling that, even if they did have time D&D lack creativity. Right now her character transformation is on the same level of Anakin, if not worse.
 
@Lemmingwise What exactly did Tywin Lannister and Robert Baratheon do, that they are not considered mad, especially Tywin.
Tywin wiped the Reynes by drowning them all in their basement, women and children too. And when he sacked Kings Landing he ordered the Mountain to brutalize targaryens babies.
Robert holocausted the Targaryens, innocent or guilty. Even tho he did not care much about ruling he was using fear. Both of these do the things they do for selfish reasons. No one gets to gain anything from their actions but themselves only.
Sure Dany needed more time to become insane, but I have a feeling that, even if they did have time D&D lack creativity. Right now her character transformation is on the same level of Anakin, if not worse.

Say what you will about Daenerys Targaryen, but she didn't trick anyone into eating their own children.

The character who did that literally got to sail into the sunset.
 
It's a world where the seven kingdoms were forged by three foreigners, a Targaryen and his two sister wives on their dragons who burned anyone who didn't bend the knee and repeatedly burniated the shit out of Dorne for decades and everyone was fine with this for centuries. In that context aunt/nephew incest, burning everyone/everything you took a dislike to and Hitler Khaleesi did nothing wrong, she's merely re-establishing the status quo.

It's fine and all to set aside morality and completely devote it to viewing as might makes right (and ignoring morality inside the world, like kinslaying and kingslaying and breaking guest right), but you can't then turn around and say it's moral good to burn alive the person who received you as a guest, you made a trade with, because he was a slaver. You also can't say the necromancers were wrong for chaining Dany, or miri miz duur for poisoning Drogo and murdering Dany's child inside her womb, taking her fertility forever. Once you subscribe to might makes right, you can't make other claims of morality. Because might makes right is essentially doing away with morality itself, throwing your hands up and saying "whatever man, if nobody stops you it's alright".

Besides, people weren't fine with it for centuries. The Targeryan dynasty was forged only 3 centuries ago and since then there have been 12-14 wars and rebellions inside westeros., before the story starts. That's about a war per generation.

It's also possible to not be fine with it and not be able to change it. Otherwise you're suggesting that the slaves themselves of slaver's bay were fine with it for centuries.

What exactly did Tywin Lannister and Robert Baratheon do, that they are not considered mad, especially Tywin.
Tywin wiped the Reynes by drowning them all in their basement, women and children too. And when he sacked Kings Landing he ordered the Mountain to brutalize targaryens babies.
Robert holocausted the Targaryens, innocent or guilty. Even tho he did not care much about ruling he was using fear. Both of these do the things they do for selfish reasons. No one gets to gain anything from their actions but themselves only.
Sure Dany needed more time to become insane, but I have a feeling that, even if they did have time D&D lack creativity. Right now her character transformation is on the same level of Anakin, if not worse.

I have said repeatedly that Dany went insane far too fast and that it was badly written. I was criticizing the view of some that saw Dany solely as a morally good character, when both her moral and other character flaws were apparent in the writing previously. Nobody said it out loud, nobody told her she is really arrogant, so I can see how it sometimes goes under people's radars, but if you look at the morality of her actions, there have been deep flaws to them.

And yes, the same goes for Tywin, but I don't see anybody arguing that Tywin was so morally good. I don't think Tywin ordered the mountain to brutalize them, but I'm sure he ordered them killed and I'm sure he didn't mind too much about the details. As he said to Jaime: (talking about his fight with ned stark) "Pah, a clean kill. I need you to become the man you're always meant to be. Not tomorrow, not next week, now." I don't see anybody saying Robert was a paragon of virtue either. His reasons for the rebellion were not having the bride he wanted (who wouldn't have wanted him anyways).

I think D&D discovered they didn't have the chops for doing GOT right without being inspired by Martin's writing. I think this is why they shortened it, to shorten the pain and cut their losses. Here too, I think the blame is sometimes misplaced, as originally there was talks of the books being finished before the show.

Gotta agree with the character transformation being about the level of anakin. Give her a gregor clegane face and we're there completely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chester Rigby
So ... we're supposed to cheer when terrible things happen to evil men?

Man, this show has some mixed messages.
Just ignore any messages and decide on a case by case basis with an algorithm of how much you like the character doing the terrible thing vs how evil the person it’s being done to is.

Also points for creativity. Burning a dude alive has been done, baking a dude’s kid into a pie is at least clever morally questionable behavior.
 
The even dumber thing is that the writers could have made Daenerys turn to the dark side just a bit more plausible if they simply had Jon kill the Night King. That way in the next episode everyone (including even some of the Unsullied and Dothraki) could be shown praising Jon to the high heavens while Daenerys is sort of sitting there besides herself a bit annoyed and jealous possibly thinking : It was my dragons and my men that made this win possible. What do we get instead? Subversion!

The turn works if you do at least 2 more seasons. Have 8 & 9 completely devoted to the dead, with everyone fighting for their lives. Like humanity is basically on the brink. I want it to be total apocalypse on every continent. Dead rising from the graves, Eternal Winter on every continent. Just when you think its done, Jon fufills his destiny and becomes Azor Ahi, the prince who was promised. Everyone, from the Dothraki, to the Unsullied, to King's Landing bow to him. As a natural leader, he takes charge of the restructuring of the Seven Kingdoms, one of the few leaders of men left.

Dany rules in name only, and nobody respects her, because she didn't do much. She still has her two dragons, but the ice spears prevented them doing anything of note. She grows more and more bitter over this. She was supposed to be seen as this great liberator and savior of Westeros and its been stolen from her. That and nobody treats her seriously. I mean, we're talking shit goes down so bad that they literally worship Jon, which he doesn't have much control over. Her men are deserting her cause by the day, the Dothraki are removed from their culture and have been so changed by the experience from the dead, they can't really follow her anymore. What's more bad-ass: A girl with two dragons or an avatar of fire killing the living incarnation of death itself? I rest my case.

It turns out Jon isn't the only one with a cult, and Dany actually has one as well, that came before. They think she's the true prince that was promised and she amasses legions. She's also been cunningly embezzling while no-one was looking and bought the golden company with its elephants (yes we get fucking elephants). As she grows more angry and bitter over the rebuilding the lands of men, she strikes when they are at their weakest. She declares that all Starks must die. Here you probably kill off Arya since she's basically useless to the plot and everyone would fucking hate her for it. So now you have this depleted army of the Seven Kingdoms with half the Unsullied/Dothraki going to Jon and the other half going to Dany. We're still in the middle of the long winter and all those stories old Nan told at the beginning begin to come true. Ice Spiders and shit. Humanity gets it shit pushed in even further, thanks to Dany. So the war is brutal as well.

We've never seen Jon on fire before, the climatic confrontation is Jon vs. Dany and her last dragon. As he burns, he is shown to be the true Prince Who Was Promised, slays the dragon and kills Danerys, unceremoniously. She begins to apologize and even beg for her life but he just fucking cuts her head off on the spot, mid sentence. He's jaded and angry for what she'd done. She got to rule, but in the end, all she really wanted was power. Its not exactly a happy ending.

Westeros utterly destroyed, nearly all the Starks are dead, every house has been completely shattered, the whole place is a fucking wreck. Its a kingdom on fire in the middle of winter. It ends with no one sitting on the Iron Throne, because there's nothing to rule. All houses are gone. Jon realizes his destiny to rebuild Westeros and save the Kingdoms of Men from collapsing into extinction from the massive winter that is about to be unleashed on them. He leaves Winterfell in the hands of Sansa, because a Stark being there is considered lucky and they need some luck.

The last shot is Jon and whoever is left with him, riding off into the winter landscape, towards an uncertain future, wondering if he can restore humanity before it starves and freezes to death.

Now that I think about it, the entire series has a character change deficiency. It depends so much more on unconvential plot twists than character development.

Every character was brutalized in the final season. None were left unscathed. It is objectively terrible and indefensible.
 
It's fine and all to set aside morality and completely devote it to viewing as might makes right (and ignoring morality inside the world, like kinslaying and kingslaying and breaking guest right), but you can't then turn around and say it's moral good to burn alive the person who received you as a guest, you made a trade with, because he was a slaver. You also can't say the necromancers were wrong for chaining Dany, or miri miz duur for poisoning Drogo and murdering Dany's child inside her womb, taking her fertility forever. Once you subscribe to might makes right, you can't make other claims of morality. Because might makes right is essentially doing away with morality itself, throwing your hands up and saying "whatever man, if nobody stops you it's alright".

Besides, people weren't fine with it for centuries. The Targeryan dynasty was forged only 3 centuries ago and since then there have been 12-14 wars and rebellions inside westeros., before the story starts. That's about a war per generation.

It's also possible to not be fine with it and not be able to change it. Otherwise you're suggesting that the slaves themselves of slaver's bay were fine with it for centuries.
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 and no one has the moral high ground, the slavers mutilate, torture, crucify and kill children and very few people are going to feel sorry for them or call Daenarys mad for killing them in the very brutal and public way she did, especially since she was sending a message slavery would not be tolerated. She did it because she wasn't fine with slavery and she could change it. In the prevailing method of the day which was through violence.

As for the seven kingdoms and it's many wars several of those were about the Targaryens and their cadet branches fighting over succession and not over Targaryen rule itself. The others, like the Iron Islands, rebelled because the kingdom was busy with those succession wars.

It's clear Martin gave these characters moral ambiguity so morality isn't the central issue in his books but D&D made a feeble attempt to make it one and failed.
 
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 and no one has the moral high ground, the slavers mutilate, torture, crucify and kill children and very few people are going to feel sorry for them or call Daenarys mad for killing them in the very brutal and public way she did, especially since she was sending a message slavery would not be tolerated. She did it because she wasn't fine with slavery and she could change it. In the prevailing method of the day which was through violence.

As for the seven kingdoms and it's many wars several of those were about the Targaryens and their cadet branches fighting over succession and not over Targaryen rule itself. The others, like the Iron Islands, rebelled because the kingdom was busy with those succession wars.

It's clear Martin gave these characters moral ambiguity so morality isn't the central issue in his books but D&D made a feeble attempt to make it one and failed.

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. Bran (at least before he became 3ER, it's hard to tell how he uses his prediction powers after that, because we never look inside his head and there's some cause to think he manipulated events exactly to get himself on the throne), Davos. Each of these characters display no moral failings. Maybe even the hound and sansa fit on that list. There are other characters who display no moral failings besides being gullible, or cowardly, like Tommen and Sam.

There are more morally grey characters and dany fits on that list, with on the one side noble seeming ideals, but on the other side a consuming ambition, much like the tyrells (who set up Renly against Stannis). Varys too fits on this, who on the one side is never shown to go far into selfish purposes (besides perhaps the revenge on the magician, but that has a kind of eye for eye justice), but on the other hand does heavily imply he is doing it for power towards Oberyn and most of his actions in the seem to be in support of Targaryan rule (IIRC in the books getting Barristan fired is a plot to get him to support Dany).

Then there are the more immoral characters like Tywin, little finger, Freys, Boltons, Others (white walkers).

Moral ambiguity doesn't mean that morality isn't topic in the books. Certainly people expect house frey to be cursed for breaking the guest-rights of bread and salt for example and people do morally condemn Jaime for kingslaying. And again, if you continue to hold your position that the people were fine with the Targaryan rule and did not morally condemn it, whether publicly or not, then you have to apply the same judgements to the slaves of slaver bay. If might makes right, then slavery can't be immoral.
 
And again, if you continue to hold your position that the people were fine with the Targaryan rule and did not morally condemn it, whether publicly or not, then you have to apply the same judgements to the slaves of slaver bay. If might makes right, then slavery can't be immoral.
The only people that matter are the nobility and as long as they were relatively free to do as they pleased they're just fine with it. It's only when Aerys starts killing Starks (nobility) that Jon Arryn, Robert and Ned take him out. Tywin hedged his bets until it was clear the rebels were winning.

Your Westerosi peasant's opinion doesn't matter in this scenario; in fact, come to think about it Daenarys is the only one that does care what they think.

We have slaves right now in the US, I don't see anyone screeching about it. No one is going on record saying its right but they aren't on a crusade to stamp it out either. Same with the Targs, there's occasional grumbling but there's no Wat Tyler's Peasant Rebellion against it.
 
I was thinking about the Martin/Roeling comparisons earlier today, and while Martin'll always be the better writer, there's another major way he came up short to Joanie.

When the Harry Potter movies started, the books weren't finished, just as they weren't finished for Martin. But there's a crucial character who's very difficult for an actor to play unless they know a revelation that happens at the end of the story, just as it is for Martin's.

What was different there is that Rowling herself told Alan Rickman what was really going on with Snape once he was cast, and Rickman got to play his part properly because of it.

The same should've been done with Emilia Clarke. She thought she was the heroine 'til the table resding for "The Bells", and there's no excuse whatsoever for that. It's a weakness even Miss Christensen didn't have to deal with; he knew he'd wind up the villain from day one.

The one time I saw her and Kit Harrington have chemistry was in their final scene together, when both actor and actress finally knew where their characters were going. That should've been there from the moment they first met, or they should've dropped the Dany/Jon romance entirely.

I'll go as far as to say it's the worst flaw of the ladt two seasons, as well as the most needless.

So ... we're supposed to cheer when terrible things happen to evil men?

Man, this show has some mixed messages.
We're not "supposed" to. We do it instinctively.

Dany crucified hundreds of civilians darlier in the series, but nobody watching rooted against it, because slave owners deserve do die, and watching them die horribly makes people feel happy.

The only time previously Dany killed someone who the audience didn't have a reason to be on her side about was when she burned the Tarly male line into extinction. But that was two people, and one of 'em was a giant asshole who threatened to kill his own son if he didn't abandon his inheritence by joining the Night's Watch. Anikin massacred an entire village for their complicity in the abduction, rape, and murder of his mother; and he spent years afterwards warring and having his brain washed by Palpatine before he completely lost it.

The turn works if you do at least 2 more seasons. Have 8 & 9 completely devoted to the dead, with everyone fighting for their lives. Like humanity is basically on the brink. I want it to be total apocalypse on every continent. Dead rising from the graves, Eternal Winter on every continent. Just when you think its done, Jon fufills his destiny and becomes Azor Ahi, the prince who was promised. Everyone, from the Dothraki, to the Unsullied, to King's Landing bow to him. As a natural leader, he takes charge of the restructuring of the Seven Kingdoms, one of the few leaders of men left.

Dany rules in name only, and nobody respects her, because she didn't do much. She still has her two dragons, but the ice spears prevented them doing anything of note. She grows more and more bitter over this. She was supposed to be seen as this great liberator and savior of Westeros and its been stolen from her. That and nobody treats her seriously. I mean, we're talking shit goes down so bad that they literally worship Jon, which he doesn't have much control over. Her men are deserting her cause by the day, the Dothraki are removed from their culture and have been so changed by the experience from the dead, they can't really follow her anymore. What's more bad-ass: A girl with two dragons or an avatar of fire killing the living incarnation of death itself? I rest my case.

It turns out Jon isn't the only one with a cult, and Dany actually has one as well, that came before. They think she's the true prince that was promised and she amasses legions. She's also been cunningly embezzling while no-one was looking and bought the golden company with its elephants (yes we get fucking elephants). As she grows more angry and bitter over the rebuilding the lands of men, she strikes when they are at their weakest. She declares that all Starks must die. Here you probably kill off Arya since she's basically useless to the plot and everyone would fucking hate her for it. So now you have this depleted army of the Seven Kingdoms with half the Unsullied/Dothraki going to Jon and the other half going to Dany. We're still in the middle of the long winter and all those stories old Nan told at the beginning begin to come true. Ice Spiders and shit. Humanity gets it shit pushed in even further, thanks to Dany. So the war is brutal as well.

We've never seen Jon on fire before, the climatic confrontation is Jon vs. Dany and her last dragon. As he burns, he is shown to be the true Prince Who Was Promised, slays the dragon and kills Danerys, unceremoniously. She begins to apologize and even beg for her life but he just fucking cuts her head off on the spot, mid sentence. He's jaded and angry for what she'd done. She got to rule, but in the end, all she really wanted was power. Its not exactly a happy ending.

Westeros utterly destroyed, nearly all the Starks are dead, every house has been completely shattered, the whole place is a fucking wreck. Its a kingdom on fire in the middle of winter. It ends with no one sitting on the Iron Throne, because there's nothing to rule. All houses are gone. Jon realizes his destiny to rebuild Westeros and save the Kingdoms of Men from collapsing into extinction from the massive winter that is about to be unleashed on them. He leaves Winterfell in the hands of Sansa, because a Stark being there is considered lucky and they need some luck.

The last shot is Jon and whoever is left with him, riding off into the winter landscape, towards an uncertain future, wondering if he can restore humanity before it starves and freezes to death.



Every character was brutalized in the final season. None were left unscathed. It is objectively terrible and indefensible.
This would almost be enough to make up for seasons six snd seven.

But what they really needed to do was replace the Dipshits in Chief once they clearly stopped giving a shit. I'm certain they could've picked any two writers they already had on staff at random, at any point after season five, make the randos showrunners, and they would've gotten better results.

It's not like they were ever the reason why this thing took off. Even back when both still had their hearts in it. If Aaron Sorkin can be kicked off The West Wing, there's no reason why the same couldn't happen here.
 
@Secret Asshole Yeah, but my point was that doing what I suggested would have been the better choice to make given the circumstances that they dug themselves into, but they instead chose to continue shooting themselves (or rather the audience) in the foot. It's like they made a conscious effort at every turn of the whole season (well also season 7 as well) to make every story-telling mistake possible.
 
The only people that matter are the nobility and as long as they were relatively free to do as they pleased they're just fine with it. It's only when Aerys starts killing Starks (nobility) that Jon Arryn, Robert and Ned take him out. Tywin hedged his bets until it was clear the rebels were winning.

Your Westerosi peasant's opinion doesn't matter in this scenario; in fact, come to think about it Daenarys is the only one that does care what they think.

We have slaves right now in the US, I don't see anyone screeching about it. No one is going on record saying its right but they aren't on a crusade to stamp it out either. Same with the Targs, there's occasional grumbling but there's no Wat Tyler's Peasant Rebellion against it.

It doesn't make sense to delineate a different morality for peasants and nobles. The sparrow plotline explored explicitly that. Though Margeary was playing a part, I believe she lied with a truth when she said that she regretted doing things to seem good rather than be good. There is no sign that small folk were mistreated under the people I described as morally good.

Jaime's choice to kingslay, though a deeply immoral one on multiple levels, did most likely prevent king's landing from being put to the torch.

Lack of rebellion against immorality isn't immoral either if there's no chance of success (like against dragons wielded by immoral rulers). Lack of resistance again does not mean that those that aren't resisted are suddenly moral.

In this case you seem to be arguing that moral is what people say is moral. It's a purely reputation based system and it is simply no substitute for morality, only a recipe for pragmatic survival.

The same should've been done with Emilia Clarke. She thought she was the heroine 'til the table resding for "The Bells", and there's no excuse whatsoever for that. It's a weakness even Miss Christensen didn't have to deal with; he knew he'd wind up the villain from day one.
Although this is true, this is also to some degree failing of her as an actress (she is good at reacting, but not very acting which makes her about an average actor). There is rarely much emotional depth to the things she says. Take a character like varys, daario, jaime, maybe even tyrion, these characters had enough depth that you could see them ending up on either end. Tywin too, despite being deeply immoral, shows glimpses of kindness and humanity. This duality was readily apparent in the written dialogue for Dany, but not much in her performance. Perhaps some of my training in seperating the two is what is putting me at odds with a number of people here in having a different perspective on the situation.

Dany played her character like Aidan Gillen played littlefinger; like a flat character. I think it's possible a lot people missed that because they personally identified with Dany's cause of being wronged and fighting against slavery.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't make sense to delineate a different morality for peasants and nobles. The sparrow plotline explored explicitly that. Though Margeary was playing a part, I believe she lied with a truth when she said that she regretted doing things to seem good rather than be good. There is no sign that small folk were mistreated under the people I described as morally good.

Jaime's choice to kingslay, though a deeply immoral one on multiple levels, did most likely prevent king's landing from being put to the torch.

Lack of rebellion against immorality isn't immoral either if there's no chance of success (like against dragons wielded by immoral rulers). Lack of resistance again does not mean that those that aren't resisted are suddenly moral.

In this case you seem to be arguing that moral is what people say is moral. It's a purely reputation based system and it is simply no substitute for morality, only a recipe for pragmatic survival.
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.
 
Back