Is the series really as morally grey as has been made out?

[Arland]

Dark Heart

Sure it is grey.I have no argument on this issue King Robert is as grey as it gets (and even more into the blackish side) with Ned ... well.. you just can't save all the puppies I guess.

What I don't agree with is an attempt to blur all the "shades of grey" and paint it all the same color. Westerosi serfdom is not the same as Slaver's bay kind of slavery. Being an active slaver is not the same as not going to war with others to force them not to slave. It is bad , but still better...

You also should differentiate between the law and an ability to enforce it. Balon was crushed, but what would have really happened if Robert would have decided to go against all Iron Born, who would have risen against such attempt to dictate they "way of life" ? Could they really enforce such law? At what cost?Could they really replace a whole ruling class of Ironborn and still effectively rule the island without turning them into a desert (may be it was not such a bad idea actually:) ) I am not saying it couldn't been done, but it wasn't as easy as you try to portray it.

[Myrcella]

I've been having the same thoughts as the OP suggested. It was pretty easy for me to figure out who the "goodies" and the "baddies" were. As a Stark loyalist, I must say Stark is morally much "whiter" than Lannister. Biases aside, however, it just might not be as simple as black and white. Tywin's wretched offspring is, I must say, morally pathetic, but looking at other Lannisters (Kevan, Lancel, Myrcella, Tommen) they are quite decent people. I do agree, however, that the moral greyness is overrated. The number of people supporting Stark over Lannister is overwhelming compared to those supporting Lannister over Stark.

As for Dany vs Meereen, I saw the collective punishment as perfectly justifiable. But it's still collective punishment, and in the eyes of some others, it could be no better than the September 11 attacks.

[Wouter]

I don't consider her unreliable in relating that guys words, I'd point to the fact that this is only one person, who himself tells a few whoppers.

It is clearly not only one person who was running the unsullied slave trade; Astapor has been famed for it for centuries and it produces 1000s of them at a given time. There is no indication whatsoever that his description is not the norm of just what that "training" entailed.

Astapor was deliberately made as vile as possible by the author, so he does seem to want to take the sting out of her actions regarding it. In extreme circumstances, most people will be far more forgiving if extreme (counter)measures are used.

[Wouter]

I've been having the same thoughts as the OP suggested. It was pretty easy for me to figure out who the "goodies" and the "baddies" were. As a Stark loyalist, I must say Stark is morally much "whiter" than Lannister. Biases aside, however, it just might not be as simple as black and white. Tywin's wretched offspring is, I must say, morally pathetic, but looking at other Lannisters (Kevan, Lancel, Myrcella, Tommen) they are quite decent people. I do agree, however, that the moral greyness is overrated. The number of people supporting Stark over Lannister is overwhelming compared to those supporting Lannister over Stark.

Kevan was the man who organised the deliberate slaughter (ran by Gregor, Lorch, the bloody mummers and co) in the Riverlands, on Tywin's orders. He may be more human than Tywin is and have some basic decency in his own relations (allthough he didn't try very hard to stop Cersei's walk of shame), but he is about of guilty of war criminals (even by Westerosi standards) as Tywin is. Myrcella and Tommen are innocents kids though, and Lancel improved a lot after Tyrion blackmailed him, I agree on those counts.

[Rooke]

I'd have to agree that the characters themselves tend to fall into either the good or bad category.

I think what makes this series seem "grey" is the way the consequences of each character's actions are presented. As many people have already brought up, no matter how good a character's intentions were when performing an action, they may still produce horrific results. For example, Robb breaking his agreement with the Frey's. If this had been almost any other series, it all would have worked out for the best. At most, some of Robb's men would have died leaving him with an ever present feeling of guilt. Instead, he, his mother, and a great many people from around the North were murdered or taken hostage, and the Frey's get off relatively freely. In other word's this isn't a mistake that can eventually be fixed. There is no happy ending for Robb or his banner men because they're dead. Not to mention the whole Stoneheart escapade.

On the other hand, the death of some pretty horrible people are making things worse. Say what you will about Tywin, but he was a pretty capable Hand. I believe it's mentioned that the only reason Aerys was allowed to rule for so long was because Tywin was able to keep the kingdom peaceful and prospering. It makes you wonder whether or not his death was really for the better in regards to the Seven Kingdoms.

[James Arryn]

I don't know whether to chalk this up to GRRM's superhero influences (think more Stan Lee than Nietzsche), but one element in the departure from some b&w is the degree to which age doesn't excuse.

We do occassionally see fan factions of certain characters citing their age to excuse their actions, but we rarely if ever see this in GRRM world, either in perception or repercussion. To some dgree age matters once someone becomes a victim, but other than that it seems accounted for fairly harshly from our POV, and that of most works.

[voodooqueen126]

First of all, let me say that i'm not actually disagreeing with you, but GRRM has said in interviews that NO ONE in his books is a real monster. he compares it to adolph hitler - he loved dogs. there was SOMETHING morally redeemable. having said that, Arya and Nymeria need to hunt Ramsay down, and arya needs to flay him upside down and let the wolves eat the skins. Some folks aren't fit to live, even if their fathers weren't "nice" to them.

Interesting that you should mention this because weren't GRRM's exact words something along the lines of that even Hitler didn't wake up in the morning thinking "How much evil shall I commit today/how many puppies shall I kill." But that even the most wicked of men think of themselves as good people.

This parallels something that Thomas Aquinas said in Summa Theologia

"

FOURTH ARTICLE [i-II, Q. 18, Art. 4] Whether a Human Action Is Good or Evil from Its End?

Objection 1: It would seem that the good and evil in human actions are not from the end. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "nothing acts with a view to evil." If therefore an action were good or evil from its end, no action would be evil. Which is clearly false.

Obj. 2: Further, the goodness of an action is something in the action. But the end is an extrinsic cause. Therefore an action is not said to be good or bad according to its end.

Obj. 3: Further, a good action may happen to be ordained to an evil end, as when a man gives an alms from vainglory; and conversely, an evil action may happen to be ordained to a good end, as a theft committed in order to give something to the poor. Therefore an action is not good or evil from its end.

On the contrary, Boethius says (De Differ. Topic. ii) that "if the end is good, the thing is good, and if the end be evil, the thing also is evil."

I answer that, The disposition of things as to goodness is the same as their disposition as to being. Now in some things the being does not depend on another, and in these it suffices to consider their being absolutely. But there are things the being of which depends on something else, and hence in their regard we must consider their being in its relation to the cause on which it depends. Now just as the being of a thing depends on the agent, and the form, so the goodness of a thing depends on its end. Hence in the Divine Persons, Whose goodness does not depend on another, the measure of goodness is not taken from the end. Whereas human actions, and other things, the goodness of which depends on something else, have a measure of goodness from the end on which they depend, besides that goodness which is in them absolutely.

Accordingly a fourfold goodness may be considered in a human action. First, that which, as an action, it derives from its genus; because as much as it has of action and being so much has it of goodness, as stated above (A. 1). Secondly, it has goodness according to its species; which is derived from its suitable object. Thirdly, it has goodness from its circumstances, in respect, as it were, of its accidents. Fourthly, it has goodness from its end, to which it is compared as to the cause of its goodness.

Reply Obj. 1: The good in view of which one acts is not always a true good; but sometimes it is a true good, sometimes an apparent good. And in the latter event, an evil action results from the end in view.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the end is an extrinsic cause, nevertheless due proportion to the end, and relation to the end, are inherent to the action.

Reply Obj. 3: Nothing hinders an action that is good in one of the ways mentioned above, from lacking goodness in another way. And thus it may happen that an action which is good in its species or in its circumstances is ordained to an evil end, or vice versa. However, an action is not good simply, unless it is good in all those ways: since "evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete cause," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv)."

So it maybe that Hitler didn't wake up thinking "I am deliberately setting out to do evil" but that doesn't make him any less of a monster.

Atleast when we apply Aquinas's argument

[Scipio Africanus]

According to Red Mel there are only good and bad people.

I see a whole lot of bad people and the good ones I can count on one hand.

I'd say the ASOFAI series is still as black&white as traditional fantasy but this time round lots of grim nasty stuff gets thrown in and the baddies get POVs instead of being cardboard characters, fodder waiting to die at the hands of a hero.

[voodooqueen126]

According to Red Mel there are only good and bad people.

I see a whole lot of bad people and the good ones I can count on one hand.

I'd say the ASOFAI series is still as black&white as traditional fantasy but this time round lots of grim nasty stuff gets thrown in and the baddies get POVs instead of being cardboard characters, fodder waiting to die at the hands of a hero.

Let's look at character alignment.

http://tvtropes.org/...racterAlignment

Now most novelists, not being psychopaths*, write works that sit above, rather than below the line (ie the text as a whole is condemns what the author regards as evil, so even though "Lolita" is narrated by a peadophile, it's pretty clear that he is a villain, and Nabokov regarded Humbert Humbert as an absolute wretch). Furthermore even the heroes can seem to be abhorrent/freaks in say Flannery O'Connor as her characters are quite horrid people, but that doesn't mean that Flannery's stories don't reflect the author's absolutist moral code.

A work can have absolutist values yet still have a fairly bleak view of human nature, again Flannery O'Conner would be a good example, given her belief in original sin.

I think texts where the hero is chaotic good and the villain is lawful evil are implicitly optimistic in their view of human nature. Where as I think texts that have a more pessimistic view of human nature tend to be more Hobbesian.

I would say that given the prepondrence of complete monsters in Martinworld, that it is unlikely that Martin subscribes to a belief in the inherent goodness of human nature, although according to the page on chaotic good, Americans have a tendency to idealise the choatic goodhero, and perhaps Martin's slightly noble savage-esqueportrayal of the Wildlings indicates this tendency (which is stupid, as living North of the Wall would be like living in a cold version of Sierra Leone).

I think the thing that makes GRRM's work look more grey, so to speak, is that has another dimension (from chaotic/lawful and good/evil) that of fortune/misfortune (though perhaps optimistic/pessimistic would be a better name): in works intended for children/very optimistic works, good triumphs easily and evil falters, where as Martin portrays goodness as being hard to pull off. For example Ned tries to save Cersei's children and gets his head cut off for his troubles, Robb tries to do the right thing by Jeyne Westerling and ends up murdered over dinner.

Or Daenerys tries to ban slavery (and Martin goes out of his way to portray the Ghiscari as more disgusting than Rome, the American South, the Arab and the Ottoman slave trade in Africa, combined) yet then faces severe economic and political difficulty afterwards.

*Interestingly, there seem to be more serial killer painters than writers, atleast according to this Katherine Ramsland article. Perhaps because the purpose of novels is to promote empathy and so anything written by a psychopath will likely be too prone to blue and orange moralityto be enjoyable for anybody but the most silly and deluded intellectuals.

[Lion of Judah]

At times morals can collide with common sense, yes Eddard Stark is an honorable man, but it arguably cost him his life and cost his family as well. In the end I believed he realized that a man must value more than his honorable code, he must value his children, his family etc. Because he saved one womans children, only to have that very woman try to kill all of his. So his morals in a sick twisted way helped the effort in killing his kin. Nothing wrong with morals, but it demands the you be intelligent as well.

[James Arryn]

Nothing wrong with morals, but it demands the you be intelligent as well.

In terms of material cost? I'd say it's closer to the opposite.

Acting out of self-interest requires no morality.

[voodooqueen126]

At times morals can collide with common sense, yes Eddard Stark is an honorable man, but it arguably cost him his life and cost his family as well. In the end I believed he realized that a man must value more than his honorable code, he must value his children, his family etc. Because he saved one womans children, only to have that very woman try to kill all of his. So his morals in a sick twisted way helped the effort in killing his kin. Nothing wrong with morals, but it demands the you be intelligent as well.

I agree.

If Ned had wanted to save Myrcella and Tommen (wanting to save innocent children from the fate that befell Rhaegar's children is one I find compassionate and admirable) he needed to be a lot more imaginative.

Instead what he did was go to Cersei and tell her his plans, the mind boggles that he could think a woman who has been screwing her brother for the last 13+ years would hesitate to deceive him...

Certainly Littlefinger's treachery was the main cause of Ned's destruction and sadly beyond Ned's control. Yet it was within Ned's power to imagine a plan to save Myrcella and Tommen that did not involving confronting Cersei.

There are certain machiavellian/wannabe-sociopaths/silly boys, on these forums who say that Ned was stupid because he was moral. They are of course wrong: being moral can certainly work against ones one self interest (see below), but it is not stupid.

If it were stupid, morality wouldn't be considered a desirable trait by every single culture on earth (even if the definitions of morality change in detail from time and place; eg cultures that practice, senicide, infanticide, human sacrifice and cannibalism*). Those without morality, namely psychopaths, are hated wherever they are identified: the Inuit for example, whose culture and morality is rather blue and orange from a Western perspective, when asked what should be done to a psychopath, replied that "Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.”

No Ned was stupid because he trusted a glib, untrustworthy, superficial man and because he could not come up with a plan that would save himself, his children, Cersei's children, and uphold the rule of law**. It is not stupid to want to save innocent children and uphold the rule of law, since respect for human life and the rule of law are the values that underpin a functional society, but to fulfil these noble aims, you have to work a lot harder than someone who is entirely selfish and self interested.

**Perhaps LF was beyond Ned's control-apparently psychopaths are such good liars that it is hard to tell from their body language- but in regards to Cersei's children all he had to do was kidnap Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen, thus giving himself hostages against Cersei. Then when the issue was resolved (and Cersei executed for treason) he could have packed Joffrey and Tommen off to the Nights Watch and Myrcella off to the Silent Sisters. Now I am much younger than Ned, have no experience in government, but if even I can come up with a better plan then "reveal my knowledge to a woman who has been screwing her brother for atleast 13 years" then that is saying something rather terrible about Ned's ability to plan.

*Although, if we are at all honest, we will see that wealth, national IQ, and violence/number of ASPD's and psychopaths in a population tend to correlate rather painfully. Cultures that practice infanticide, for instance, often have severe problems.

In terms of material cost? I'd say it's closer to the opposite.

Acting out of self-interest requires no morality.

Absolutely you are correct, acting out of self interest requires no morality. Being good is hard because frankly there will always be situations where your self interest and morality shall collide. The most difficult situations are of course those where not only does our self interest collide with morality. Of course it only becomes morally grey when the interests of our family/especially our children to whom we have a duty collide with morality.