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

[Gannicus]

I wouldn't say the series is morally grey. It is the characters who aren't so black and white. We have good people doing bad things, bad characters doing good things, and many times characters who face unclear choices.

Is Theon an evil person for betraying the Starks? I personally don't like him, but it's easy to see his conflict.

Do I stick to my vow or should I do what I believe is right?

[Dark Heart]

In contrast, the Starks save the Riverlords and the author mutes the violence committed by the Starks for example the invasion of the Westerlands.

Not quite.

We see serving girls hanged with "They slept with lions." (soldiers from the north killed them), in Arya's chapters many common folk / Lady of the Acorn Hall / BWB see no difference between lions and wolves.

They are all killing, burning and stealing things.

Even Tyrion, a Lannister who has the readers sympathy, is shown as detesting the behaviour of his siblings, knows they’re in the wrong and his own actions are kept neatly separate from those by House Lannister like the RW.

Once we get Jamie's POV we see he's not simply "evil". He's a deeply flawed character, but he have good sides too.

It's hard to paint Lannisters as irredeemably evil and always wrong.

Whilst Robb is the young hero king. Alexander the Great in wolf skin and who acts with honour (however much this causes him harm).

Well, that depend on the way you look at it.

He was betrothed, gave his word of honor that he'll marry a girl in return for passage and soldiers of her house.

By marrying another girl he went back at his word and dishonored himself in eyes of many.

Dany/Slavers

Yes, he frees the slaves . . . and then leave them to a blood revolt and tyranny in one city and in second leaves them without jobs / way to support themselves that contributes to horror that city turned into.

Freeing the slaves is right. Even if she used questionable methods to do it.

But the "gray" part is in what came after she freed them.

The saying about the best intentions is appropriate here.

Mel wants to fight the evil others and a few burnings of religious shrines don’t really weigh up against the crimes of House Lannister.

The problem is she wants to burn a child and she does burns people.

She is also using the life force of the king she serves to make shadows that kill. And her king is weaker every time she makes another.

The way I see it all actions have consequences.

And sometimes good actions made with the best intentions by "good" characters have horrible consequences.

Most characters have "gray" decisions and actions.

[Hear Us Roar]

Yeah i wanted more details about the northmen's incursions. We know Bolton put an entire house to the sword, serving girls were hanged. They too rape and reave [not just an ironborn] thing

[danm_999]

There just isn’t as much of an issue here as people are making. The slavers are bad. Dany is good but her methods questionable. Thats not really grey. Certainly not balanced.

Huh? No grayness to Daenerys' anti-slavery campaign, or slavery in general? We reading the same books?

“My queen?” Daario stepped forward. “The riverside is full of Meereenese, begging leave to be allowed to sell themselves to this Qartheen. They are thicker than the flies.”

Dany was shocked. “They want to be slaves?”

“The ones who come are well spoken and gently born, sweet queen. Such slaves are prized. In the Free Cities they will be tutors, scribes, bed slaves, even healers and priests. They will sleep in soft beds, eat rich foods, and dwell in manses. Here they have lost all, and live in fear and squalor.”

“I see.” Perhaps it was not so shocking, if these tales of Astapor were true. Dany thought a moment. “Any man who wishes to sell himself into slavery may do so. Or woman.

Meereen is a free city of free men. A poor city that once was rich. A hungry city that once was fat. A bloody city that once was peaceful.

His accusations stung. There was too much truth in them.

"How kind of my old friend to help with the digging. And how very unlike him. Is it possible he was given no choice in the matter? No, surely not. You have no slaves in Meereen.”

Dany flushed. “Your friend is being paid with food and shelter. I cannot give him back his wealth."

“Ghazdor’s collar,” the old man boasted. “Known him since we was born. I’m almost like a brother to him. Slaves like you, sweepings out of Astapor and Yunkai, you whine about being free, but I wouldn’t give the dragon queen my collar if she offered to suck my cock for it. Man has the right master, that’s better.”

Tyrion did not dispute him. The most insidious thing about bondage was how easy it was to grow accustomed to it. The life of most slaves was not all that different from the life of a serving man at Casterly Rock, it seemed to him. True, some slaveowners and their overseers were brutal and cruel, but the same was true of some Westerosi lords and their stewards and bailiffs. Most of the Yunkai’i treated their chattels decently enough, so long as they did their jobs and caused no trouble … and this old man in his rusted collar, with his fierce loyalty to Lord Wobblecheeks, his owner, was not at all atypical.

Seems there's a hell of a lot of grayness and nuance being demonstrated in relation to slavery and the slavers.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

On the basics, such as the prohibition on (in-group) murder, moral rules are actually pretty much universal---the rules that is that make it possible for human communities to exist at all. The basics are probably genetically supported. You may find the odd ethical theorist who will defend relativism, I suppose, but such are few and far between. Try reading Chapters 13--15 of Hobbes' Leviathan to see one argument for basic moral rules: that has a kind of pungent flavor to it that later, more tepid treatments do not.

As a matter of fact, I had to study Hobbes for my exam tomorrow. However, you can say that there are universal moral rules, but then again; our western societies favored slavery for quite some time, while being detested now. We once had the Apartheid in South-Africa, the classthing in America, which was then 'okay' and 'moral', while being a general abomination now. There are exceptions of course, but the fact that moral values are constantly changing, to me means that they are not universal. Not even on the basics, I think. I do agree that moral rules helped establish civilizations etc., but while some (or many) moral rules still exist, others are pretty much gone now. (:

[total1402]

Not quite.

We see serving girls hanged with "They slept with lions." (soldiers from the north killed them), in Arya's chapters many common folk / Lady of the Acorn Hall /

That was done by a Riverland lord who had had his castle destroyed. Hence he was an independent lord loyal to Robb, but nevertheless acting on his own prejudice.

[total1402]

Huh? No grayness to Daenerys' anti-slavery campaign, or slavery in general? We reading the same books?

Not really.

Mereen is poor because every other power refuses to trade with Daenerys. Its also because the author has made the city have no natural resources other than the slaves it acquires from the Dothraki before transporting them on to the world. Both of these factors have little to do with Daenerys.Had she taken over Qaarth she would have had all the money from holding the Jade Gates and this would never have been a problem.

Dany lets people who want to leave the city leave and taxes them leaving. Thats freedom of choice not buying the cattle the Dothraki have reaved from the world and its not in the same league as what the slavers do. Once they leave she can't control what they do anyway and puts a lot of oversight to prevent wives and children being sold by third parties. They would have became slaves anway.

She returns a lot of property and wealth to the slavers after the sack. If this mans wealth derived from slaves he never deserved it and ill-deserved wealth that is stolen must justly be taken away. As you would any thief. Holding somebody in slavery and profiting from their work is a crime. Stripping them of what profits they gained can't be considered evil.

I had studied and read sources by black slaves after the Civil War. Yes, there were many people who grew used to bondage as you say and who didn't like the idea of leaving the life they had known all their lives. But, this real world comparison in my mind only justifies Dany because the descendents of the fred slaves would not share this view. It also contradicts all the slaves we saw in Storm of Swords quite eager for Dany to free them and his depiction in Tyrions POV does not inspire confidence. If I accepted that defence of slavery then that would be tantamount to saying that real/historical world slavery is/was justified. The same goes for the economics. Emanciptaing the slaves was not good for the West Indies in a purely economic sense, because the plantation owners couldn't push down labour costs to nothing to do what was dangerous agricultural work nobody really wanted to do. Again, does that mean slavery was right or justifed because it enriched the class of people exploiting them and confered great macroeconomic benefit. That many British cities like Liverpool were built on the profits from slavery, like Mereen is true and undeniable. But that is a morally untenable position. Most people today agree that economic benefit by exploitation is morally wrong and not worth it.

So there really isn't as much greyness as you're making out. Any more than there was in the real slave trade by Europeans. Whilst the economic situation can also be blamed on where Dany happens to be because of the author and due to trade blockades inflicted by the slavers.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

One of the great things about ASOIAF is how realistic the characters are, and most people are morally grey. But sometimes I think the fandom makes them TOO grey, and tries to find something grey even in their vilest acts. Reading too much into things usually ends up with wrong/incorrect results.

:agree: It boogles the mind, when people defend people like Bowen Marsh, Randyll Tarly, & the Lannisters. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...& sometimes an evil guy is just an evil guy (or gal).

[Gorubahn]

Yeah, I am getting a little tired of people saying that these books are totally gray, that there is no black and white whatsoever when there clearly is. Gregor, Tywin, Ramsay, Roose, BAD! Jon, Sansa, Robb, Ned, GOOD! The only difference between GRRM and what other authors do is that GRRM has no issue with killing a good guy as quickly and mercilessly as a bad one. And yes there are a lot of characters that are gray and that is to his credit -- it gives fans something extra to debate and makes the story more interesting and realistic. And maybe you're rooting for one of the guys I listed as "bad"... well that's fine, dude, but I've got news for you: you're rooting for the bad guy. Hey, I'm guilty of it, myself. But a story with no "good guys" whatsoever and no "bad guys" either would also get to be a little fucking boring, at least IMHO.

Oh, and slamming on LOTR for using orcs as a faceless tool of evil when GRRM does the same shit with the Others and wights. Argh!

[danm_999]

Not really.

Mereen is poor because every other power refuses to trade with Daenerys.

And why do they do that? Because she abolished slavery. The Dothraki, Qarth, Volantis, New Ghis and Yunkai need that trade.

The books draw a pretty clear link between Meereen's abolitionism and it's poverty.

Its also because the author has made the city have no natural resources other than the slaves it acquires from the Dothraki before transporting them on to the world. Both of these factors have little to do with Daenerys.

Err, no, Meereen had plenty of natural resources, but the Meereenese practiced something called a scorched earth policy; they destroyed these resources to deny her army forage.

They did this because she made war on Meereen because she abolished slavery in Astapor.

Had she taken over Qaarth she would have had all the money from holding the Jade Gates and this would never have been a problem.

But she didn't. She conquered Meereen, abolished slavery, and as a result, the city bled and starved. If this series was devoid of moral complexity, the places where Daenerys abolished slavery (Astapor, Meereen) would become shining beacons of paradise where free men and women prospered.

But the series makes a pretty great case that the smallfolk of, say, Astapor, were actually better off before she got there. By the end of ADWD, Astapor is the closest thing in Essos to Hell.

Dany lets some people who want to leave the city leave and taxes them leaving. Thats freedom of choice not buying the cattle the Dothraki have reaved from the world and its not in the same league as what the slavers do.

Some people. Some people, like Xaro's friend, she forces to dig ditches. And when Xaro brings this up, she suggests Xaro buy him.

Odd, no?

She returns a lot of property and wealth to the slavers after the sack. If this mans wealth derived from slaves he never deserved it and ill-deserved wealth that is stolen must justly be taken away. As you would any thief. Holding somebody in slavery and profiting from their work is a crime. Stripping them of what profits they gained can't be considered evil.

She doesn't do this actually. She pardons the Meereenese for the crime of slavery, and in a vast majority of cases (there are exceptions, the whore who take the woman's house), lets them keep their property. She later laments that all the wealthy have done is rehire their slaves on a miniscule wage.

It also contradicts all the slaves we saw in Storm of Swords quite eager for Dany to free them

It doesn't ignore them. It contrasts them. Remember, when Daenerys' captures Meereen, people want to be sold into slavery, because it's safety and prosperity, compared to being free, which is dangerous and miserable.

This is where that grayness I was talking about comes in.

and his depiction in Tyrions POV does not inspire confidence. If I accepted that defence of slavery then that would be tantamount to saying that real/historical world slavery is/was justified.

I'm not asking you to accept it, in fact, I don't either. I'm pointing out that slavery isn't painted as a monolithically evil institution, it's painted as rather gray (in fact, Tyrion compares it to serfdom, another institution which GRRM paints as grey).

The same goes for the economics. Emanciptaing the slaves was not good for the West Indies in a purely economic sense, because the plantation owners couldn't push down labour costs to nothing to do what was dangerous agricultural work nobody really wanted to do. Again, does that mean slavery was right or justifed because it enriched the class of people exploiting them and confered great macroeconomic benefit. That many British cities like Liverpool were built on the profits from slavery, like Mereen is true and undeniable. But that is a morally untenable position. Most people today agree that economic benefit by exploitation is morally wrong and not worth it.

Slavery's end in the West Indies is not analogous to Daenery's campaign in ASOIAF though. The sad fact is, in our world, slavery ends largely because it stops being profitable. The industrial revolution made free labour, though problematic, the superior solution, and the only places you saw slavery hold out was where it was still relevant to economic prosperity (the American South for instance).

In fact, the USA is a great example of what I'm talking about, because half the country continued slavery, because it made them money, and half the country ended the practice, because they had a different economic model which prioritised free labour. There were certainly moral and religious imperatives to ending slavery as well (as there were to maintaining it), but the cold hard truth is that slavery was abolished in the Northern USA and Europe and its colonies because it stopped being profitable to those in power.

In Slaver's Bay, there is no alternative economic model ready to take over. Daenerys' ends slavery, and her most tangible plan is to wait a few decades for the olive trees to regrow, and trade with the Lhazareen. In the meantime, Meereen has no trade to offer the rest of the region, the people have no way to feed themselves, and they begin dying in the thousands from war, disease and famine. They may be free; but they're also screwed.

Then we jump to the other side of the world, where you have an almost parallel story being told. You have the Wildlings at the Wall, people who consider themselves free, and largely are, bending the knee to a strange King and the hated Crows of the Night's Watch, and pledging themselves to a strange god, to be fed, warm and to escape the Others. Many of these people are effectively choosing to become chattel or slaves to live.

It raises the question; is it better to die free, or live a slave? The series also raises the question of what is a slave? Daenerys' thinks that she was a slave, because she was sold to Khal Drogo by Illyrio and Viserys. Is Catelyn then a slave, for being 'sold' to Ned by Hoster Tully for an alliance? Was Cersei?

Are the people of Westeros slaves? Is serfdom fundamentally different to slavery? Are we slaves to the Gods, like the priests of Rh'llor? Are the Free Folk free? Is it worth being free, or must one submit in order to be safe and fed? Is anybody truly free? Or is Tywin right when he tells Tyrion:

"No man is free. Only fools and children think otherwise"

We see these questions about slavery and freedom (and this is just one issue of dozens) raised several times in the series, and different characters have different answers, because it's not an easy issue. It's a gray issue. That's the point.

[Lummel]

Yeah, I am getting a little tired of people saying that these books are totally gray, that there is no black and white whatsoever when there clearly is. Gregor, Tywin, Ramsay, Roose, BAD! Jon, Sansa, Robb, Ned, GOOD! ...

Oh, and slamming on LOTR for using orcs as a faceless tool of evil when GRRM does the same shit with the Others and wights. Argh!

OK you say Robb is good. I'd ask why? Clearly he is not bad, in that he doesn't go around intending to do bad deeds, but equally he doesn't go around doing good deeds either. He is, by the standards of Westeros, an appropriate lord and family member - he does the right things - ie what is expected of him but that isn't the same as being good. To say that is to view good simply as the absence of bad and not to see it as a positive force.

Contrast Robb with Davos who risks his own life to rescue Edric Storm from being burnt to death. Edric is nothing to Davos, Davos is moved purely by the moral consideration that it is wrong to burn a child to death and out of concern for Stannis' moral position. That to my mind was a good deed. I don't see an equivelent on Robb's side who basically does what society requires of him. Arguably he has one good deed - marrying Jeyne Westerling, but then that's balanced by a bad deed - breaking his oath.

Is Sansa good? I'd say human and grey. She saves Ser Dontos, but equally is colluding with Littlefinger's lies.

As for the wights and the white walkers GRRM's answer to your point is that we should keep reading...

[total1402]

I'd still say its muddying the waters rather than greyness.

For example:

If it had only been a maligned minority who practiced slavery (like in the late 18th century West) and yet was tolerated in law nevertheless; but Dany still does the same thing she does. As it stands Martin made the slavers far more monolithic and you seem to be getting hung up on how giving them freedom from war doesn't bring economic prosperity. Much of that, I still maintain, is to do with context and Dany can't be blamed for the Mereenese scorched earth tactics. Had she been surrounded by Braavosi type factions willing to trade with her and a source of economic wealth like mining or heavy metal or caravan trade, which are purely the prerogative of the author; then Mereen would not have had as much of a problem.

If Robb Starks move into the Riverlands was actually a war of conquest rather than a desire to break away motivated by the actions of House Lannister or to get the girls back.

If Cersei and co actually believed or were unsure that these were Rob Baratheons legit children.

I'am not saying that there isn't a bit of criticism of the heroes actions and their motivations. But the factions really aren't balanced and is so stark that it makes the few things Martin points out seem relatively trivial. IMO I blamed Xaro and the slavers for Dany's situation. Its they who have continued the war and refused to trade.

BTW-About Septon Maribolds speech. I won't presume its the authors viewpoint, but I don't agree with it regardless. He basiclly expresses the view lots of monks in the medieval people might have made; that to be truly pure and moral you have to devote yourself totally to that in your life. I don't like that view because its simply too utopian and world-denying; indeed its just nieve. Not everyone can live their life like that and to some extent its an unnatural way to behave. Turning the other cheek in the face of opposition? Will that make the world a better place? No, it wouldn't, if Robb had stood by as his father was killed it would have been unnatural for him and would have simply encouraged the Lannisters. Were Aerys Kingsguard in the right just letting him do what he did? Wouldn't this mentality just mean that you allow evil and unscrupulous individuals to go unchecked for the sake of individual conscience or purity? Going away from the world and living on a mountain isn't going to accomplish anything. In fact if you're part of a family group at war with another house and you did this your lack of help would not only be betrayel but it could even lead to their deaths. Its better that people weigh up the consequences of their actions with the end result and do some good; rather than become insular because you can't be morally pure in said world. Unless everyone in the world accepted this philosophy and thats impossible; then it wouldn't be a good thing in the slightest.

[Lummel]

Isn't that precisely the point? It's a morally complex world full of ambiguity, or as one might term it - grey. Septon Meribald chooses a life of self denial and to serve others. It's indisputably a good life which brings benefit to others, but it is the result of his unhappiness at his former existence.

This is a world in which characters make challenging decisions for good and ill. It is rarely straightforward. The Ned's lie about Jon may have saved the boy's life equally it's the cause of disharmony between him and Catelyn and ill feeling on Catelyn's part towards Jon. Was it a good action, or the good action of a good man? Pff. It was a decision that he took that has had long lasting consequences both positive and negative. One that he, naturally is conflicted over before his death.

If going away from the world isn't going to accomplish anything (although the people that Septon Meribald helps would disagree with that) then that means you have to live and act in a world conscious that your actions, however well intentioned, may have both negative and positive results. If you are politically active in Westeros then you are the author of both good and evil in the world.

This is a far cry from LOTR, for example, in which killing bad guys is intrinsically good and the good guys wouldn't burn down villages because they are the good guys and intrinsically good.

[danm_999]

I'd still say its muddying the waters rather than greyness.

Semantics.

For example:

If it had only been a maligned minority who practiced slavery (like in the late 18th century West) and yet was tolerated in law nevertheless; but Dany still does the same thing she does. As it stands Martin made the slavers far more monolithic

No, he's made them seem monolithic to Daenerys, which is an important distinction.

Remember this book uses unreliable narrators, so what we see isn't necessarily an accurate representation of truth. We only see Slaver's Bay from the perspective of outsiders, and these outsiders lump all Meereenese and slavers into a single entity, just like people in Essos lump all Westerosi into a single entity (the Dothraki think everyone from Westeros is an Andal; Xaro Xoan Daxos shows Daenerys' an Essossi map which Westeros is tiny and off scale, the Volantines call Westerosi "sunset people", etc). Daenerys' and Barristan and Quentyn do not live amongst the Meereenese; they stay either with Westerosi, or in a controlled environment of the Great Pyramid of Meereen, an almost literal ivory tower.

Contrast that with Tyrion, who arrives late to Slaver's Bay and lives amongst the Yunkai, and quickly figures out just how many factions there are. Some want to attack Meereen straight away, some want to honour the peace with Daenerys', some want to wait for the Volantine fleet to arrive. He realises even amongst slaves, there are ranks; the fighting slaves (like Scar) boss around the serving slaves (like him), and the masters have favourites (like Sweets). Some slaves seem to enjoy being slaves, and take a fierce pride in it, as my earlier quote demonstrated.

Suddenly, we see that the people of Slaver's Bay and their institutions are not monolithic, because of our change in narrator.

and you seem to be getting hung up on how giving them freedom from war doesn't bring economic prosperity.

Because it's a major theme of ADWD in Daenerys, Tyrion and Jon's stories, arguably the main characters of the book. When Martin contrasts a people becoming free and dying (Slaver's Bay) with chapters about a people becoming enslaved and living (the Wildlings at the Wall) there's a purpose to that.

So when all their POVs are bringing up the same thing over and over, it's pretty germane to any discussion about the series examination of morality.

But as I said, this freedom and death vs. slavery and life dynamic is one of dozens. You could talk about;

• Love being the death of duty
  
• Honour and it's costs
  
• Being loved vs. being feared
  
• Redemption
  

Much of that, I still maintain, is to do with context and Dany can't be blamed for the Mereenese scorched earth tactics. Had she been surrounded by Braavosi type factions willing to trade with her and a source of economic wealth like mining or heavy metal or caravan trade, which are purely the prerogative of the author; then Mereen would not have had as much of a problem.

But if she was surrounded by Braavosi type factions, she wouldn't have started at war with them. Remember, she attacks Astapor, Yunkai and Meereen because slavery disturbs her, and she wants to help the people affected by it. She'd have no reason to go Aegon the Conqueror on a Braavosi style region.

[total1402]

Tyrion sees ranks but that hardly makes the slavers better people. It just dwells on the mechanics and a sort of divide and rule mentality; owing to the slavers building a petty hierachy.

Reducing or constraining a human being to that level of childlike dependence and to the extent that they see their bondage as a good thing... is abominable. If a slave was kidnapped as a child and only knew such a life; then that merely makes them victims of the worst kind. It only serves to highlight the injustice of the slavers and what they do. You get more a sense of tragedy that any human being would say that and understand just how unpalatable what they are doing is. Not only that, but Tyrion never, ever, sees a single slaver who tries to truly justify the treatment or existence of slaves and they reain pretty monolithic. People are things to them and outside the bounds of normal morality.

Morality has nothing to do with practical considerations. Martin merely breaks the sort of mechanics you have in, say, Bioware video games, where if you take the good option you still win and get to act morally; whilst the bad option lets you win but you're evil. Instead he allows that taking the moral line has negative consequences and is not always the way of power; but he does not truly question the morality of, say, slavery. He, through Xaro, only says that it is profitable; which is an inherently immoral argument. Especially when external or circumstantial reasons deny any alternative and contribute far more to making the situation bleak.

[Lady Wylla Manderly]

Oh, and slamming on LOTR for using orcs as a faceless tool of evil when GRRM does the same shit with the Others and wights. Argh!

Just to be fair (while I agree with everything else you've said), Martin DID say that The Others were more than they seemed. I'm sure they will still be the enemy to humans, but seeing as we were promise to see the Land of Always Winter in TWoW, I think we may find out a bit more than that. Their reason(s) for not liking humans, for example.

[Dark Heart]

The thing is Tyrion's pondering about serfs and slaves being very similar have a lot of merit.

There are even instances when highborn (in Westeros) can treat serfs / commoners worse then free pople can treat slaves (in Essos).

The Hound killed Mycah and nobody cared or did anything about it. Tyrion's wife was horribly violated and nothing was done about it, Ironborn take "salt wives" and that's is also o.k., . . . there's are too many examples to list.

In Essos slaves are owned and sold but their master see them as valuable.

They still can (and some times do) horrible things to them buy they also (for the most part) try to keep them alive so they can get gold for them.

I'm not trying to say that slavery is good in Essos (or anywhere else) but I am trying to show how close is to serfdom in Westeros.

[total1402]

The thing is Tyrion's pondering about serfs and slaves being very similar have a lot of merit.

There are even instances when highborn (in Westeros) can treat serfs / commoners worse then free pople can treat slaves (in Essos).

The Hound killed Mycah and nobody cared or did anything about it. Tyrion's wife was horribly violated and nothing was done about it, Ironborn take "salt wives" and that's is also o.k., . . . there's are too many examples to list.

In Essos slaves are owned and sold but their master see them as valuable.

They still can (and some times do) horrible things to them buy they also (for the most part) try to keep them alive so they can get gold for them.

I'm not trying to say that slavery is good in Essos (or anywhere else) but I am trying to show how close is to serfdom in Westeros.

The Ironborns salt-wiving isn't meant to be seen as good nor is Mycahs death at the hands of the hound.

Also, Dany has never lived in Westeros or experienced Serfdom first hand; only read very rosey pictures in those books Joarh gave her. So you can't really accuse Daenerys of being hypocritical and its a comparison that has no real bearing at the minute. Serfdom was made out as bad from the start. Dany has no knowledge of it and carries on her campaign against the slavers without that comparison. Perhaps she'll judge serfdom the same way and especially the Ironborns practices.

[Greywolf2375]

Oh, and slamming on LOTR for using orcs as a faceless tool of evil when GRRM does the same shit with the Others and wights. Argh!

Really? There's a significant amount of discussion as to whether or not the Others and wights are evil. They may be considered the "bad guys" from the perspective of the NW & the South, but nothing so far denotes them as a faceless evil in the series.

[Dark Heart]

The Ironborns salt-wiving isn't meant to be seen as good nor is Mycahs death at the hands of the hound.

Not seen as good no.

But King Bob (who is a "good" character) is aware of those things and does nothing to stop them.

Nor do other "good" characters.

After the first Ironborn rebellion was crushed Ned, Bob, Jon E. ,could have demanded that the custom of taking salt-wives is ended.

But they didn't.

Also, Dany has never lived in Westeros or experienced Serfdom first hand; only read very rosey pictures in those books Joarh gave her. So you can't really accuse Daenerys of being hypocritical and its a comparison that has no real bearing at the minute. Serfdom was made out as bad from the start. Dany has no knowledge of it and carries on her campaign against the slavers without that comparison. Perhaps she'll judge serfdom the same way and especially the Ironborns practices.

I'm not calling her hypocritical at all.

Please don't assume things.

I'm saying that serfdom / slavery is not a clean cut issue.

"Good" people support serfdom. That doesn't make it good.

So, I see it as gray.

Deny is against slavery and that is admirable.

But freeing somebody is just the beginning. She had the best intentions but how many slaves were free to die from hunger or plague?

Freeing them is good. What was done before and after freeing them is gray.