of sins and madness

[Corvo the Crow]

11 hours ago, EggBlue said:

please, PLEASE, write down this sort of stuff here, and kindly do NOT start new hate threads!

to be honest all the threads including "madness of ______" , "_______ is going insane" , "crimes of _______" , "________ worst sins" , "_______ , the _____heart" and so on are getting far too repetitive. they almost always star Starks and Targaryens and put these families versus each other, regardless of the OP. 

so, I was thinking, why not have a thread for the worst sins of characters and their potential madness(considering all families seem to have the so-called madness genes !)  and be done with it once and for all?! 

I have long since given up on "Daenerys' crimes against humanity" thread as it would be taken down anyway with the obvious favoritism going on.

If I'm to write such thing here I'm afraid this thread would be taken down faster Hother can take a whiff off of Loras' rose. 

[Craving Peaches]

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

"Daenerys' crimes against humanity"

You could do one for Aerys?

[Many-Faced Votary]

24 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

You could do one for Aerys?

You thought Aerys II was bad? Just you wait until Aerys III.

[Craving Peaches]

48 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

You thought Aerys II was bad? Just you wait until Aerys III.

Aerys I was mediocre. But despite lukewarm performance, they decided to release Aerys II. Aerys II starts out looking like it might be fun to watch but it very quickly devolves into the worst. People started rioting in the Cinema, it was so bad. Aerys III is their last chance. It could either revitalise the series or bring it down for good.

[Corvo the Crow]

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

You could do one for Aerys?

Not even comparable though. Aerys death toll would be several ten thousands at most while Daenerys possibly has exceeded the 100.000 mark and she's still going. She is her father's daughter but with an army of slaves and dragons managed to far exceed her father's wildest dreams. 

[SeanF]

22 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Rather than posting the worst sorts of madness, I have decided to write here about the best sort of madness.

"Your own ends. What ends are those, Lord Varys?"
"Peace," Varys replied without hesitation. "If there was one soul in King's Landing who was truly desperate to keep Robert Baratheon alive, it was me." He sighed. "For fifteen years I protected him from his enemies, but I could not protect him from his friends. What strange fit of madness led you to tell the queen that you had learned the truth of Joffrey's birth?"
"The madness of mercy," Ned admitted.
"Ah," said Varys. "To be sure. You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life." He glanced around the cell. "When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why."

Madness here is not some sort of mental illness, but rather something which appears extremely foolish. At least from the perspective of trying to achieve one's own goals.

Doing what one thinks is right, rather than what is practical. I see this as the opposite of "the ends justify the means".

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

Easy choices, those without risk or cost, are no test of what is right.

It is the hard choices, the heart in conflict with itself, that are the true test. Be it between honor and self interest, between love and duty, or any mix of compelling moral and practical motives.

Aemon, quoted here, seems to be portraying duty as the moral choice and love as the self interested choice. But, I think the story is telling us that things are a bit more complicated than that.

The old man seemed to sense his doubts. "Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?"
Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. "He would do whatever was right," he said … ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. "No matter what."
"Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms … or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.

Things are not as clear cut as duty always being the right choice over love, or love being the right choice over duty. Nor do the resulting glories and tragedies of the choices determine their rightness.

I think Jon is right to have doubt. A man cannot do right without first doubting, just as a man cannot be brave if he is not afraid.

"The war," she affirmed. "There are two, Onion Knight. Not seven, not one, not a hundred or a thousand. Two! Do you think I crossed half the world to put yet another vain king on yet another empty throne? The war has been waged since time began, and before it is done, all men must choose where they will stand. On one side is R'hllor, the Lord of Light, the Heart of Fire, the God of Flame and Shadow. Against him stands the Great Other whose name may not be spoken, the Lord of Darkness, the Soul of Ice, the God of Night and Terror. Ours is not a choice between Baratheon and Lannister, between Greyjoy and Stark. It is death we choose, or life. Darkness, or light." She clasped the bars of his cell with her slender white hands. The great ruby at her throat seemed to pulse with its own radiance. "So tell me, Ser Davos Seaworth, and tell me truly—does your heart burn with the shining light of R'hllor? Or is it black and cold and full of worms?" She reached through the bars and laid three fingers upon his breast, as if to feel the truth of him through flesh and wool and leather.
"My heart," Davos said slowly, "is full of doubts."
Melisandre sighed. "Ahhhh, Davos. The good knight is honest to the last, even in his day of darkness. 

We are imperfect creatures in an imperfect world, and all we can do is make our choices as best we can.

Rigid dogma, and drawing clear lines in the sand may make choices appear simpler, as if everything were black and white like Melisandre portrays. But, I think the story is trying to point out that this is not reality.

Even those with prophetic dreams do not truly know the future. Or to borrow from Tolkien, "For even the very wise cannot see all ends." We cannot know the results of our actions, all we can do is give them honest consideration (which requires doubt) and make the best choice we can, no matter how mad it may seem.

"Mercy is never a mistake"

Mercy is a choice. It may be madness, it may win you nothing but a beheading, but it may be also be what's right.

There is no promise of reward, nor even good results, from doing what is right either. We make our choices and the results are on our heads.

"The High Septon once told me that as we sin, so do we suffer. If that's true, Lord Eddard, tell me … why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones? Ponder it, if you would, while you wait upon the queen. And spare a thought for this as well: The next visitor who calls on you could bring you bread and cheese and the milk of the poppy for your pain … or he could bring you Sansa's head.
"The choice, my dear lord Hand, is entirely yours."

There's a lot to unpick there.

In the conflict between duty and love, it's not always the case that duty must be chosen over love.  It was the duty of the Kingsguard to stand by and do nothing when Aerys perpetrated his crimes.  It is (arguably) the duty of the Lord Commander of the Nights Watch to do stand by and do nothing when his sister is subject to rape and forcible bestiality.  It was Jon's duty to betray Ygritte and her people, yet the Nights Watch had lost its way, morally speaking.

There's a time when "it's my duty" becomes as weak a defence as "I was just obeying orders."

Then there are conflicts of duty.  Does Ser Barristan go in to Duskendale to rescue Aerys which is his duty?  Or does he conclude that Aerys is an evil man who ought not be rescued?  In which case, Tywin Lannister will storm the city, and put the inhabitants to the sword, on the morrow.  Does Daenerys try to save lives by conciliating the slavers, or will her efforts to save lives be better served by wiping them off the face of earth?  Displaying mercy is usually a noble thing, even if it costs you dearly.  But, what if it is innocents suffer because you display mercy to cruel and wicked people?  Does mercy become a vice at that point?

What if the noble, virtuous act has disastrous consequences for those who are dependent upon you, whereas the cruel pragmatic act has good consequences for them?  How far can the duties of a ruler be reconciled with one's conduct as a person?

There's no right or wrong answer to these points.  They exist in the tale to provoke thought and debate... within limits.  Nothing in the text suggests that the Boltons, Slavers, Freys, Janos Slynt, etc. should be perceived as righteous.

[Many-Faced Votary]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Nothing in the text suggests that the Boltons, Slavers, Freys, Janos Slynt, etc. should be perceived as righteous.

But don't let that stop you! Outlandish claims that demonstrate no understanding of characterization or themes, or even no superficial reading of the text, and which lack citation, is the bread-and-butter of any number of theories. 

[Angel Eyes]

19 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think the author enjoys flipping around our morality, for example having empathy or downright rooting for a twin fucker.

That I can believe. And then Benioff and Weiss took things to another level.

[Mourning Star]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

There's a lot to unpick there.

Indeed!

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

In the conflict between duty and love, it's not always the case that duty must be chosen over love.

I certainly agree. Eddard saving Jon comes to mind.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

 It was the duty of the Kingsguard to stand by and do nothing when Aerys perpetrated his crimes.

I'm not sure that this is a case where love is involved at all. This is more a duty to protect the king against a duty to protect innocents.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

 It is (arguably) the duty of the Lord Commander of the Nights Watch to do stand by and do nothing when his sister is subject to rape and forcible bestiality.  It was Jon's duty to betray Ygritte and her people, yet the Nights Watch had lost its way, morally speaking.

These are both good examples, in my opinion, of love vs duty, as is Jon wanting to go help Robb after swearing his oath.

The point I was trying to make however is that dichotomies like this (love vs duty) seem reductionist and I'd suggest the story is portraying those that treat decisions as choices between absolutes (right and wrong) are misguided. Sometimes one should choose duty, and sometimes one should choose love. But this does not mean that love and duty are not both compelling reasons to do something, nor that morality is completely relative, simply more nuanced.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

There's a time when "it's my duty" becomes as weak a defence as "I was just obeying orders."

Yes, following orders could be categorized as part of duty.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Then there are conflicts of duty.  Does Ser Barristan go in to Duskendale to rescue Aerys which is his duty?  Or does he conclude that Aerys is an evil man who ought not be rescued?  In which case, Tywin Lannister will storm the city, and put the inhabitants to the sword, on the morrow.

I think this is sort of an opposite example to Jaime killing Aerys. Again, I think the duty to protect innocents is highlighted, though, in this case, one could make the argument that saving Aerys was saving innocents as opposed to the example of Jaime killing Aerys.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

 Does Daenerys try to save lives by conciliating the slavers, or will her efforts to save lives be better served by wiping them off the face of earth?

This is an interesting example as there are innocents on both sides, the slaves and the families of the masters (in particular the children). Hard choices are the point, and nobody promised that there would be a correct answer. All we can do is make the best of the choices given to us.

There is also a lot of room for a more interesting solution between killing all the masters and turning the city (and all the slaves) back over to them.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Displaying mercy is usually a noble thing, even if it costs you dearly.  But, what if it is innocents suffer because you display mercy to cruel and wicked people?  Does mercy become a vice at that point?

No, and I think this is important. Mercy does not become a vice because someone else takes advantage of it. It might not be practical, but there should be no assumption that doing the right thing will get you the best results.

At the same time, I'm not saying that every crime or misdeed must be forgiven. The story opens with Ned taking the head of a deserter.

Mercy is never a mistake, it is a choice.

Ned didn't get beheaded because he showed Cersei mercy, he was betrayed by Littlefinger.

Even the wisest cannot see all ends.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

What if the noble, virtuous act has disastrous consequences for those who are dependent upon you, whereas the cruel pragmatic act has good consequences for them?  How far can the duties of a ruler be reconciled with one's conduct as a person?

This is the case for "the ends justify the means". I believe strongly that ASoIaF is not making this case (or at least not portraying it as correct).

The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"
"Everything," said Davos, softly.

What is the life of one child against a kingdom? Everything.

Life is not a series of train dilemmas, where there are only two options with predetermined outcomes.

I think greater evils are committed by abandoning morality to practicality than the reverse, and this story reflects that as well.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

There's no right or wrong answer to these points.  They exist in the tale to provoke thought and debate... within limits.

I'm not so sure that this is the message the text is trying to convey.

I do not think this is a story where morality is entirely relative. There are difficult choices certainly, considering them is clearly a focus of the story, and there is no way to be sure in advance of the repercussions of ones actions, but I think the limits are important.

In particular when it comes to innocents.

Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?"
"For a start," said Ned, "I do not kill children."

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

 Nothing in the text suggests that the Boltons, Slavers, Freys, Janos Slynt, etc. should be perceived as righteous.

Nor did I mean to suggest that they should be.

But at the same time, I don't think that little baby Freys are responsible for the sins of their forebearers.

[Corvo the Crow]

21 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think the author enjoys flipping around our morality, for example having empathy or downright rooting for a twin fucker.

Or a mass murderer ordering slave armies to kill entire cities worth of people.

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Or a mass murderer ordering slave armies to kill entire cities worth of people.

I don't think there is enough of a necessary causal link between Daenerys' actions and the people who died to call her a mass murderess. Also she doesn't have the mens rea for some of them. And her slave armies are composed of free men.

[Corvo the Crow]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think there is enough of a necessary causal link between Daenerys' actions and the people who died to call her a mass murderess.

Ordering her bought army to murder people isn't link enough? 

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

And her slave armies are composed of free men.

 Armies of free men who were bought. 

 

Will you argue that Unsullied are men who are free, not bound to her in any way whether through ownership or lordship and they killed all those people not because Dany ordered them but they just felt like it? In that case, it doesn't look nice for Dany to associate herself willingly with blood thirsty murderers, does it? I mean Jon too fraternizes with scum of all kind but not in the way Dany does, he is part of an order that also includes criminals in it's ranks as a way to do penance and unlike your claims of her armies being free, Jon's comrades aren't men who are free but bound to that order upon penalty of their life and again, unlike Dany's band of murderers, we have witnessed them getting this penalty for their unapproved actions.

[Many-Faced Votary]

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Ordering her bought army to murder people isn't link enough? 

Those "people" who were "murdered" were the vilest of slave masters who tried to get Dany to sack other cities to "bloody" the Unsullied. Instead, she decided to free slaves.

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

 Armies of free men who were bought. 

"Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see." She raised the harpy's fingers in the air . . . and then she flung the scourge aside. "Freedom!" she sang out. "Dracarys! Dracarys!"

"Dracarys!" they shouted back, the sweetest word she'd ever heard. "Dracarys! Dracarys!" And all around them slavers ran and sobbed and begged and died, and the dusty air was filled with spears and fire.

Daenerys III, A Storm of Swords

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Armies of free men who were bought. 

Then they were freed. After that point as a matter of law they were res nullius so incapable of being owned by Daenerys or anyone else. You cannot own a free man. The Unsullied then chose to work for Daenerys and are now in the position of any other soldiers who have chosen to work for a ruler.

4 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Ordering her bought army to murder people isn't link enough?

Killings during in battle almost never count as murder. If we are claiming Daenerys is a murderer for ordering her troops to attack people in battle then every lord in Westeros is a murderer. Every commander everywhere.

[Corvo the Crow]

17 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Those "people" who were "murdered" were the vilest of slave masters who tried to get Dany to sack other cities to "bloody" the Unsullied. Instead, she decided to free slaves.

21 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Lol I am really tired of people clearly incapable of understanding the thing they read and then tell people to "Read ASOIAF" like you do but will quickly break it down once more.

 

Quote

"Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see." She raised the harpy's fingers in the air . . . and then she flung the scourge aside. "Freedom!" she sang out. "Dracarys! Dracarys!"

1) Slaver = Slave trader. Not everyone who owns a slave is a slave trader. Dany herself is a slave owner for whatever short while.

2) Slay the Good Masters: Good Masters are the slaver elite of the city. Not everyone in the city is a Good Master, there are just a handful of families that do trade in slaves.  

3) Slay the soldiers: Soldiers are mostly slaves themselves, it is the officers that are not slaves and from what we have seen, these officers are from SLAVER families. 

4) Every man who wears a tokar: Tokar is the attire that can be worn by ANY man (man not meant as a gender here, both genders wear tokars) who is a FREEBORN. It is not limited to SLAVERs who are just a handful of families.

5) Every man who holds a whip: We see slaves holding whips, acting as overseers

6) Harm no child under 12: Kill everyone above 12 who is not a slave. No arguing here, she has already oredered the death of every freeborn member of the city and many slaves, overseers and soldiers, as well, only exception she has made for the freeborn is those below 12.

 

If you had, as you have suggested me to do, read the books, then you would have noticed all of this but unfortunately, it seems you prefer reading fan fiction despite telling people to read the books. 

 

 

[Hugorfonics]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

That I can believe. And then Benioff and Weiss took things to another level.

Did you know they wrote Always Sunnys Flowers for Charlie? Where he thinks he can speak Mandarin and shit. "Again, pure gibberish" lmaooo, genius. I don't know how they fucked this shit up so badly tho.

26 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Or a mass murderer ordering slave armies to kill entire cities worth of people.

Right, exactly! The fact that a clear protagonist can have us flip around our morality is super evident with Dany. 163 crucifixions! Who the fuck am I rooting for here? (Btw it's still Dany) And I don't see her alone in the bad moves department either, for all my love of Lord Snow he did brake neutrality a month into the job when it's (maybe) been a cornerstone thing for like 10k years. Someone should just be asking questions here. And just like Stannis wrestling with his fate, nearly all of GRRMs characters are topsy turvy and get all sorts of different responses from all sorts of different people.

Like, before I looked at Jon hate threads I never gave much thought in the fact that Mance is a sworn subject of Jon, of course he is. Or like the Dany hate threads highlights the fact that she didn't even pick out the 163. Or to be even more specific (sorry if it's too specific) I think the answers on why Dany had to wack every adult she sees in Aspator is obvious but I think it definitely merits some discussion, it is a ridiculous body count after all.

I think conversations over Bran mind warging Hodor to shut up because he was being mad hot, or Arya killing if she's scared, or Tyrion giving a singer to a stew to protect his girlfriend are all also worth while conversations

[Corvo the Crow]

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Then they were freed. After that point as a matter of law they were res nullius so incapable of being owned by Daenerys or anyone else. You cannot own a free man. The Unsullied then chose to work for Daenerys and are now in the position of any other soldiers who have chosen to work for a ruler.

16 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

So they murder out of their own volition? Like they murdered babies?

 

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Killings during in battle almost never count as murder. If we are claiming Daenerys is a murderer for ordering her troops to attack people in battle then every lord in Westeros is a murderer. Every commander everywhere.

Except these killings are not part of a battle and she specifically orders them to kill every freeborn resident of the city who is not below 12.

I won't mention the fact that her armies have killed slaves as well since as you mention it, it is part of the battle, it is between combatants but worth mentioning here is those slaves were not given a chance either. She could very well have given them the chance to join her but nah, she'll only allow the slaves (I mean the combatant ones) that she bought live.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Corvo the Crow said:

So they murder out of their own volition? Like they murdered babies?

They are following Daenerys' orders. So they are in the position that all other armies are with regards to killing people in battle when their liege lord commands.

Just now, Corvo the Crow said:

Except these killings are not part of a battle

The whole thing was part of the battle. It was a battle to liberate the city.

1 minute ago, Corvo the Crow said:

she specifically orders them to kill every freeborn resident of the city who is not below 12.

No she doesn't. She orders them to harm no child under 12 and kill every man who wears a tokar. This excludes all women for a start, and not every freeborn resident would be wearing a tokar.

2 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I won't mention the fact that her armies have killed slaves as well since as you mention it,

Where do I mention it? Also she specifically orders her soldiers to free slaves not kill them.

[Angel Eyes]

4 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Did you know they wrote Always Sunnys Flowers for Charlie? Where he thinks he can speak Mandarin and shit. "Again, pure gibberish" lmaooo, genius. I don't know how they fucked this shit up so badly tho.

 

Well, my thought about Benioff and Weiss is that a lot of the aspects that go off the rails in later seasons had their roots in the original books, just writ large. Euron, for example, is a walking diabolus ex machina for the last couple seasons. Daenerys losing her navy? Euron. The Unsullied getting stranded on the other half of the continent? Euron. Rhaegal getting shot down despite being high up and where the ballista would have lost height? Euron. So is Ramsay in A Clash for Kings where nobody pays any mind to him despite the fact they know he's a threat, like Donella Hornwood getting kidnapped by only Ramsay on her way home, Rodrik not realizing he didn't do a thorough job with finding him after finding "Reek" and losing an arm and his life because he didn't realize the man leading 600 Bolton soldiers could only be Ramsay, that would be like Dany forgetting about the Iron Fleet. The darker directions many characters make (Sansa, Bran, Arya, Daenerys, Cersei, to give a few)? All are on their way in the books with nothing to change their courses.

[Corvo the Crow]

7 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

No she doesn't. She orders them to harm no child under 12 and kill every man who wears a tokar. This excludes all women for a start, and not every freeborn resident would be wearing a tokar.

11 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Tokar is the attire of every freeborn as Daenerys herself brings. She orders everyone wearing a tokar to be killed, so every freeborn. As for gender, I doubt that she refers to the males specifically by saying men because she orders them to spare every children below 12, not every boy below 12.

 

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Where do I mention it? Also she specifically orders her soldiers to free slaves not kill them.

You mentioned the battle. She specifically orders her soldiers to kill soldiers who are, apart from the officers, mostly slaves themselves, she also specifically orders everyone holding a whip to be killed, which includes slaves as well, like the overseer Dothraki we saw.

Soldiers would be lacking the chains I think (thoug not sure since we have seen chained ones later on) but what about the overseers? would they have a chain of sorts?

What would an unsullied react upon seeing a chained overseer holding a whip, I wonder? Perhaps kill first and strike the chain after? As this was the order of the orders given. I think they can at least show some courtesy and strike the chain first and kill them later, allowing them to die freed men but I doubt they'll think it because they are trained not to think and even if they weren't, in the heat of the massacre battle, it would be understandable if they couldn't think of it.