Actions being acceptable/standard practice in-universe does not mean they cannot be atrocities

[Craving Peaches]

I was discussing this with some good friends earlier, but quite frequently I see people trying to wave away whatever horrible act X or Y did because it wasn't considered especially bad in-universe. Now previously I made a thread on what standards of morality to judge characters by:

As you will see if you read/have read the thread, I favour a more subjective approach to judging characters morality, as in I think it is unreasonable to expect them all to conform to our modern morals, but I do want to stress that I do think there are limits to this approach, and it should not just be used to 'get people off the hook'. For example, in-world, if the laws were anything like our own, King Aerys might not be considered to have raped poor Rhaella; as the reasoning went, a husband could not rape his wife since she surrendered herself to him through marriage. But obviously it was rape. Also, stuff like sacking cities, torture etc. should not just become acceptable or beyond condemnation just because 'everybody does it'. I will use a real-world example to illustrate my point. During the Thirty-Years war, the Swedish army committed many atrocious acts towards catholic and protestant civilians. So did everyone else. But does this make stuff like this any less horrible?:

Schwedentrunk - Wikipedia

I don't think so, and why should it? Just because everyone does it shouldn't make it right or acceptable, or at least it shouldn't mean we can't criticise it or view it for what it really is: an atrocity.

Furthermore, trying to excuse characters this way, whether it be Tywin, Stannis, or yes, Daenerys, ultimately cheapens and weakens the character by obscuring their flaws and so whitewashing them. These characters are meant to be realistic, flawed people, not saints who can do no wrong.

Edited March 19 by Craving Peaches

[Alester Florent]

Did the thread on Targaryen atrocities get scrubbed?

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

4 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Did the thread on Targaryen atrocities get scrubbed?

Must have been

[SeanF]

27 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I was discussing this with some good friends earlier, but quite frequently I see people trying to wave away whatever horrible act X or Y did because it wasn't considered especially bad in-universe. Now previously I made a thread on what standards of morality to judge characters by:

As you will see if you read/have read the thread, I favour a more subjective approach to judging characters morality, as in I think it is unreasonable to expect them all to conform to our modern morals, but I do want to stress that I do think there are limits to this approach, and it should not just be used to 'get people off the hook'. For example, in-world, if the laws were anything like our own, King Aerys might not be considered to have raped poor Rhaella; as the reasoning went, a husband could not rape his wife since she surrendered herself to him through marriage. But obviously it was rape. Also, stuff like sacking cities, torture etc. should not just become acceptable or beyond condemnation just because 'everybody does it'. I will use a real-world example to illustrate my point. During the Thirty-Years war, the Swedish army committed many atrocious acts towards catholic and protestant civilians. So did everyone else. But does this make stuff like this any less horrible?:

Schwedentrunk - Wikipedia

I don't think so, and why should it? Just because everyone does it shouldn't make it right or acceptable, or at least it shouldn't mean we can't criticise it or view it for what it really is: an atrocity.

Furthermore, trying to excuse characters this way, whether it be Tywin, Stannis, or yes, Daenerys, ultimately cheapens and weakens the character by obscuring their flaws and so whitewashing them. These characters are meant to be realistic, flawed people, not saints who can do no wrong.

The grounds for which we consider that people may legitimately wage war have altered, following the growth of nationalism and democracy.

The methods?  Much less.  Our own leaders raze cities, deport populations, starve civilians.  At least, if the stakes are high enough.

[Corvo the Crow]

3 hours ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

Must have been

Umm... what was I going to say... Ah yes, "I told you!"

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

14 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Umm... what was I going to say... Ah yes, "I told you!"

Yet they don’t delete the vapid Stark/Jon hate threads

[sifth]

31 minutes ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

Yet they don’t delete the vapid Stark/Jon hate threads

Some get deleted. The one comparing Jon to Aerys was deleted, a few days ago.

Edited March 20 by sifth

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

8 minutes ago, sifth said:

Some get deleted. The one comparing Jon to Aerys was deleted, a few days ago.

That’s good. I never saw that one. And I would describe the Targaryen Atrocity thread as vapid or trolling. It was a truthful list of things the Targaryens actually did.

Edited March 20 by King Maegor the Cool

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

That’s good. I never saw that one. And I would describe the Targaryen Atrocity thread as vapid or trolling. It was a truthful list of things the Targaryens actually did.

The problem was that one poster devoted a lot of time to criticising the Moderators.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The problem was that one poster devoted a lot of time to criticising the Moderators.

Corvo?

[sweetsunray]

I agree with the OP.

And George writes his characters this way too - despite some practices the characters grew up with, despite the cultural "norm", despite the lack of "laws", both historical as well as current characters have their own moral response and judgement on what their fellow men and women do, on what is right and wrong, and acting on it.

• Jaime being disgusted by Aerys raping his wife, despite being told by his colleagues and superiors that Aerys has the royal right to do this to his wife.
• Dany's anti slavery mission. She did not grow up in Westeros, but Essos. And while initially she normalizes it, she is so revolted at some point that she wants to correct this.
• Jon recognizing that Free Folk are people just like anybody else, who love their children and partners, who mourn and grieve, and that even giants (a different species) have feelings and stories. That they too deserve his protection and a chance to live and survive and not be abandoned to become the Others' wights.
• Arya's anger over the complete lack of justice and abuse of smallfolk in the Riverlands. It's not just about the evil the Lannisters do. She recognizes that which the Karstark wolves do is just as horrible, that Vargo Hoat turning his cloak for her brother does not make him more trustworthy or less of a villain. And yet, even then she does not wish to add suffering to those who belong behind bars. This response is shared by the Brotherhood without Banners and Edmure Tully too.
• Bran is disturbed about the men and lords planning and plotting over Lady Hornwood's next marriage.
• I dislike Tyrion a lot, he desires Sansa, and he rapes a slave in Selhorys. He's a petty, vindictive character who wants people to suffer who do not even deserve his lashing out. And yet, even he is disgusted at Sansa forced to marry him, a much older man, and his father pushing him to bed her. 
• Alysanne who is horrified about the Lord's right to bed another man's wife the night of her wedding or how widows may end up homeless, being turned out by the house they were wed into
• Sallador Saan not considering Azor Ahai a good guy when it comes to the swordmaking story
• Samwell wanting to save Gilly
• ...

All of these characters make their own moral judgment of what is right and wrong, judgments. They are not guided by laws, culture, peer and family pressure, convenience and what is the most beneficial strategy, but their own recognition that other people are also people, and that "might does not make right". And yes, they themselves once admired bad people or bad choices or were complicit, or try to rectify it with methods that are barbaric, or questionable.

If the POVs and non POV characters are free to make moral judgments on the wrongs of their society and their world, then so are we. George didn't write asoiaf for the reader to be passively accepting of what is the norm of those societies. No, he wants us to make up our own minds, and has often said so too. Nor does he want to make it easy for the reader to feel righteous either: oh you wanted Joffrey dead? you cheered Dany's choices at Astapor? you love Arya? You think Tyrion is smart and funny? Well, here you get to read Joffrey's painful dead and how he's just a scared shitty teen. Well, here you get to read what becomes of Astapor, because it's not just a prop to boost Dany. And how do you like Arya becoming a vigilante assassin? Do you still think Tyrion is funny or are you starting to become as disgusted with him as he is of himself?

George doesn't write his characters to be morally grey, just for us to give them a pass on all the bad decisions they make or to excuse villains for the atrocities they commit. He makes them grey, so that we do have some pity in the barbaric way that villains meet their end, so that we do end up questioning our heroes' choices and hope they do better.

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I agree with the OP.

And George writes his characters this way too - despite some practices the characters grew up with, despite the cultural "norm", despite the lack of "laws", both historical as well as current characters have their own moral response and judgement on what their fellow men and women do, on what is right and wrong, and acting on it.

• Jaime being disgusted by Aerys raping his wife, despite being told by his colleagues and superiors that Aerys has the royal right to do this to his wife.
• Dany's anti slavery mission. She did not grow up in Westeros, but Essos. And while initially she normalizes it, she is so revolted at some point that she wants to correct this.
• Jon recognizing that Free Folk are people just like anybody else, who love their children and partners, who mourn and grieve, and that even giants (a different species) have feelings and stories. That they too deserve his protection and a chance to live and survive and not be abandoned to become the Others' wights.
• Arya's anger over the complete lack of justice and abuse of smallfolk in the Riverlands. It's not just about the evil the Lannisters do. She recognizes that which the Karstark wolves do is just as horrible, that Vargo Hoat turning his cloak for her brother does not make him more trustworthy or less of a villain. And yet, even then she does not wish to add suffering to those who belong behind bars. This response is shared by the Brotherhood without Banners and Edmure Tully too.
• Bran is disturbed about the men and lords planning and plotting over Lady Hornwood's next marriage.
• I dislike Tyrion a lot, he desires Sansa, and he rapes a slave in Selhorys. He's a petty, vindictive character who wants people to suffer who do not even deserve his lashing out. And yet, even he is disgusted at Sansa forced to marry him, a much older man, and his father pushing him to bed her. 
• Alysanne who is horrified about the Lord's right to bed another man's wife the night of her wedding or how widows may end up homeless, being turned out by the house they were wed into
• Sallador Saan not considering Azor Ahai a good guy when it comes to the swordmaking story
• Samwell wanting to save Gilly
• ...

All of these characters make their own moral judgment of what is right and wrong, judgments. They are not guided by laws, culture, peer and family pressure, convenience and what is the most beneficial strategy, but their own recognition that other people are also people, and that "might does not make right". And yes, they themselves once admired bad people or bad choices or were complicit, or try to rectify it with methods that are barbaric, or questionable.

If the POVs and non POV characters are free to make moral judgments on the wrongs of their society and their world, then so are we. George didn't write asoiaf for the reader to be passively accepting of what is the norm of those societies. No, he wants us to make up our own minds, and has often said so too. Nor does he want to make it easy for the reader to feel righteous either: oh you wanted Joffrey dead? you cheered Dany's choices at Astapor? you love Arya? You think Tyrion is smart and funny? Well, here you get to read Joffrey's painful dead and how he's just a scared shitty teen. Well, here you get to read what becomes of Astapor, because it's not just a prop to boost Dany. And how do you like Arya becoming a vigilante assassin? Do you still think Tyrion is funny or are you starting to become as disgusted with him as he is of himself?

George doesn't write his characters to be morally grey, just for us to give them a pass on all the bad decisions they make or to excuse villains for the atrocities they commit. He makes them grey, so that we do have some pity in the barbaric way that villains meet their end, so that we do end up questioning our heroes' choices and hope they do better.

Joffrey is so revolting, though, that I felt no pity at his end.

[sweetsunray]

Just now, SeanF said:

Joffrey is so revolting, though, that I felt no pity at his end.

We all have our guilty pleasures

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Joffrey is so revolting, though, that I felt no pity at his end.

I felt sorry for him with regards to the way he died, not necessarily just because he died.

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I felt sorry for him with regards to the way he died, not necessarily just because he died.

Honestly, i thought Joffrey deserved worse.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Honestly, i thought Joffrey deserved worse.

I doubt I would have cared if his head got cut off but asphyxiation just sounds so horrible even for him.

Having said that I do not feel sorry for Cersei having to watch that at all, given she's murdered multiple babies.

[Corvo the Crow]

4 hours ago, King Maegor the Cool said:

Corvo?

The problem was moderators needed a lot of time devoted to be criticised. If you suspend one person for calling another troll and yet don't suspend another person for doing the same, or even much worse, calling them a disgusting troll, then of course it would be criticised. If you give a warning to the person you suspended for pointing this out, then again there's a criticism to be made... or they can just declare "the Forums are just like Westeros, we run it like a kingdom with our own fiefdoms in it, leave it if you don't like it" Then knowing what one should expect, then perhaps people won't criticise them so.

I literally got a 2 day suspension with the note saying "calling other members of the forums trolls is also not acceptible". Ok, rules are rules, I'm not complaining that I got suspended for calling someone a troll, I won't complain ever for getting punishment for any such behaviour I displayed that requires punishment, but when there are double standarts and someone else gets away with the same behaviour, not once but repeatedly, I'm sure as hell going to be complaining about it.

[sweetsunray]

Please, @Corvo the Crow. You are off-topic and this is not the place, nor the method on how to deal with it. You know the rules of the forum.

[Corvo the Crow]

Please, @sweetsunray I think I have a right to explain myself especially if I'm mentioned or impiled. At the very least you can ask the same of others instead of singling me out. Also being so knowledgable about the topic, please do enlighten me of the method to deal with it because as I see it there is no way of dealing it, because how can you deal with mods decisions being arbitrarily made? But you can at least show it for the way it is though.

Edited March 20 by Corvo the Crow

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I doubt I would have cared if his head got cut off but asphyxiation just sounds so horrible even for him.

Having said that I do not feel sorry for Cersei having to watch that at all, given she's murdered multiple babies.

While my guilty pleasures comment was a joke, it's also the admittance of this. We do sometimes don't care if a villain's head gets chopped off, and cheer for it. Slynt's head on a block is my absolute guilty pleasure, and I'm very glad that George allowed me this as a reader without having to be conflicted about it, or feel pity for him... despite the fact that I consider the death penalty barbaric.

I recognize that my feelings to see "mess around, comes around" with certain characters is quite primal and primitive. Hence "guilty" pleasures.