From Pawn to Player: Rethinking Sansa XI

[brashcandy]

The hypocrisy lies in using Joffrey's authority as an excuse when he is fleeing that same authority.

Is that really hypocrisy though? I mean, he's giving a reason for his act committed whilst he was under Joffrey's authority. At that time, he recognized the authority and acted to suit. Of course we can argue that he could/should have acted differently, but it's important to remember that Sandor has changed a lot from the man he was back then. We see later in AGOT and ACOK that he's not so comfortable following orders and begins to question that authority as he becomes increasingly unsettled by Sansa's treatment and his own gradual breakdown in Lannister service. So, we simply cannot equate those two incidents IMO. The man that killed Mycah is not the same man who ends up fleeing Joffrey's Kingsguard.

[Daidalos]

Is that really hypocrisy though? I mean, he's giving a reason for his act committed whilst he was under Joffrey's authority. At that time, he recognized the authority and acted to suit. Of course we can argue that he could/should have acted differently, but it's important to remember that Sandor has changed a lot from the man he was back then. We see later in AGOT and ACOK that he's not so comfortable following orders and begins to question that authority as he becomes increasingly unsettled by Sansa's treatment and his own gradual breakdown in Lannister service. So, we simply cannot equate those two incidents IMO. The man that killed Mycah is not the same man who ends up fleeing Joffrey's Kingsguard.

I agree with this, and the reason that Sandor provides for his past conduct is valid as far as explanations go. But a reason/explanation is not an excuse. It can't work as a justification, which should be obvious to Sandor, given his rejection of Joffrey's authority. The thing is, the act that Sandor committed was immoral regardless if he recognised the law-giving authority or not.

[brashcandy]

I agree with this, and the reason that Sandor provides for his past conduct is valid as far as explanations go. But a reason/explanation is not an excuse. It can't work as a justification, which should be obvious to Sandor, given his rejection of Joffrey's authority. The thing is, the act that Sandor committed was immoral regardless if he recognised the law-giving authority or not.

That's true, and I'd argue that he isn't using it as an excuse or a justification; he's pointing out that his actions were lawful, even though he knows innately they weren't right. I think this is what Pod the Impaler was speaking about when he noted how Arya was eventually able to "defeat" him, because she focuses on the injustice of what happened to Mycah.

[Grail King]

Agreed. There's definitely going to have to be a big "moment" if indeed she's meant to have the kind of transformative impact we imagine. So far, LF has put forth his own vision of this moment: unveiling her as Sansa Stark on her wedding day and having the Vale army pledge their swords to her. However, we all know the likelihood of this occurring is next to nil, so what then are the options available to Sansa, ones that make sense from a narrative perspective as well as accord with the character's desires? Whatever happens, LF has now given Sansa information upon which she has to act in some manner. Either she will be focused on saving SR or saving herself from another arranged marriage. She's not without weapons either, as she still presumably has the poisoned hairnet in her possession.

But do you really want Sansa to use that?

I very much hope she use her God given gifts, or manipulate one of LF hench men to do her bidding, I think personally the hairnet would help the Tyrells not Sansa in the long run.

[brashcandy]

But do you really want Sansa to use that?

I very much hope she use her God given gifts, or manipulate one of LF hench men to do her bidding, I think personally the hairnet would help the Tyrells not Sansa in the long run.

Honestly, the only thing I would be uncomfortable with her using as a weapon is sex, since that's a sword without a hilt, and would put Sansa at risk for further victimization. If she has the hairnet and could utilise it wisely, then I have no problem. Killing to achieve something is very much LF's style as we know though, so regardless of what happens with the hairnet, I expect Sansa's energy to focused on saving lives, and right now SR's is in grave danger.

[Queen Cersei I]

IYou brought up Sandor's trial by the BWB, and noted that his actions in running from the crown's justice contradicted his stated reason for killing Mycah. His stated reason was that he was ordered to do it, and that it wasn't his place to question orders. Morally, killing Mycah seems wrong - no doubt about that. Modern laws also (generally) say that you can't excuse criminal acts just because someone ordered you to commit them. This is Westeros, though, and the crown pretty much makes up the rules. So, despite being morally reprehensible, were his actions illegal? It doesn't seem like it.

This is highlighted by his quote "I am my own dog now". Perhaps Sandor, who has defected from his service to the monarchy in large part *because* of the injustices he witnessed/experienced in that service ('even a dog gets tired of being kicked'), and who does not put any store in the gods, believes he is now only answerable to himself. And in being answerable to himself, he does not escape the injustices he has committed. Just look at how tormented he is, as he lays dying, about what (to him at least) seems to be the injustice he allowed to befall Sansa ('I stood there in my white cloak and let them beat her').

I don't really know where I'm going with this exactly, only to say that Sandor is well aware of his own moral crimes and failings. It is not the fact that the BwB are trying him for 'crimes' even that bothers me, but the method of the trial by fire.....it seems like sticking the knife in and twisting.

I’d certainly agree that Sandor clearly knew that murdering a defenseless 13-year-old boy was wrong deep down, but still did it. But honestly, I’m not sure I’d agree that this mitigates or explains this deed to any extent. He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it to follow orders—and keep the job that kept him protected from his brother. The fact that he may have felt better about it afterwards does not change the fact that he knew it was morally wrong while doing it, nut did it anyway.

These books are full of characters who commit deeds justified/ excused by the laws of their time, but that they can on some level recognize as wrong. For instance, Robert forcing himself upon Cersei repeatedly; Tyrion marrying Sansa the 12 year old hostage; Hoster Tully forcing his teen daughter to abort the baby of the boy she loves and marry an ancient man—all these things are accepted by Westeros as society as right/ what must be done. Yet all of the people in question realize that clearly that these deeds are wrong. Yet they commit these deeds nonetheless; apparently justifying them in their own minds with society’s approval/ expectations. These men all do terrible things, all while realizing the wrongness of what they are doing, and placating their guilty consciences by claiming that they had no other choice/ those are the rules of their society. So Tyrion’s behavior was not officially opposed by his society; Hoster and Robert’s was utterly endorsed by the society they live in. Yet I personally don’t think we,, the readers, should see their acts as any less heinous for this fact.

True, Sandor was in a much less prestigious/ powerful position than Hoster, Robert, and Tyrion were. True, his choice to run through and murder a little boy due to his bosses orders was, at bottom, a matter of self preservation—if he refuses, he will either be fired (which will put him in danger of being hurt by Gregor), or, possibly, physically punished, even killed.

Yet in the end, Sandor could have done a billion things rather than kill Mycah. Pretending to agree to do so and then running off would be a great solution (after warning Mycah in some way.) Trying to use his clear influence with Joffrey to get him to change his mind would have been another. Pretending to be sick/ unable would have been another.

But at the end of the day, Sandor chose to run down a little boy, then laugh about it. The fact that he did this at his employers order rather than his own admission shows that he is not a true, foaming mouthed, hand rubbing, psychotic villain along the lines of Gregor or Ramsay Bolton, sure. But ultimately it makes no difference—he consciously chose to murder a child. Having a conscience and normal human feelings, and choosing to do it anyway.

I think Sandor’s conduct here illustrates the... well, I can only call it moral laziness that he shows throughout the first three books. In the past, I’ve read posters on other threads claiming that the savvy Sandor “wised Sansa up” and “showed her how the real world was.” “She was stupid and ignorant before him, and he told her how it was,” said one person.

I find this funny because I think that of the two, Sansa is far more self aware, honest, and far seeing of the two. Not to mention the far more morally sound—not just morally correct, mind you, but morally sound. Though she may be naive in several areas that Sandor enlightens her in (she makes the fallacy of being overly idealistic about human nature and assuming that all others share her decency), such as “knights are for killing,” I’d say that Sansa, at 11, has a far more complex, comprehensive, and honest view of the world than Sandor does at 28. Sandor makes statements like, “Things like Tyrion and Tanda Stokeworths daughter are useless”, “I’ve killed men and yes, women and children. There’s no difference—in the end it’s all meat” and “everyone likes killing, and those who say they don’t are lying.**”

Yet Sansa can recognize this for the posing B.S. it is—she knows her father loathed killing; she knows many men loathe it. Yet Sandor forces himself to believe this tripe, because it’s the way he needs to see the world to justify his own shortcomings and moral failings. Sure, soldiers and knights must do a lot of killing in battle; sure life is not a song. But there are certain moral standards that one can try to protect even in such a job—not needlessly killing innocent civilians (such as children), protecting the innocent and vulnerable. The fact that knights are for killing and the world is brutal are hard truths; the idea that murdering kids is okay, anyone disabled is useless; and that life is simply one big fight where it’s right for the strong to step on and abuse the weak is utterly wrong; a warped view of the world. And Sansa can recognize this at 12. I’d say that on some level Sandor realizes that few men genuinely love killing; that there is a difference between killing a soldier in battle and killing an innocent child running away; that strong people can and should protect the weak. However, he gives lip service to a bunch of harsh, nihilistic views because these help him justify and excuse his own moral failings. This is similar to the mental hoops that men like Tyrion and Jaime Lannister jump through in order to justify their inexcusable and often hypocritical behavior.

That’s what I admire so much about Sansa—she forms her behavior and words around an already formed set of earnest morals and ethical views; men like Sandor, in contrast, form their moral and ethical views to mitigate, explain, or excuse their behavior.

He was, technically, doing what he was supposed to do; the problem was that the person issuing the orders was not. If what Sandor did was follow an order, and not commit a crime, the trial wasn't about justice - it was about morality, as executed by a thieving band of outlaws.

As for his interactions with the BWB, I think there was both a certain amount of common sense in what he was saying, and a certain amount of moral laziness. Sure, the BWB were a vigilante group, often unfairly dealing out vigilante justice and stealing themselves. However, when one keeps in mind that the members are mainly poor, bereaved individuals utterly disenfranchised by the war (a conflict started by the Westerosi elite over dynastic issues), and that they are generally trying to help the poor and helpless, and do the right thing, Sandor’s words to them (“you are no more than a bunch of common criminals!”) come off as somewhat hypocritical. They are indeed criminals, but, unlike him, they’re trying with all their might to help others and do the right thing. He is not.

So while I can understand the fact that people might love Sandor despite his deeds and see him as more sympathetic for having bee ordered to do them rather than doing them of his own accord, personally I don’t think it makes much of a moral difference in the end.

It seems that at present, Sandor has gone on to recognize the heinous nature of his deeds, and started to strive to make reparation for them. As long as his moral turnaround is genuine and doesn’t take any cues from Jaime Lannister’s “I’m still willing to kill babies, but I think my sister’s a whore now and so it’s all good” so called “redemption arc,” then I am willing to accept it as valid.

**Not the exact quote, I’m paraphrasing.

[Sneak]

I’d certainly agree that Sandor clearly knew that murdering a defenseless 13-year-old boy was wrong deep down, but still did it. But honestly, I’m not sure I’d agree that this mitigates or explains this deed to any extent. He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it to follow orders—and keep the job that kept him protected from his brother. The fact that he may have felt better about it afterwards does not change the fact that he knew it was morally wrong while doing it, nut did it anyway.

These books are full of characters who commit deeds justified/ excused by the laws of their time, but that they can on some level recognize as wrong. For instance, Robert forcing himself upon Cersei repeatedly; Tyrion marrying Sansa the 12 year old hostage; Hoster Tully forcing his teen daughter to abort the baby of the boy she loves and marry an ancient man—all these things are accepted by Westeros as society as right/ what must be done. Yet all of the people in question realize that clearly that these deeds are wrong. Yet they commit these deeds nonetheless; apparently justifying them in their own minds with society’s approval/ expectations. These men all do terrible things, all while realizing the wrongness of what they are doing, and placating their guilty consciences by claiming that they had no other choice/ those are the rules of their society. So Tyrion’s behavior was not officially opposed by his society; Hoster and Robert’s was utterly endorsed by the society they live in. Yet I personally don’t think we,, the readers, should see their acts as any less heinous for this fact.

True, Sandor was in a much less prestigious/ powerful position than Hoster, Robert, and Tyrion were. True, his choice to run through and murder a little boy due to his bosses orders was, at bottom, a matter of self preservation—if he refuses, he will either be fired (which will put him in danger of being hurt by Gregor), or, possibly, physically punished, even killed.

Yet in the end, Sandor could have done a billion things rather than kill Mycah. Pretending to agree to do so and then running off would be a great solution (after warning Mycah in some way.) Trying to use his clear influence with Joffrey to get him to change his mind would have been another. Pretending to be sick/ unable would have been another.

But at the end of the day, Sandor chose to run down a little boy, then laugh about it. The fact that he did this at his employers order rather than his own admission shows that he is not a true, foaming mouthed, hand rubbing, psychotic villain along the lines of Gregor or Ramsay Bolton, sure. But ultimately it makes no difference—he consciously chose to murder a child. Having a conscience and normal human feelings, and choosing to do it anyway.

I think Sandor’s conduct here illustrates the... well, I can only call it moral laziness that he shows throughout the first three books. In the past, I’ve read posters on other threads claiming that the savvy Sandor “wised Sansa up” and “showed her how the real world was.” “She was stupid and ignorant before him, and he told her how it was,” said one person.

:agree: I agree with this. This is mainly why I don't like Sandor, and don't understand why a lot of people do. Before I found this forum I thought he was just a violent drunk who gave some good advice to Sansa. I was very suprised by how much support he gets. And I was shocked by the idea of SanSan (which I still don't see). Now, after reading the forum, I know there is more depth to his character and that he's not just a mindless brute, that he does care and that he wants to help Sansa and Arya. But I still don't get the amount of love there is for him; he is still violent and he is still drunk more often than not. The above quoted post sums up some of my thoughts regarding him.

[Daidalos]

Thank you for saying it better than I ever could. Your observation regarding Sansa's naiveté vis-à-vis Sandor's "savvy" is very interesting, and puts their interactions in a new perspective for me.

[KittensRuleBeetsDrool]

I think Sandor’s conduct here illustrates the... well, I can only call it moral laziness that he shows throughout the first three books. In the past, I’ve read posters on other threads claiming that the savvy Sandor “wised Sansa up” and “showed her how the real world was.” “She was stupid and ignorant before him, and he told her how it was,” said one person.

I find this funny because I think that of the two, Sansa is far more self aware, honest, and far seeing of the two. Not to mention the far more morally sound—not just morally correct, mind you, but morally sound. Though she may be naive in several areas that Sandor enlightens her in (she makes the fallacy of being overly idealistic about human nature and assuming that all others share her decency), such as “knights are for killing,” I’d say that Sansa, at 11, has a far more complex, comprehensive, and honest view of the world than Sandor does at 28. Sandor makes statements like, “Things like Tyrion and Tanda Stokeworths daughter are useless”, “I’ve killed men and yes, women and children. There’s no difference—in the end it’s all meat” and “everyone likes killing, and those who say they don’t are lying.**”

Yet Sansa can recognize this for the posing B.S. it is—she knows her father loathed killing; she knows many men loathe it. Yet Sandor forces himself to believe this tripe, because it’s the way he needs to see the world to justify his own shortcomings and moral failings. Sure, soldiers and knights must do a lot of killing in battle; sure life is not a song. But there are certain moral standards that one can try to protect even in such a job—not needlessly killing innocent civilians (such as children), protecting the innocent and vulnerable. The fact that knights are for killing and the world is brutal are hard truths; the idea that murdering kids is okay, anyone disabled is useless; and that life is simply one big fight where it’s right for the strong to step on and abuse the weak is utterly wrong; a warped view of the world. And Sansa can recognize this at 12. I’d say that on some level Sandor realizes that few men genuinely love killing; that there is a difference between killing a soldier in battle and killing an innocent child running away; that strong people can and should protect the weak. However, he gives lip service to a bunch of harsh, nihilistic views because these help him justify and excuse his own moral failings. This is similar to the mental hoops that men like Tyrion and Jaime Lannister jump through in order to justify their inexcusable and often hypocritical behavior.

That’s what I admire so much about Sansa—she forms her behavior and words around an already formed set of earnest morals and ethical views; men like Sandor, in contrast, form their moral and ethical views to mitigate, explain, or excuse their behavior.

It's not just the Lannisters and Tyrells (and Sandor at least at first) who underestimate Sansa - so do so, so many readers (which is why I'm glad for these threads). "She may be naive in several areas that Sandor enlightens her in (she makes the fallacy of being overly idealistic about human nature and assuming that all others share her decency)": who does this remind you of? :) Of course she starts out idealistic and assuming that all other people share her ideals of honor and decency - she learned all this at Ned Stark's knee. Poor Ned died because he shared the exact same qualities. So did her brother Robb ("sure I'll send Theon to the Iron Islands! He won't betray me, he's just like a brother to me!" "Sure the Freys will honor guest right. Doesn't everybody? Isn't guest right sacred?") and this got Robb killed, too. Sansa so far is one up on both of them in that she's still alive. It's a very valuable lesson for her to realize that not everyone is honorable and decent, and that there are some shitty people in the world who will step all over you or even kill you if they have the chance. Sansa is learning to protect herself; too bad she had to learn the lessons so harshly, but it is going to save her skin. And she's so far maintaing her own basic decency and honor despite it all. I do not want to see that essential Stark-ness (and Tully-ness; remember "honor" is in their family motto) chipped away.

I think a (maybe the) fundamental difference between Sandor and Sansa is that she had both a solid foundation of love and a belief that people are essentially honorable and decent from her family. Sandor never had that. His mother and sister may have loved him but they died when he was so young, and they seem to have been powerless anyway. Sandor does not have the psychological strength that Sansa has to fall back on. Sansa may kick herself for trusting the wrong people and not being savvy about court politics, but there is nothing wrong with her worldview as such - she just needs to learn to deal with less-than-honorable people. Sandor's nihilism is soul-armor to contain the damage - he was abused so badly in early life that he could never develop a coherent moral code to fall back on. Plus there is the abused who pays the abuse he suffered forward because he doesn't know any different (and it may seem "normal" to him).

[Lady Lea]

I'm a little behind, going to try to catch up.

I'm NOT calling it justice. I just didn't have that much sympathy for him then and there. Can you say that you were bothered when Joffrey was extra-legally assassinated? Would you be bothered if Littlefinger was killed by some outlaw, not by a headsman after having received a fair sentence?

Daidalos, I just wanted to comment on this one thing - I was not bothered when Joffrey was murdered, but here's the difference between this and the BWB - the Tyrells never said that what they were doing was justice or the law, and they didn't set up a fake trial to pronounce a fake sentence and pretend they had the higher moral ground. They knew what they were doing was a crime and they never claimed legal legitimacy for their actions.

There was a thread not long ago, asking if Stannis was a hypocrite ("Stannis justice hits all, except for himself"), and the argument was that Stannis goes around claiming he is a righteous man, a just man, always by the book of the law, etc, and then goes around and murders his brother with a shadow baby, is okay with burning people, wants to burn his nephew, wants to take the throne with the flimsiest of proof that Cersei's children are bastards, etc. And then someone said "well at least Stannis had the bastard excuse, why isn't Renly held to the same standard if he didn't even have that", and my answer was, because Renly wanted the throne through right of conquest, he never pretended that anything he ever did was because he was oh-so-righteous.

If the BWB had owned up to what they really wanted - revenge, blood, etc - and kidnapped Sandor, robbed him and killed him, that would be one thing. But pretending they were doing it in the name of justice and/or the law, that was what was ridiculous to me. (And to Sandor - that is exactly what he said in that quote - if they wanted to fight him and kill him, that's honest at least, but pretending they were so much better than Sandor was just laughable). It's why they had a smooth transition to Lady Stoneheart's leadership - Thoros is slightly bothered because now he thinks they are just "regular outlaws", they don't have the veneer of legitimacy anymore, but even he admits that they only told themselves they were about justice under Beric.

I’d certainly agree that Sandor clearly knew that murdering a defenseless 13-year-old boy was wrong deep down, but still did it. But honestly, I’m not sure I’d agree that this mitigates or explains this deed to any extent. He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it to follow orders—and keep the job that kept him protected from his brother. The fact that he may have felt better about it afterwards does not change the fact that he knew it was morally wrong while doing it, nut did it anyway.

These books are full of characters who commit deeds justified/ excused by the laws of their time, but that they can on some level recognize as wrong. For instance, Robert forcing himself upon Cersei repeatedly; Tyrion marrying Sansa the 12 year old hostage; Hoster Tully forcing his teen daughter to abort the baby of the boy she loves and marry an ancient man—all these things are accepted by Westeros as society as right/ what must be done. Yet all of the people in question realize that clearly that these deeds are wrong. Yet they commit these deeds nonetheless; apparently justifying them in their own minds with society’s approval/ expectations. These men all do terrible things, all while realizing the wrongness of what they are doing, and placating their guilty consciences by claiming that they had no other choice/ those are the rules of their society. So Tyrion’s behavior was not officially opposed by his society; Hoster and Robert’s was utterly endorsed by the society they live in. Yet I personally don’t think we,, the readers, should see their acts as any less heinous for this fact.

QC1, I definitely understand your position, but I just wanted to clarify mine a bit. Here's my problem with this - there's a crime (in Westeros and/or in modern society) and there's morally wrong. Very different things.

Mycah was innocent - Sandor did not know this. He was ordered to kill him because of the crime he had committed, for which the punishment was death. I am not really confortable calling this murder. And in modern law, it wouldn't be murder either, not in my jurisdiction at least. Article 22 of the Brazilian Criminal Code states: if the deed is committed under irresistible coercion or in strict obedience to an order, not manifestly illegal, by a hierarchic superior, only the author of the coercion or the order shall be punished. In this case, I could argue that there was both irresistible coercion and an order that was not manifestly illegal, and perhaps the irresistible coercion wouldn't stick, but he would still walk from any modern trial. Lawyered. (jk)

It is still possible to say that it was morally wrong, though, even if Sandor perhaps did not recognise it as such at the time.

I'm also not saying that Sandor was not a criminal or a murderer - he says he has killed women and children before, and if nothing else he IS guilty of desertion in war, which in most jurisdictions still carries the death penalty (we don't have death penalty in times of peace in Brazil, but in war, this is one crime that is punished by death). [eta: ironically I would not say him deserting the battle that was being fought - with chemical weapons no less - to keep Joffrey on the throne was morally reprehensible]

The other deeds that QC1 brought up, though, are different than the Mycah episode.

- Robert forcing himself on Cersei. Not a crime THEN, but a crime NOW. And he DID know it was wrong, even in Westeros.

- Tyrion and Sansa. I'd argue that it was not lawful in Westeros (she was underage, no consent from her or Robb/Cat, forced marriages are not the norm in Westeros, etc). Obviously it would be a crime today. And Tyrion did know it was very wrong.

- Hoster. Not a crime then, but a crime now. And he knew it was wrong when he did it.

So, I mean, it's ok if you think I am only a souless lawyer, and you don't really want to know if it was according to the law (Westeros or modern) because it was wrong to kill Mycah. I'll say it was morally wrong (personally I'm even against the death penalty) but still, legally, by my modern standard, I would not condemn Sandor. I'm not really trying to convince anyone, and I definitely appreciate other povs, but because of my background, this is where I stand.

[Daidalos]

I'm a little behind, going to try to catch up.

Daidalos, I just wanted to comment on this one thing - I was not bothered when Joffrey was murdered, but here's the difference between this and the BWB - the Tyrells never said that what they were doing was justice or the law, and they didn't set up a fake trial to pronounce a fake sentence and pretend they had the higher moral ground. They knew what they were doing was a crime and they never claimed legal legitimacy for their actions.

There was a thread not long ago, asking if Stannis was a hypocrite ("Stannis justice hits all, except for himself"), and the argument was that Stannis goes around claiming he is a righteous man, a just man, always by the book of the law, etc, and then goes around and murders his brother with a shadow baby, is okay with burning people, wants to burn his nephew, wants to take the throne with the flimsiest of proof that Cersei's children are bastards, etc. And then someone said "well at least Stannis had the bastard excuse, why isn't Renly held to the same standard if he didn't even have that", and my answer was, because Renly wanted the throne through right of conquest, he never pretended that anything he ever did was because he was oh-so-righteous.

If the BWB had owned up to what they really wanted - revenge, blood, etc - and kidnapped Sandor, robbed him and killed him, that would be one thing. But pretending they were doing it in the name of justice and/or the law, that was what was ridiculous to me. (And to Sandor - that is exactly what he said in that quote - if they wanted to fight him and kill him, that's honest at least, but pretending they were so much better than Sandor was just laughable). It's why they had a smooth transition to Lady Stoneheart's leadership - Thoros is slightly bothered because now he thinks they are just "regular outlaws", they don't have the veneer of legitimacy anymore, but even he admits that they only told themselves they were about justice under Beric.

Ah, so it's the hypocrisy that galls you? This strikes me as strange, and I've thought so quite often when I've read these threads. Yes, hypocrisy is intellectually distasteful, but in comparison to other moral failures it's trifling. When Sandor rightfully claims that knights are swords with pretty bows tied on them--that they are killers just like he is--that doesn't make Sandor much better than knights at all. It makes him an honest murderer, but when measured against the evil of murder, the good of honesty is insignificant. I'll say this, Sandor's frankness makes him a very interesting character, and it's good that someone tries to shake up the righteousness of knights and vigilantes, but that does nothing to ameliorate his moral failures. So, when Sandor faces the BWB, I am less offended by their high and mighty posturing than I am by what I know of Sandor's own misdeeds. Seeing as even in the best of times, justice is in scarce supply in Westeros, Sandor's legal travails don't garner him much sympathy from me.

- Robert forcing himself on Cersei. Not a crime THEN, but a crime NOW. And he DID know it was wrong, even in Westeros.

- Tyrion and Sansa. I'd argue that it was not lawful in Westeros (she was underage, no consent from her or Robb/Cat, forced marriages are not the norm in Westeros, etc). Obviously it would be a crime today. And Tyrion did know it was very wrong.

- Hoster. Not a crime then, but a crime now. And he knew it was wrong when he did it.

I know that this wasn't addressed at me, but I would just like to make a remark anyway. This utterly baffles me. As horrible as the listed misdeeds are, Sandor's killing of Mycah was morally worse than any of them. He might not be legally at fault, but that's a warped standard for condemnation, as these discussions almost always revolve around the characters' moral infractions. Characters such as Ramsay, Joffrey, Littlefinger and Gregor inspire such strong emotions because they break standards of decency, not because they defy the law, be it setting-specific or contemporary. For most posters, I believe, whether any character is condemned by the law is completely irrelevant. I would be curious to know, however, if your judgments of certain characters is informed by this legalistic thinking: does the fact that Sandor is deserter lessen him in your eyes? Is it principally Littlefinger's flagrant subversions of the law that make him repulsive, or is it the grave immorality of his actions?

(Furthermore, I suspect that QCI didn't mean "crime" as in "an affront to Westerosi law," but rather as "a moral offence," as I did; that's certainly how I read it, but she's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Lady Lea]

Ah, so it's the hypocrisy that galls you? This strikes me as strange, and I've thought so quite often when I've read these threads. Yes, hypocrisy is intellectually distasteful, but in comparison to other moral failures it's trifling. When Sandor rightfully claims that knights are swords with pretty bows tied on them--that they are killers just like he is--that doesn't make Sandor much better than knights at all. It makes him an honest murderer, but when measured against the evil of murder, the good of honesty is insignificant. I'll say this, Sandor's frankness makes him a very interesting character, and it's good that someone tries to shake up the righteousness of knights and vigilantes, but that does nothing to ameliorate his moral failures. So, when Sandor faces the BWB, I am less offended by their high and mighty posturing than I am by what I know of Sandor's own misdeeds. Seeing as even in the best of times, justice is in scarce supply in Westeros, Sandor's legal travails don't garner him much sympathy from me.

I've never said it made Sandor better, so we are not in disagreement there. I think the fact that the BWB claims to be so much better than they really are is what makes them worse than if they had been honest (but I didn't make a comparison between their deeds and Sandor's). Well, you are welcome to your opinion and I understand your position, but yes, this is what bothers me about the BWB. They are nothing but common criminals pretending to be magistrates, and like I said before, Sandor being in the receiving end of this injustice does not make up for him having commited injustices in the past. In the same way, the fact that Cersei has had children murdered (including Mycah), people tortured, prostitutes flogged, etc, does not make me even a little bit ok with her Walk of Shame. Of course, a lot of people disagree with me and say that she had it coming and it was appropriate punishment for all her past crimes. It was not, in my opinion. The fact that you are a perpetrator in one occasion does not erase the fact that you are a victim in another.

I know that this wasn't addressed at me, but I would just like to make a remark anyway. This utterly baffles me. As horrible as the listed misdeeds are, Sandor's killing of Mycah was morally worse than any of them. He might not be legally at fault in Westeros, but that's a warped standard for condemnation, as you would be committed to accept and tolerate the countless legally-sanctioned depravities that occur in these books.

And it seems a little disingenuous to harp on this legal/moral distinction. I suspect that QCI didn't mean "crime" as in "an affront to Westerosi law," but rather as "a moral offence"; that's certainly how I read it, but she's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

You may think that it was morally worse, but that would be your opinion. And you might notice that I talked about being legally at fault in both Westeros and by modern standards, for every one of those deeds, so I am not excusing anything because "it's ok in Westeros".

I don't think it is disingenous at all to make distinctions, because you in your original post and QC1 used 1) the legal language, 2) the justice discourse, and 3) the moral language. Words mean things, and it's important to differentiate. A crime is a crime, and a moral offence is a moral offence. Very, very different things.

[Daidalos]

You may think that it was morally worse, but that would be your opinion. And you might notice that I talked about being legally at fault in both Westeros and by modern standards, for every one of those deeds, so I am not excusing anything because "it's ok in Westeros".

I don't think it is disingenous at all to make distinctions, because you in your original post and QC1 used 1) the legal language, 2) the justice discourse, and 3) the moral language. Words mean things, and it's important to differentiate. A crime is a crime, and a moral offence is a moral offence. Very, very different things.

Just quickly: I edited my post before you replied to remove some of the language you're quoting now.

[Lady Lea]

Just quickly: I edited my post before you replied to remove some of the language you're quoting now.

Hm, ok, hang on, I'm going out for a bit but I'm coming back.

[Daidalos]

I've never said it made Sandor better, so we are not in disagreement there. I think the fact that the BWB claims to be so much better than they really are is what makes them worse than if they had been honest (but I didn't make a comparison between their deeds and Sandor's). Well, you are welcome to your opinion and I understand your position, but yes, this is what bothers me about the BWB. They are nothing but common criminals pretending to be magistrates, and like I said before, Sandor being in the receiving end of this injustice does not make up for him having commited injustices in the past. In the same way, the fact that Cersei has had children murdered (including Mycah), people tortured, prostitutes flogged, etc, does not make me even a little bit ok with her Walk of Shame. Of course, a lot of people disagree with me and say that she had it coming and it was appropriate punishment for all her past crimes. It was not, in my opinion. The fact that you are a perpetrator in one occasion does not erase the fact that you are a victim in another.

To specify my position just little bit: I can abhor the injustice (the BWB trial or the Walk of Shame), but still find no sympathy for the victim. For example, I would consider myself against the death penalty, so while I would be in vehement opposition against the judicial process that prescribes such sentences, I would have zero sympathy for the particular child rapist and murderer who happens to find himself so condemned. Were I a defence lawyer, I might still defend him against an unjust process, but it wouldn't change my feelings regarding his character.

Regarding the meaning of words, "crime" does not always refer to the legal term, but also to "an evil or injurious act; an offence, a sin; esp. of a grave character" according to the Oxford Dictionary; this meaning of "crime" is listed before the legal term. You can take virtually all my mentions of "crime" to mean "an evil or injurious act," and "injustice" to mean the opposite of "the quality of being (morally) just or righteous."

EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, Cersei's punishment was disgusting on so many levels. But then, Cersei is one of my favourite characters, if perhaps not for the best of reasons....

[Lady Lea]

I know that this wasn't addressed at me, but I would just like to make a remark anyway. This utterly baffles me. As horrible as the listed misdeeds are, Sandor's killing of Mycah was morally worse than any of them. He might not be legally at fault, but that's a warped standard for condemnation, as these discussions almost always revolve around the characters' moral infractions. Characters such as Ramsay, Joffrey, Littlefinger and Gregor inspire such strong emotions because they break standards of decency, not because they defy the law, be it setting-specific or contemporary. For most posters, I believe, whether any character is condemned by the law is completely irrelevant. I would be curious to know, however, if your judgments of certain characters is informed by this legalistic thinking: does the fact that Sandor is deserter lessen him in your eyes? Is it principally Littlefinger's flagrant subversions of the law that make him repulsive, or is it the grave immorality of his actions?

(Furthermore, I suspect that QCI didn't mean "crime" as in "an affront to Westerosi law," but rather as "a moral offence," as I did; that's certainly how I read it, but she's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.)

I am, of course, very influenced by my legal background, as I've stated before. I can't do anything about that. Judging people on their morality is not something I am at all confortable with, neither is deciding what is justice. It's not that I'm a moral relativist - I don't think I am - but I just don't think I have the moral high ground to judge. This is less because of my legal background and more, perhaps, because of my Christian background. I could discuss with you if I think this or that is moral, but to me that wouldn't mean anything. If you think killing (not murdering) Mycah was morally abominable and I don't, where does that leave us? Sometimes something that isn't a crime is not the morally sound thing to do. Sometimes it's the opposite. But how do we judge that? It's fairly easy with Ramsay hunting and raping women, but what about with Ned starting a war over the fact that the heirs of the throne weren't legitimate? IMO, that was not right. He was following the law but it wasn't right, but I didn't feel like his execution was well-done, or punishment for that, and I felt sympathy because he was the victim there. And then there are many people who would say that what he did WAS the morally right thing to do, and we'll walk on circles forever.

To specify my position just little bit: I can abhor the injustice (the BWB trial or the Walk of Shame), but still find no sympathy for the victim. For example, I would consider myself against the death penalty, so while I would be in vehement opposition against the judicial process that prescribes such sentences, I would have zero sympathy for the particular child rapist and murderer who happens to find himself so condemned. Were I a defence lawyer, I might still defend him against an unjust process, but it wouldn't change my feelings regarding his character.

Regarding the meaning of words, "crime" does not always refer to the legal term, but also to "an evil or injurious act; an offence, a sin; esp. of a grave character" according to the Oxford Dictionary; this meaning of "crime" is listed before the legal term. You can take virtually all my mentions of "crime" to mean "an evil or injurious act," and "injustice" to mean the opposite of "the quality of being (morally) just or righteous."

EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, Cersei's punishment was disgusting on so many levels. But then, Cersei is one of my favourite characters, if perhaps not for the best of reasons....

Sympathy is personal, of course. But if you're looking for justice or to right a moral wrong, then it is not through injustice or another moral wrong that you'll find it.

Context is everything. If we're talking about trials, murders, and crimes, then the word crime can be reasonably construed to be used in its legal meaning. If you're saying that at no point were you talking about actual crimes then that's fine.

[Grail King]

I think Bran will become a tree, but I don't think it's doom. He is basically ascending to a higher plane of existence. I consider the location of his body to be a minor thing in that regard.

Maybe, but as of now he really doesn't have to be tied to it, I think he could still be at Winterfell since it has a wierwood tree and maybe ascend to the trees later in life when his health starts to fade.

[Grail King]

Just came across this thread in the Winds of Winter subforum, which some of you might be interested in participating in: http://asoiaf.wester...-sansas-rescue/

Look out for some Sansa bashing, and continued misinformation about her actions throughout the series.

So what else is new.

[Caro99]

hey guys! it's been a while since i posted anything, though i have been reading the discussions that have been talked about, as well as the latest one of sandor and the whole Mycah/Brotherhood Without Banners issue.

Not to get out of topic, but i found the following thing about Sansa on tumblr, but since it's related to the HBO adaptation, i put it under spoilers :)

I was over at the fysophieturner tumblr page, and this intresting podcast about Sansa & Cersei was posted: link below. For those of you who haven't heard it some of the things it talks about is why some people can symphatize with sansa more thanks to the show rather than just by reading her chapters. i found it interesting

http://www.mediafire...91dl68mx2g79l8n

hope you enjoy it!

One last thing: i'm really sorry for taking sooo long on puting up the Lothor Brune/Sansa analysis but it's coming! :)

[childofsummer]

snipped for space

QC, first - I miss the lioness avatar! She was so perfect for Cersei, with that "don't you dare touch my kill" look.

I completely agree with you that, morally, Sandor's actions, as well as many other characters' actions in the series, are reprehensible. I think morality and justice are related, but not identical, concepts, though, and the question was about justice in the series.

The problem I have with the BwB's treatment of Sandor was not that they were beating up on an innocent guy who never did anything wrong. It was that, whatever their founding purpose, they were basically a pack of thieves led by an increasingly inhuman zombie. Their version of "justice" was a sham - certainly, killing Mycah was morally wrong, but it wasn't illegal. As another poster mentioned, if they were going to try to charge Sandor with a crime, it should have been desertion under fire. They didn't. Instead, they charged him with something the crown - the absolute authority in Westeros - told him to do. His very logical affirmative defense was that he was carrying out the crown's order by executing the person who had injured the prince. In a modern analog, would you charge a Secret Service agent with murder for taking out someone who tried to assassinate the President? Maybe, but he'd have a strong defense. Would killing that would-be assassin still be morally wrong? Maybe. What if he were insane and, under US law, not responsible for his actions? My point is that illegal / punishable under the law and moral / going to hell (or whatever happens to bad people) are not necessarily the same.

I think that giving us the opportunity to explore these kinds of questions, especially in the context of characters we may feel strongly for, is one of the great things about these books.