From Pawn to Player: Rethinking Sansa XI

[adreamer]

Crab is the symbol of house Borrell and as it seems Sansa is following her father steps (given the quotes above and a lot more) so its quite possible that she gets to the North trough the sisters like her father before and might come to Godric Borell as well, and who knows what might happen there.......dogs, crabs...... B).

[Lyanna Stark]

Regarding the parallels with Ned's trip and Cat's trip over the landsaddle, that's really amazing. Also, both were made due to Littlefinger's machinations. Even though he was not there in person when Cat traveled to the Eyrie, he was behind the plot and the letter Lysa wrote which triggered the arrest of Tyrion.

While Sansa reacts quite a lot like Ned initially, we see her far bolder and resourceful later on in AFFC. Does this reflect that Sansa has learnt what her parents didn't? She can now manage the treacherous climbs with more grace and agility than both Ned and Cat, while also herding Sweetrobin across.

[brashcandy]

Regarding the parallels with Ned's trip and Cat's trip over the landsaddle, that's really amazing. Also, both were made due to Littlefinger's machinations. Even though he was not there in person when Cat traveled to the Eyrie, he was behind the plot and the letter Lysa wrote which triggered the arrest of Tyrion.

While Sansa reacts quite a lot like Ned initially, we see her far bolder and resourceful later on in AFFC. Does this reflect that Sansa has learnt what her parents didn't? She can now manage the treacherous climbs with more grace and agility than both Ned and Cat, while also herding Sweetrobin across.

It really is amazing. I noted on LJ that it might signify Sansa's ability to lead House Stark, taking over in a more capable fashion than either of her parents. Interestingly, Bran is present in her thoughts when she's with Dontos, and she thinks of him falling, but later on in the Eyrie, what she hears is a powerful wolf sound, "big as the mountains."

[Lyanna Stark]

It really is amazing. I noted on LJ that it might signify Sansa's ability to lead House Stark, taking over in a more capable fashion than either of her parents. Interestingly, Bran is present in her thoughts when she's with Dontos, and she thinks of him falling, but later on in the Eyrie, what she hears is a powerful wolf sound, "big as the mountains."

Indeed. And it also seems that Bran will act like a gathering force on his siblings, even if he will not be there in person. Hence why it is so interesting to ponder whether or not there will be a Godswood at the Gates of the Moon. Sansa would have been "off the chart" for Bran and Bloodraven while in the Eyrie, but if she gets a Godswood around her again, that will change radically.

[brashcandy]

Indeed. And it also seems that Bran will act like a gathering force on his siblings, even if he will not be there in person. Hence why it is so interesting to ponder whether or not there will be a Godswood at the Gates of the Moon. Sansa would have been "off the chart" for Bran and Bloodraven while in the Eyrie, but if she gets a Godswood around her again, that will change radically.

I really like this idea, and I think it's quite likely that the Gates will have a Godswood. LF's revelations at the end of AFFC would certainly put Sansa in the mood for prayer and reflection, and making contact with her real father's roots could be just what she needs to spur her into action.

[Milady of York]

I've been looking over the Quiet Isle chapter and this caught my attention. I doubt it's anything significant, but with GRRM you never know, and I'm perpetually on the hunt for QI/Sandor related crackpot theories ;)

I hadn´t noted that before!

To add more to the symbolisms, the one about crabs differs:

- In the West, a crab symbolises trust, emotion, protection, regeneration and transformation.

- In the East, specifically in China, there’s a less known one: crabs signify prosperity, success and high status.

- And one more interesting bit, dream interpreters say that when a crab pinches you, it means you´ve got to pay attention to people around you and be careful whom you place your trust in.

I’m not sure Martin knows about Eastern symbolism as much as Western though, but… keep crackpotting. ;)

[Grail King]

just finished #10, start the read of 11

[brashcandy]

just finished #10, start the read of 11

You're nearly here! :)

[Ragnorak]

You're nearly here! :)

The reading is easy. Digesting it all is another matter.

Bran meets the Frey wards who going to be knights while he is still wrestling with never being a knight. He has the incident where he protects Hodor from those future knights. Are there Sandor/Osha parallels with threatening figures becoming protectors/advisors? Bran's protector is locked in the Godswood. There are some Sansa parallels in there to be found. How can I just keep reading posts before I sort all these things out?

Your Bran piece and Lord Bronn's Sandor one are both great. I've been waiting for a quiet stretch to pull quotes and compare. Wonderful thought provoking stuff.

[brashcandy]

Thanks Ragnorak :) The Sandor/Osha parallels sounds like it could yield some great discussion.

[Ragnorak]

Thanks Ragnorak :) The Sandor/Osha parallels sounds like it could yield some great discussion.

Both Sandor and Osha give advice on helping deal with respective forms captivity, both travel with the younger same sex sibling, both are in service to enemies and won over as allies, both give the "gift of mercy" (Osha to Luwin.) Not perfect parallels but definitely some connections there.

Is there a protecting Hodor/Dontos connection? Both help their Stark protectors escape. Sansa protects Dontos as a lady even as she's shedding the role, Bran protects Hodor in a knightly fashion while shedding that role too.

They both have a knight storybook fixation but Bran is shedding a knightly self identification and Sansa is shedding a lady self identification and that's blurring some of the connections in my head.

[brashcandy]

Both Sandor and Osha give advice on helping deal with respective forms captivity, both travel with the younger same sex sibling, both are in service to enemies and won over as allies, both give the "gift of mercy" (Osha to Luwin.) Not perfect parallels but definitely some connections there.

Is there a protecting Hodor/Dontos connection? Both help their Stark protectors escape. Sansa protects Dontos as a lady even as she's shedding the role, Bran protects Hodor in a knightly fashion while shedding that role too.

They both have a knight storybook fixation but Bran is shedding a knightly self identification and Sansa is shedding a lady self identification and that's blurring some of the connections in my head.

Very interesting! I especially like your points on Dontos/Hodor, and how they both behave as true knights/ladies with respect to these men. You've listed some credible parallels between Osha and Sandor as well. I was thinking that one noticeable difference between the two in the beginning is their views on religion. Osha isn't exactly devout, but she does worship the old gods, and speaks to Bran about their presence in the wind. Sandor on the other hand openly mocks the gods, but does end being saved by a religious hymn and is now doing penance on the QI. I wonder if we shouldn't also consider a connection between Sweetrobin and Hodor. Although Hodor is big and strong, he's very childlike and innocent, and Bran is on shaky moral ground with his warging of Hodor, just as Sansa is beginning to gamble a bit with Sweetrobin's life. Also, of course, we have the dubious mentors in LF and Bloodraven.

[greensleeves]

I haven't had much of a chance to post lately, but I thought I'd pop in and respond to this one, since I'm a Tolkien fan.

Much as I like Sansa, I don't see her having much in common with Galadriel. Yes, they're both beautiful and aristocratic from ancient families. And they both are loaded with charm and charisma. But...Galadriel was much more a combination Cersei-Arya-Sansa type; as ambitious as Cersei (without her cruel streak), as physically active and athletic as Arya (Tolkien said somewhere, either in The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales, that Galadriel used to win athletic contests back in Valinor), and as charming and gracious as Sansa can be. Galadriel never would have settled for, as a goal, to just marry a prince charming and live happily ever after; at least not the Galadriel we know; she seems to have wanted from the beginning to gain knowledge and eventually a kingdom of her own, and acquired a husband and child on the way as a pleasant coincidence rather than purposefully. It is true that we cannot know what Galadriel was like at the age of 12. I doubt very much that she would have been as sheltered and naive as Sansa, simply because her immediate family lived at the center of power as part of an increasingly large and fractious royal family.

Also, at the time of LOTR, Galadriel is not really the best game player in the West; if anyone is, it's Gandalf. Galadriel has set up a rather peculiar, static stronghold in Lorien that is insular and distrustful of other people unless they are connected to Elves and sometimes even then; this is not all her fault (the only Elven faction who seem to live fully in the present are the Mirkwood Elves); but I think Elrond was in a better position to judge what was going on in the world outside their elven havens, since he actually kept Imladris open to certain Men and Dwarves (and hobbits) as a refuge and travel-stop. Galadriel may have the Mirror; but it is not exactly a reliable tool to judge what is going on or will go on in the future.

Sansa reminds me much more of the young Elizabeth Tudor (future Queen Elizabeth I); though I hope Sansa will be able to have a family if/when she regains her Stark self and possibly Winterfell and matures.

First of all, thanks for replying to my post! Second of all, it's been awhile since I was deep into the tolkien stuff so I will be referencing various wikis for this response... feel free to correct me.

I really do feel that Galadriel is a better game player than Gandalf. For me the hallmarks of a 'game player' in the ASOIAF series include an ability to direct others towards your end goal (the ability to play pieces), the ability to make rather intricate plans that go a step beyond what everyone else is doing (having a strategy), and a certain political savvy. Gandalf is very direct and involves himself immediately in most of the action. He actually reminds me a lot of Ned in his style of investigation and confrontation. Galadriel on the other hand is much more indirect.

Here is a review of some of her actions against Sauron:

During the Second Age, when the Rings of Power were forged, Galadriel distrusted Annatar, the loremaster who taught the craft of the Rings to Celebrimbor and the other Noldor of Eregion. This distrust was justified, for Annatar was revealed as Sauron pretending to be an emissary from the ValaAulë. When Sauron attacked Eregion, Galadriel was entrusted with one of the Three Rings of the Elves. Her Ring was Nenya, the Ring of Water or the Ring of Adamant. Conscious of Sauron's power and wishing to thwart it, she did not use the Ring so long as the One Ring was in his hands. However, during the Third Age, when the One Ring was lost, she put hers to use in making Lórien a fair refuge for the Nandor in the years after the departure and loss of Amroth and Nimrodel. Galadriel maintained constant vigilance against Sauron and often strove with him in thought. Sauron was said to have great desire to see into her mind, but could not so long as he did not have the One Ring. (Wikipedia)

Even before the Necromancer was recognised as Sauron returned, Galadriel had allied herself with those who opposed him. In III 2463, she was instrumental in the formation of the White Council, a circle of Elves and Wizards that met in opposition to the darkness of Dol Guldur. (Encyclopedia of Arda)

In T.A. 2463 the White Council was formed. Galadriel, being one of the Wise and the greatest threat to Sauron alive, was one of the members. Celeborn may have been as well, but this is not known for sure. She was a good friend of Gandalf, and recommended that he be made head of the Council. But this distinction fell instead to Saruman, whom she distrusted. (Tolkein Gateway)

She gave each of the companions a gift, and several of these would later prove vitally important. Her gift to Frodo was the Star-glass, a crystal phial that contained the captured light of the Star of Eärendil. Without that phial, Frodo and Sam would have been lost inShelob's Lair, and the Quest of Mount Doom would have been a failure. It seems that Galadriel foresaw these events and planned for them, presumably through her Mirror.

After the departure of the Fellowship, Galadriel began to work to aid the success of the Quest. Though she had been told of Gandalf's fall in Moria, she nonetheless called on Gwaihir the Windlord to seek him out³. Thus Gandalf, returned from death, was rescued from the peak of Celebdil. He was carried back to Lórien, where Galadriel brought him back to health. When he set out once again, she sent messages with him, including a reminder to Aragorn of the prophecies about thePaths of the Dead. Meanwhile, she sent a further message to Rivendell, summoning Aragorn's fellow Rangers to his aid, and so it was through Galadriel that the Grey Company rejoined their Chieftain. She may also have used her powers to aid the Ring-bearer directly: trapped in Shelob's Lair, Sam Gamgee received a sudden bright vision of Galadriel, reminding him of her Phial and so saving his life. (Encyclopedia of Arda)

It should be apparent that she is hardly insular and indeed is anticipating and influencing (manipulating) the actions of the fellowship *including* Gandalf. Furthermore, she's way ahead of Gandalf on *a lot* of things (mistrusting Saruman for one ... the path the fellowship needs to take for another). She's also been around way longer than Gandalf who is a late comer to Middle Earth comparatively. Also, the fact that she strove with Sauron in thought and he desired to know her mind above all others should be a big give away. Gandalf is a game piece on an extended errand from Valinor. A very, very powerful piece, but still a piece. Galadriel is a player (well... as much as there are players in Tolkein).

(Side note: I don't get why more people don't listen to the nice telepathic/empathic lady when she says someone is untrustworthy.)

As far as Galadriel being a combination Cersei-Arya-Sansa type... although it is mentioned that Galadriel was athletic in Valinor, it's not a major part of her character (I think she has a cousin that fits the tom-boy archetype... Fingolfin's daughter or granddaughter maybe?). A *much* bigger emphasis is placed on Galadriel's mental strength: her strong will, her ability to correctly perceive others, and her strong intellect. So I don't really see your point about Arya.

I think you made a good point about Galadriel being ambitious, but I think you are being too dismissive of Sansa's ambitions. Even though her early ambitions were centered around marriage, marriage is much more political in ASOIAF than Tolkein (especially when you look at the elves). Sansa didn't really have other paths to power then. Now that she's out of King's Landing she's starting to show some ambitions again.

One of the main themes for Galadriel is sacrificing personal glory and power in favor of the greater good (refusing the one ring). She is ambitious enough to want to rule, but only if she is a good ruler. This reminds me of Sansa's 'I would make them love me' in contrast to Cersei's rule of fear. The Cersei that we've seen so far would definitely take the ring.

It may be that in future books, Cersei redeems herself and adopts Galadriel's theme as her own. It may also be that in future books we see the theme of ruling for the common good become prominent in Sansa's storyline. (Analyzing half-written characters is very frustrating).

I do think that Elizabeth I actually somewhat exemplified that theme (sacrificing personal glory and power in favor of the greater good). She was after all "the first Tudor to recognize that a monarch ruled by popular consent" (still quoting wikipedia). She chose to rule by good counsel. Indeed her signature move of choosing not to have an heir can be seen as sacrificing personal glory (ending the tudor dynasty and her own line ... very important for non-elvish mortal rulers) in favor of dedicating her life to the good of her country.

I don't think it's an either/or situation when it comes to comparing Sansa to literary or historical figures. She's obviously not going to a direct copy of anybody... instead she'll have similarities and differences with each.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

[KittensRuleBeetsDrool]

A couple more thoughts on crabs, Brandon and Rickon:

- Crabs shed their (hard, armored) shells in order to grow. Will Sansa have to shed her courtesy armor, at least in part, in order to grow as a person? I don't mean she will turn into someone loud and rude - that's just not Sansa - but let her guard down and be herself. I think that when (I'm convinced it's a "when") she and Sandor meet there is a lot of armoring to be shed between them.

- In astrology, Cancer is the sign of the Moon and the Great Mother archetype. In some religions, the Moon is a dual or triple female goddess (Maiden, Mother, Crone) or at least has a bright and a dark face. Sansa has been repeatedly linked with the Mother archetype - and so far the Mother archetype in Westeros is mostly the bright face of the Moon. Cersei showed something of the darker aspect of the Terrible Mother in the lengths she goes to protect her children. Will Sansa one day exhibit that Terrible Mother archetype? I don't think she will embody it for any length of time but perhaps she'll have a moment where she bursts forth a-la the Incredible Hulk to protect Winterfell or her family. (If the "slaying a savage giant in a castle made of snow" refers to Sansa doing away with Petyr, perhaps the catalyst will be Petyr threatening Rickon and Sansa going Ferocious Mama Wolf on him.)

- Bran and Rickon and their relationship to Sansa: When Sansa is a prisoner/hostage at King's Landing, after her father dies and she's surrounded by enemies, she dreams of having children whom she will name for her family. She chooses Eddard, Bran and Rickon - but not Robb. I wonder if that means she is closer to Bran and Rickon than to Robb? Perhaps Robb, as heir, was much more in Eddard's orbit and hanging out with Theon doing boy things, which Sansa is not interested in. Or perhaps the name Robb reminds her too much of Robert Baratheon. Anyway, it's interesting that she wants to name her kids after two of her brothers but not all three.

[Devaki Khanna]

A couple more thoughts on crabs, Brandon and Rickon:

- Crabs shed their (hard, armored) shells in order to grow. Will Sansa have to shed her courtesy armor, at least in part, in order to grow as a person? I don't mean she will turn into someone loud and rude - that's just not Sansa - but let her guard down and be herself. I think that when (I'm convinced it's a "when") she and Sandor meet there is a lot of armoring to be shed between them.

- In astrology, Cancer is the sign of the Moon and the Great Mother archetype. In some religions, the Moon is a dual or triple female goddess (Maiden, Mother, Crone) or at least has a bright and a dark face. Sansa has been repeatedly linked with the Mother archetype - and so far the Mother archetype in Westeros is mostly the bright face of the Moon. Cersei showed something of the darker aspect of the Terrible Mother in the lengths she goes to protect her children. Will Sansa one day exhibit that Terrible Mother archetype? I don't think she will embody it for any length of time but perhaps she'll have a moment where she bursts forth a-la the Incredible Hulk to protect Winterfell or her family. (If the "slaying a savage giant in a castle made of snow" refers to Sansa doing away with Petyr, perhaps the catalyst will be Petyr threatening Rickon and Sansa going Ferocious Mama Wolf on him.)

- Bran and Rickon and their relationship to Sansa: When Sansa is a prisoner/hostage at King's Landing, after her father dies and she's surrounded by enemies, she dreams of having children whom she will name for her family. She chooses Eddard, Bran and Rickon - but not Robb. I wonder if that means she is closer to Bran and Rickon than to Robb? Perhaps Robb, as heir, was much more in Eddard's orbit and hanging out with Theon doing boy things, which Sansa is not interested in. Or perhaps the name Robb reminds her too much of Robert Baratheon. Anyway, it's interesting that she wants to name her kids after two of her brothers but not all three.

I think the reason why she wants to name her children after her father and two of her brothers (at this point--ASoS) is because Bran and Rickon are presumed dead. Robb is still in the field against the Lannisters and she hopes he will win.

[Daidalos]

well he has suffered enough imo :/

I wanted to claw out Dondarrion's eyes when he set his stupid sword on fire

fucking zombie

i have a lot of feelings ok

Sorry to be dragging up this slightly less than recent quote as a pretext for this post, but this touches on a topic I’ve been considering for some time: Justice in the world of a Song of Ice and Fire, both in general and how it applies to specific characters and their situations.

As is conveyed by the text, Dondarrion and his merry men were out for justice when they put Sandor through that rigmarole.

You will die soon enough, dog, […] but it shan’t be murder, only justice.

Much as they were convinced of Sandor’s guilt, they were still not motivated by mere vengeance; had they been, they wouldn’t have gone through the bother of the challenge, nor would they have let Sandor go after he prevailed. As far as they understood it, the Brotherhood without Banners was genuinely interested in seeing justice done. Of course, Sandor has a few words to say to them:

A knight’s a sword with a horse. The rest, the vows and the sacred oils and the lady’s favors, they’re silk ribbons tied round the sword. Maybe the sword’s prettier with ribbons hanging off it, but it will kill you just as dead. Well, bugger your ribbons, and shove your swords up your arses. I’m the same as you. The only difference is, I don’t lie about what I am. So, kill me, but don’t call me a murderer while you stand there telling each other that your shit don’t stink. You hear me?

This is not a protestation of innocence as much as a refusal to recognise their authority to deliver the sentence. So, Sandor would dispute that the Brotherhood serves any higher justice with their actions, but that they are serving up pretty rationalisations. And what does Sandor say when Mycah is brought up?

I was Joffrey’s sworn shield. The butcher’s boy attacked a prince of the blood.

[…]

I heard it from the royal lips. It’s not my place to question princes.

Here it would seem that Sandor acknowledges the monarchy’s absolute right to declare sentences, but of course, his actions throughout the series give the lie to these statements. Either Sandor doesn’t believe it, or he’s a hypocrite for fleeing the “justice” the iron throne would have for him. To be sure, over the course of these five books, the notion that justice flows from monarchs, rightful or otherwise, must have been invalidated a thousand times over.

This brings me to my general question, is there such a thing as “justice” in ASoIaF? Is there an arbiter, some insuperable authority to decide and adjudge matters of morality? Obviously, we can’t appeal to the monarch, nor to the nobility—whatever “justice” these institutions dispense is only incidental to their main purpose: securing their own power. There are exceptions where nobles strive to be just, but they can’t be considered normative; there is no functional mechanism in place that ensures that nobles rule over their subjects benevolently. In fact, the series abounds with examples of purported corrective mechanisms that have failed to keep power in check: the broken institutions of knighthood and the Faith, for instance. It seems to me that the only way to speak of justice is to invoke abstract concepts that hold regardless of the social situation—context independent absolute morality, approximating modern standards—but by such a metric, pretty much every character falls woefully short.

From this follows my more specific question: what does it mean to wish for justice for a particular character? Let’s consider Sansa, Littlefinger, and Sandor.

Would it mean justice for Sansa if the architect of her family’s demise (i.e. LF) was punished? An argument can be made that LF’s actions are contrary to Westerosi law and custom and therefore deserve punishment, which while true is highly unsatisfactory, because those laws and customs by themselves are in many ways unjust and perverse to our modern sensibilities. Were we to accept that argument, we would be obliged to call good all legally sanctioned cruelties and excesses that occur in the series. There would be no moral force behind Sandor’s outrage against his brother or knights in general, for example. Accordingly, LF must be condemned on grounds other than his anarchism and defiance of Westerosi norms.

By any modern standard of decency, LF is responsible for grave evils. However, his crimes against the Starks in general and Sansa in particular pale to insignificance next his other sins. His fomentation of chaos and civil war must carry greater moral weight than his betrayal of Ned Stark and the subsequent misfortunes that befell his family. So rather than wish for justice for Sansa, we should be wishing for justice for the masses of innocents fallen in a war of LF’s devising.

Now, to be consistent in our moral pronouncements, we must judge Sandor accordingly, and he would not survive unscathed. Sandor’s crimes are on a lesser scale than LF’s, but he is a murderer nonetheless (n.b. Mycah), and if we’re willing to grant that, how can we be outraged over his treatment at the hands of the Brotherhood without Banners? We the readers know that he is guilty of the crime, and there exists no legal recourse for the Brotherhood to rectify that injustice, but they muster a trial of sorts nonetheless, haphazard though it may have been. As for Dondarrion’s traumatizing tactics (i.e. the flaming sword), I doubt Sandor would shrink from capitalizing on similar weaknesses, had he been able to do so.

(Not to digress overmuch, but something to consider: in the absence of a fair legal system, is it more moral to seek to right wrongs on one’s own than it is to do nothing at all? Believe it or not, I’ve been faced with this dilemma, if at bit of a remove: anyone who has played a “Good” character in a roleplaying game knows what I’m talking about.)

We run into similar problems with respect to Sansa’s “right” to return to her home, Winterfell. The only way that she can be said to possess such a right is if we acknowledge the prevailing social order, where the nobles are granted lands by their monarch, or where ancient tradition elevates certain individuals above the masses that they rule.

Aside from appealing to societal norms or contemporary notions of right and wrong, there is always personal preference. We like Sansa, therefore we want her family avenged and the Starks restored in the North. We pity and sympathize with Sandor, therefore we forgive him of his sins. Justice is what we feel like it is. The moral implications are a secondary concern, if they are considered at all. This position requires little in the way of justification, but it’s pretty unconvincing if you want to persuade others of your point of view.

So, do you guys think that “justice” is a worthwhile concept to have in mind when we discuss ASoIaF? Do you have any thoughts regarding how Sansa’s situation lends itself to considerations of justice, and how do you ground it?

(The impetus for this post was my mounting frustration with the morality in this series, and how it was discussed on these boards. If good characters are in service to evil causes, then that casts doubt on all their endeavours, which would damn pretty much all characters, and I wonder if we shouldn’t be discussing the implications of this more. Anyway, I sincerely hope that this post is in line with the aims of this thread, seeing as it intersects a great deal with Sansa herself and the characters surrounding her.)

[brashcandy]

Daidalos, you've posed some really interesting questions and they're the kinds of considerations this thread appreciates. I'll be responding a bit later.

[childofsummer]

<snipped for space>

...

Aside from appealing to societal norms or contemporary notions of right and wrong, there is always personal preference. We like Sansa, therefore we want her family avenged and the Starks restored in the North. We pity and sympathize with Sandor, therefore we forgive him of his sins. Justice is what we feel like it is. The moral implications are a secondary concern, if they are considered at all. This position requires little in the way of justification, but it’s pretty unconvincing if you want to persuade others of your point of view.

So, do you guys think that “justice” is a worthwhile concept to have in mind when we discuss ASoIaF? Do you have any thoughts regarding how Sansa’s situation lends itself to considerations of justice, and how do you ground it?

(The impetus for this post was my mounting frustration with the morality in this series, and how it was discussed on these boards. If good characters are in service to evil causes, then that casts doubt on all their endeavours, which would damn pretty much all characters, and I wonder if we shouldn’t be discussing the implications of this more. Anyway, I sincerely hope that this post is in line with the aims of this thread, seeing as it intersects a great deal with Sansa herself and the characters surrounding her.)

If you go back to the Republic view of justice, Plato considers justice to occur when people work at the tasks they are suited to. (please forgive my very rough paraphrase, dredged from a long-ago reading.) So, rulers are supposed to create just laws, soldiers carry out those laws, and producers obey authority, and if they do these things properly, they have a well-ordered realm. This notion of justice is a bit different from the moral solutions we commonly consider justice - paying debts, helping friends, making people pay for crimes, and so forth. I found the comparison interesting, particularly when you consider the examples in your post.

You 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. 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. But "rough justice" and "mob rule," while possibly satisfying in the short term, haven't historically been sustainable or effective methods of producing safe, happy places to live.

It seems to me that Westeros would achieve justice/order only when the ruler is a person who is doing what s/he is supposed to do, by making just laws that support moral actions. *cough*Sansa*cough* That ruler will need support from soldiers (see: Vale and North) and producers (see: smallfolk, esp. ruling by love).

[Daidalos]

It seems to me that Westeros would achieve justice/order only when the ruler is a person who is doing what s/he is supposed to do, by making just laws that support moral actions. *cough*Sansa*cough* That ruler will need support from soldiers (see: Vale and North) and producers (see: smallfolk, esp. ruling by love).

The problem with this arrangement is that there is no mechanism in place to keep the ruler just. Let's suppose that a moral paragon ascends the throne, and that he or she rules with perfect wisdom and benevolence. Even granting that unlikely premise, what is there to ensure that that ruler's successor is anywhere near as good?

Regarding Sandor's killing of Mycah: I don't think it's illegal in the Westerosi sense, but that wasn't my point. My point was that he accepted the monarch's right to declare the sentence in that instance, thus absolving himself of responsibility, but he wasn't willing to submit himself to that same monarch's displeasure after his defection upon the Blackwater.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, by the way, I didn't mean to endorse mob justice, only to highlight the difficulty of meting out justice in an unjust land.

[childofsummer]

The problem with this arrangement is that there is no mechanism in place to keep the ruler just. Let's suppose that a moral paragon ascends the throne, and that he or she rules with perfect wisdom and benevolence. Even granting that unlikely premise, what is there to ensure that that ruler's successor is anywhere near as good?

Regarding Sandor's killing of Mycah: I don't think it's illegal in the Westerosi sense, but that wasn't my point. My point was that he accepted the monarch's right to declare the sentence in that instance, thus absolving himself of responsibility, but he wasn't willing to submit himself to that same monarch's displeasure after his defection upon the Blackwater.

True - it's clearly a flawed system, unless you go all Valdemar and have a supernatural test for rulerly virtue. I don't think the flaw is unique to Westeros, though. Any system that depends on one person's character and sanity is naturally at the mercy of individual variations. That being said, democracy in RL isn't all that much better - look at the political shenanigans in the US!

I think Sandor's actions are explainable by the fact that in the first case, he considered himself in service to the monarch, required to obey the monarch's orders, while in the latter, he considered himself a broken man - an outlaw, no longer bound to obey the law.