Judging ASOIAF people with modern morals

[Onna Lewyys]

It wasn't aimed at you, though I do happen to disagree with your opinion here. If people can't dislike characters because they judge their actions as creating harm, upon what banner may they claim to dislike them that does generate your approval? I think that a reader holding harmful actions against a character is a perfectly legitimate reason to decrease a reader's affection. Understanding characters and their actions does not always generate compassion, which readers are, what, supposed to have in unlimited supply? Sometimes understanding simply makes a reader hope the character will own up to those mistakes and try to repair the damage caused.

Well, I'm not saying there aren't characters who I dislike. But I reject the idea that everything a character does must necessarily be morally justifiable (whether by modern standards or medieval ones) in order for me to like them. Most of the "bad" characters aren't all bad, and the "good" characters aren't always good either. People shouldn't expect them to be.

[Stannis' shadow babies]

I don't bother much judging characters' morality under the view of my own morals. Some things are more natural or objetive, for example: killing is wrong, raping is wrong. But most of the times the farthest I get is trying to understand where the characters' decisions and choices come from, regardless I agree with them or not, and to value them as consistent and coherent (or not), nothing more. I tend to qualify actions as right or wrong, not good or bad. Same goes for people (of course psychopaths like Ramsay or Joffrey are out of this question), maybe that's the reason I don't invest much time in it. And probably because I'm also lazy. :stillsick:

[Andersson]

I realize that the conversation has strayed beyond this, but I noticed this remark and the others you have made similar to this.

AFAIK, in modern legal settings if a person is accused of a crime and pleads guilty, then no trial takes place and the case goes immediately to sentencing, correct? Are there any countries that force a person who has admitted guilt to still stand trial?

So in the case of Gared's execution, since the man presumably admitted guilt for the crime of desertion in the course of the questioning, how is it unfair of Ned, even by modern standards to forgo a trial and proceed with sentencing? It doesn't really seem that different to modern judicial standards to me. Of course I'm no legal scholar.

I think most democratic countries would still have some form of trial even if it might be faster. There would be judge/judges/jury a prosecutor and most likely a defense attorney. A person admitting a crime might not be enough evidence and than other evidence would be presented. There could also be the fact that the person admit to having done the action but for some reason e.g. self defense argues that it was not a crime. The wiki also describes the deserter as not being very stable.

Then of course there is still the issue of executing a person that has been in the Night Watch for 40 years for leaving them. An act that in my mind is very immoral. He should be allowed to change his mind.

So I would say its very different from how it would have worked in a democratic country in todays world.

[Summerqueen]

Well, I'm not saying there aren't characters who I dislike. But I reject the idea that everything a character does must necessarily be morally justifiable (whether by modern standards or medieval ones) in order for me to like them. Most of the "bad" characters aren't all bad, and the "good" characters aren't always good either. People shouldn't expect them to be.

Well, I'm certainly not telling you whom to either like or dislike. You'll make those calls for yourself. But you can't expect everyone else to like the same characters you like (or dislike them) for the reasons you do.

Some readers will judge characters just like they would real people in the real world (because they look for relatable meaning and connection to their own reality, and they think Martin might be trying to make points about our and his own cultural moment through comparisons and contrasts). And this means, just as in the real world, some readers will cherry pick a character's good deeds as an indicator of worth while others choose to examine the harmful actions in that regard. Still others will examine all the deeds and evaluate a character in sum.

Some readers will judge a character only on his entertainment value (as this is the reason those readers even read the books--to be entertained).

It's not for anyone else to judge the readers in the other camp, because we all have a right to read how we choose and for our own reasons. It's important to be clear about how you are reading, though, when posting on the forums.

[Stannis ftw]

Since when any of us understands medieval morality that well? We can certainly position characters in the cotext of era they are in, but we can judge them based on what we think morality represents. As you said, this series is written for modern audience. Unless some of the fans came from medieval age, I don't understand how anyone would ever dare to claim to understand the morality of the time. Basically, people are claiming these books are about morality they certainly know nothing about.

Never thought I would +1 Mladen but apparently there is time for everything.

People who posit that they apply medieval morals to different moral questions in ASOIAF almost always make it obvious that they actually know nothing or very little about medieval morals.

This topic can be studied like any historical or philosophical topic, so you dont exactly need to come from the middle ages to be able to get into it, but you need to work for it.

[Stannis ftw]

Agreed. He [Ned] was a good person, but according to our morals he would be scum.

According to my morals Ned was a good person.

[Mladen]

Never thought I would +1 Mladen but apparently there is time for everything.

People who posit that they apply medieval morals to different moral questions in ASOIAF almost always make it obvious that they actually know nothing or very little about medieval morals.

This topic can be studied like any historical or philosophical topic, so you dont exactly need to come from the middle ages to be able to get into it, but you need to work for it.

OK, what does first line mean? Sorry, but I don't understand it...

My point is that any philosophical, religious, or even psychological question raised by ASOIAF, can be seen through the eyes of beholder aka reader. And since readers live in modern time, it's normal to have some modern perspective on the events. Further more, I do understand the need to become acquianted with medieval history, but as an expert in many fields, Martin showed us that you would also need to be an expert in zoology, gastronomy, oenology, mythology, history of literature, heraldry and so on and on. And if we are not experts in all those scientific areas, why should we be experts in medieval history? Basically, you judge characters based on some universal moral code you have. And there's nothing modern nor medieval in that.

[Bridgeburners]

I find it strange that so many people here ascribe a static moral compass to a time period. As if time was the only factor that made morality relative. Morality is relative even in the same time period, varying from person to person. If we were reading a similar PoV-style book that took place in modern day, we would still be reading a volume rife with moral relativity. It's not like our modern era has a static set of rigid moral rules by which a person considered "morally good" would adhere completely. Morality is still a constant complex problem that we're perpetually moulding, re-evaluating, and interpreting. The only reason we have trials is because every situation is unique in its own way, and we don't entirely have a clear grasp on what was and wasn't justified. We happen to often take the law as our own standard, but we still all have our own variations that make our view of morality unique.

If you are reading a medieval based fantasy, there's really no other moral compass with which to judge people but your own. Nobody is going to fit your viewpoint completely, but some will overlap yours more than others. Otherwise, if you want to abandon your own moral compass, you might as well just pick one from the series and align your viewpoint with theirs. But that's silly, IMO. And in a world rife with war, where the lands and laws are so heavily divided, people's fundamental morality will probably vary much more heavily than in our world right now, so there really isn't anything close to a standard code of morals for that time period (although, like I already established, such a thing doesn't really ever exist in any time period).

But look, you have to remember. If you're comparing the behaviour of people in the medieval times to your own, you shouldn't be asking "how do they behave compared to me?" You should be asking "how do they behave compared to how I would in their situation?" And that question is often much tougher than we think. I know a lot of people like to boast about what they would do in certain situations, but I don't think anyone truly knows what they would do unless they were in it. But in essence, your moral values shouldn't just inform the way you do behave, but it should inform the way you would behave in any given situation. And often that's not well defined at all, so I don't think any of us truly grasp our own moral compass to its fullest extent.

[Stannis ftw]

OK, what does first line mean? Sorry, but I don't understand it...

My point is that any philosophical, religious, or even psychological question raised by ASOIAF, can be seen through the eyes of beholder aka reader. And since readers live in modern time, it's normal to have some modern perspective on the events. Further more, I do understand the need to become acquianted with medieval history, but as an expert in many fields, Martin showed us that you would also need to be an expert in zoology, gastronomy, oenology, mythology, history of literature, heraldry and so on and on. And if we are not experts in all those scientific areas, why should we be experts in medieval history? Basically, you judge characters based on some universal moral code you have. And there's nothing modern nor medieval in that.

+1 means supporting or agreeing to the previous statement. So I agree to your post.

[Queen Daenerys]

OK, what does first line mean? Sorry, but I don't understand it...

My point is that any philosophical, religious, or even psychological question raised by ASOIAF, can be seen through the eyes of beholder aka reader. And since readers live in modern time, it's normal to have some modern perspective on the events. Further more, I do understand the need to become acquianted with medieval history, but as an expert in many fields, Martin showed us that you would also need to be an expert in zoology, gastronomy, oenology, mythology, history of literature, heraldry and so on and on. And if we are not experts in all those scientific areas, why should we be experts in medieval history? Basically, you judge characters based on some universal moral code you have. And there's nothing modern nor medieval in that.

Not necessarily knowing a lot about medieval history, we're acquainted with Westerosi/Essossi morals and it affects the way we judge the characters. I think every reader is more or less influenced by both his personnal moral/ culture/religion/education, and Westerosi morals. Of course some readers will tend to take more into account their personnal believes, while others will try to conform with GRRM's world morals.

[Mladen]

+1 means supporting or agreeing to the previous statement. So I agree to your post.

I got that later, but I was writing a long PM :).Thanks, and also why would you think you could never agree with me?

Not necessarily knowing a lot about medieval history, we're acquainted with Westerosi/Essossi morals and it affects the way we judge the characters. I think every reader is more or less influenced by both his personnal moral/ culture/religion/education, and Westerosi morals. Of course some readers will tend to take more into account their personnal believes, while others will try to conform with GRRM's world morals.

But, there's also a bit of modern era incorporated in ASOIAF. There's a reason why its fictional land and not some historical epoch. Martin counts on us to think about his characters and to discuss them with our very own moral compass. Not modern, or medieval, but our very own POV.

[Lyanna Stark]

Never thought I would +1 Mladen but apparently there is time for everything.

People who posit that they apply medieval morals to different moral questions in ASOIAF almost always make it obvious that they actually know nothing or very little about medieval morals.

This topic can be studied like any historical or philosophical topic, so you dont exactly need to come from the middle ages to be able to get into it, but you need to work for it.

Well, maybe they TIME TRAVELLED LIKE A BOSS? Did you think of that? :P

Apart from that, yes, I agree, it is mightily confusing why now all and sundry are experts on medieval morality, yet nobody seems to be able to explain exactly which one, or which bits, or what have you. But at least we know it's medieval and completely objective as readers do not apply any of their own morals when reading, no sir!

But, there's also a bit of modern era incorporated in ASOIAF. There's a reason why its fictional land and not some historical epoch. Martin counts on us to think about his characters and to discuss them with our very own moral compass. Not modern, or medieval, but our very own POV.

Ah but Mladen, do you say that just because you, specifically, isn't an Expert at Medieval Morality? ;) Do better plx kthnx.

[rystine]

I think most democratic countries would still have some form of trial even if it might be faster. There would be judge/judges/jury a prosecutor and most likely a defense attorney. A person admitting a crime might not be enough evidence and than other evidence would be presented.

So you're saying that people still hold trials when the person has already plead guilty? As I said, I'm no legal scholar, but that just doesn't sound right. I'm fairly certain that (in the US at least), if the accused pleads guilty than the case goes straight to sentencing. In fact, from the one criminal justice class that I did take in college, I'm almost positive that we learned that the majority of cases never actually go to trial, but are instead settled before they even get in front of a judge and jury.

There is certainly a hearing(s) held before a judge, but I would be surprised if they go through the process of jury selection and presenting witnesses and evidence when the outcome is already known.

There could also be the fact that the person admit to having done the action but for some reason e.g. self defense argues that it was not a crime.

But in cases like that, the accused is not pleading guilty. Even if they admit to having done the action they are pleading innocent because of some extenuating circumstances.

But in the case of Gared, there were no extenuating circumstances. He deserted plain and simple, and presumably admitted as much to Ned.

The wiki also describes the deserter as not being very stable.

True enough. But the fact that a defendant is somewhat unstable/scared does not seem like reason enough, in and of itself, to postpone trial/sentencing.

Then of course there is still the issue of executing a person that has been in the Night Watch for 40 years for leaving them. An act that in my mind is very immoral. He should be allowed to change his mind.

That's a different discussion that has nothing to do with Ned standing in judgement over Gared for his desertion.

Even if one concedes that a person should not be held to an oath or contract for the duration of their life, a person can't (or at least shouldn't) be allowed to simply "quit" one day without informing others of their decision and going through the proper channels to ensure that their resignation is acknowledged and legally acceptable. This holds especially true in a military organization.

In modern times, there are legally binding contracts to ensure this soldiers dont desert, and stay in service until they are legally released. But in "olden days", they only had a persons vows.

Now if a person, like Gared, had sworn vows to serve the NW (or any military organization) and then 40 years later decided they wanted to retire and be released from their vows, I would support that idea. BUT he shouldn't be able to do so simply by running away. He should have to do something along the lines of at least notifying the LC, and giving the NW a notice.

Simply abandoning his post without telling anyone is desertion, whether he had been on the wall for 40 years or 40 days.

So I would say its very different from how it would have worked in a democratic country in todays world.

I don't think it is that different.

For example, I served in the military. And I know for a fact that if a soldier/sailor/airman/Marine is brought up on charges for a crime, in most cases, they are immediately brought in front of their commanding officer. And if they plead guilty to those charges, then they are found guilty and sentenced right then and there.

I witnessed several such trials in my time in, and not one time that a defendant plead guilty did the trial and sentencing last more than five minutes.

[Lyanna Stark]

Not necessarily knowing a lot about medieval history, we're acquainted with Westerosi/Essossi morals and it affects the way we judge the characters. I think every reader is more or less influenced by both his personnal moral/ culture/religion/education, and Westerosi morals. Of course some readers will tend to take more into account their personnal believes, while others will try to conform with GRRM's world morals.

You know, I'm really interested. After some, oh 12-13 years on this forum, what are GRRM's world morals? Lots of people are talking about them, but I really don't know if I have got it down pat. Is it the morals of Tywin Lannister? "There is a tool for every task and a task for every tool" and with that he means even men like Gregor Clegane. He was after all a powerful man. Or Ned Stark? The man who passes the sentence swings the sword?

Or perhaps the morals of Petyr Baelish? "Clean hands Sansa, always clean hands". Or Vary's "For the children"? Or perhaps Dany's crucifying over a hundred slavers in a fit of "Fire and Blood"?

All are from Westeros (well Dany is, but only on a technicality) so whose morals are the "real" morals of GRRM? And which are the general morals of Westeros/Essos? After all, they differ, especially in that in Essos, slavery is accepted, while it is outlawed in Westeros. Hence the morality must also be very different, no? But they are both medieval, yes?

[Mladen]

Ah but Mladen, do you say that just because you, specifically, isn't an Expert at Medieval Morality? ;) Do better plx kthnx.

I am not expert in any morality, my dear friend :)

[E-Ro]

You know, I'm really interested. After some, oh 12-13 years on this forum, what are GRRM's world morals? Lots of people are talking about them, but I really don't know if I have got it down pat. Is it the morals of Tywin Lannister? "There is a tool for every task and a task for every tool" and with that he means even men like Gregor Clegane. He was after all a powerful man. Or Ned Stark? The man who passes the sentence swings the sword?

Or perhaps the morals of Petyr Baelish? "Clean hands Sansa, always clean hands". Or Vary's "For the children"? Or perhaps Dany's crucifying over a hundred slavers in a fit of "Fire and Blood"?

All are from Westeros (well Dany is, but only on a technicality) so whose morals are the "real" morals of GRRM? And which are the general morals of Westeros/Essos? After all, they differ, especially in that in Essos, slavery is accepted, while it is outlawed in Westeros. Hence the morality must also be very different, no? But they are both medieval, yes?

I agree. This is another point in favor of judging things as we see them. The morality is different for all the characters. As it should be for the readers.

I assure you your position sounds as absurd to me as mine does to you. Basically I don't think that what Stannis is doing can be described as saving millions of people, even if that is how he conceives of it.

How do you figure that though? If the others pass the wall millions will die. That is a fact, he is trying to prevent that, trying to save the realm. He CONSIDERED burning his nephew for the cause it was by no means an easy choice, and in the end he didn't do it.

[Lyanna Stark]

I agree. This is another point in favor of judging things as we see them. The morality is different for all the characters. As it should be for the readers.

Oh hi E-Ro, you are alive! :) Long time no see. Didn't recognise you with that avatar.

[Queen Daenerys]

Lyanna Stark, you're right I should have used the words culture and law instead of moral. Ned executing the deserter seems acceptable if we take into account the Westerosi law, but might seem completely unfair to some readers. I personnaly think we can read it with both our point of view and what we know to be acceptable by the Westerosi law or culture. That's what I meant.

[E-Ro]

Oh hi E-Ro, you are alive! :) Long time no see. Didn't recognise you with that avatar.

hahaha, yeah, i took this pic of myself upon getting some very good news, to capture the moment. The stag will be returning soon enough.

To keep this on topic, i agree with pretty much everything you have said in this thread, i think you have been making great points.

[Leif]

I judge the characters using common sense and opinion.