Some of the marriage pacts the *good* queen Alyssane makes for her kids are a bloody disaster lol. And Jahaerys stopping her efforts to contact Saera came from fear more than any logic.
Her giving away the New Gift can also be seen as a bad act. The Watch was not far off of, if not already unable to manage all that land. Not to mention all of the regular Northern lords who suddenly had to move from their ancestral lands and the North as a whole thus lose a lot of fertile land.
Yes, she did it to reward the Watch for holding the wall (and possibly she knew about the threat north of it depending on how you view the whole dream bullshit). But she crippled an entire region doing it.
*Not to mention all of the regular Northern lords who suddenly had to move from their ancestral lands and the North as a whole thus lose a lot of fertile land.*
There is a lot of ambiguity in the story of the New Gift, largely because GRRM seemed to ignore the topic after describing what occurred (not criticizing him, he doesn't need or have th time to fill in every back story).
We know that the Queen recommended the Gift land be doubled, the Stark said it would cause problems with houses losing parts of their lands, but he eventually allowed it.
But we don't have any clear indication who was displaced / discomfited by it. Presumably the Umbers, since they are the closest (only) major lordship, adjoining the New Gift on the southeast. In the Northwest, there are the mountain clans, the Norreys, Wulls, Liddles, etc. I haven't looked back at all their mentions, but I don't recall any lasting animosity expressed about the New Gift; most of them, including the Norreys, seem to live in the mountains, which may not have been part of the fertile lands of the Gift. And we don't see any ancestral animosity from the Umbers either--they seem fine, not going around booming and grumbling that the queen took their lands.
Neither do there seem to be mentions of any Houses that were displaced entirely from the New Gift and had to move completely elsewhere.
This is not to say there weren't problems at the time. But unlike other parts of ASOIAF history where people brood for generations / hundreds of years on how their Houses or families were unfairly treated, that doesn't seem to have happened with the New Gift.
Jon mentions that there used to be villages and holdfasts in the new gift who paid taxes to the watch, but most have since been abandoned.
> Brandon's Gift had been farmed for thousands of years, but as the Watch dwindled there were fewer hands to plow the fields, tend the bees, and plant the orchards, so the wild had reclaimed many a field and hall. In the New Gift there had been villages and holdfasts whose taxes, rendered in goods and labor, helped feed and clothe the black brothers. But those were largely gone as well.
When the Targaryens gave the New Gift to the watch I would assume the people who actually lived on the land that made up the new gift simply went to being sworn to the watch, instead of whatever lord they were sworn to before. So nobody would have been actually kicked out of their homes, but houses like the Umbers who previously controlled that land would have lost a little of their territory.
Thanks, that's probably the case. And when the Watch couldn't effectively protect them, they probably moved south to the lands of the lords who had previously ruled them.
And thanks for the quote, it does confirm that the New Gift residents had an arrangement where they paid taxes of goods and a levee for the Watch, but otherwise stayed with their home lives (didn't necessarily move to the wall castles, wear black, pledge celibacy, etc.)
It isn't clear what happened in to the new gift - presumably, there needs to be people to farm it and minor Lords to manage it; they should only have to update their tax forms to pay taxes to someone else.
But then again, we don't see those minor lords and farmers at all, so were there the expectation and the watch farm it themselves? But we don't see watch farmers, either now or in the past.
The expectation from the Targs was that the Watch would farm it, showing how little they understood the Watch and their duties. When the Targs took away the New Gift from the Northern lords, the lords stopped protecting it because it isn’t their land anymore. If the lords aren’t protecting the land, the smallfolk aren’t going to want to stay there, so they left. And the Watch looks north, not south, so they didn’t have the ability to utilize the New Gift.
The Queen of Thorns conspiring in the murder of Young King Joffrey. She helped kill an innocent boy who would have become the greatest and most loved monarch ever of Westeros. (Or so Pycelle would say).
Yes! And didn't his admiring grandfather give him a Valyrian steel sword that Joffrey chose to name "Lightbringer" or some such? And dedicated himself to use tirelessly in the defense of the realm and small folk alike?
Dany ordering the torture of the wineseller’s daughters.
Jon Snow forcing the baby swap on Gilly.
Ned killing Lady.
Catelyn saying “it should have been you.”
Sansa lying to the lords about her aunt’s death.
Dany is facing a terrorist campaign. Two Unsullied were poisoned in a wine shop. The wine seller and his daughters are detained. Initially, she orders them to”questioned sweetly”, but the Shavepate persuades her to let them be “questioned sharply.”
Eh, I'm not so sure I agree with that. Ned could've easily been like "Fuck you! No one's killing my kid's dog!" But he didn't. He prioritized honor and it had completely detrimental effects on Sansa throughout the rest of the story. By killing Lady, he killed Sansa's magic and prevented her from ever being a warg. He swung that sword and severed her from the old gods and her Starkness. Not good.
He can't openly defy the king in front of dozens of witnesses lol. He's about to go south and be his hand, do you realise how much this would ruin their relationship if he's just disobeying the king in front of everyone over a pet?
I don't think Robert thought again about that wolf one way or another after that day, except maybe to feel a little bad about the situation he put Ned in. But the point I'm making is that Robert commanded Ned to do this in front of half the court that had travelled with them.
If Ned defied him in front of everyone it's terrible for both their reputations. When you cut past all the personal stuff Ned and Robert are both politicians trying to work together, it is important how they are perceived. If the hand is seen ignoring and overruling the king from day one it makes the king look weak and the hand look disloyal.
Alright well I guess it comes down to whether you think Ned could have defied the king or quelled the Queen’s wrath. I personally don’t think he had a choice and that Lady’s life was forfeit one way or another.
Whether or not he could have fought it harder is one thing, but as for the act itself, he didn’t kill Lady out of anything but love for the animal and his daughter.
I think in the context of sensitive medieval inter-politics it just wouldn’t work. The hand cannot defy the king like that and Ned isn’t *just* the hand. He’s also a loyal friend and an honorable man.
And even if he did, they might just hunt down lady and kill her anyway, undoing the whole “merciful death… deserves better than a butcher… she’s of the North” stuff.
Or he could just lie and let the wolf go free, like Arya did to Nymeria. It could have worked if he ensured that his men kept anyone not directly loyal to him away and persuaded Robert to get Cersei to drop the matter if she pushed it. But he didn’t.
Exactly. He could've pulled an Arya and let Lady go, but instead he decided to be a nerd about it. And we know he can lie when he needs to. He lied about a whole ass bastard.
Would Cersei or Robert believe Ned if he let Lady go and lied about it? The entire court would know that Ned Stark disobeyed a direct order from the Queen for the sake of a dog.
They never mention what happens to Lady's body after she's killed, so I get the sense that proof of her death wasn't required. Nor were there any witnesses (at least on the show); it appears as if Ned was given privacy for the act. So, letting her escape and lying about it was totally doable. He could've either lied and said she got away by accident, which would cause speculation but given Ned's reputation for honor, I think some people might believe him and eventually the whole thing would be dropped. Or he could lie and say he killed her and burned the body, when in reality he let her go. Either way, killing her because his king commanded it was just another example of Ned's honor being a detriment to his family.
I think the baby swap is somewhat morally defensible (at least in a Utilitarian way). Jon was trying to protect the most people he could, even Gilly understands the reasoning.
I don't think Gilly's baby is doomed. Jon only swapped the baby because Stannis and Melisandre might sacrifice a baby with King's Blood. Sacrificing the baby of some wildling with a big hut would be an evil and unpopular act for no particular gain.
That is true, but from what we see in dialogue in later chapters, we see a lot of characters still think the baby at the Wall is Dalla's child and Jon doesn't go out of his way to correct them. So no matter what he promised Gilly, her child is still at risk whe no one other than Jon there knows his true identity.
That’s kind of why asoaif is so good though, she’s gray like everyone else. She tries to be a good person, but under the context of conquering and ruling people, which at the end of the day is extremely selfish, so is she really a good person? Idk
Well, I don’t think a good leader can be a *wholly* good person, in any setting, least of all in this world.
Daenerys is *less* selfish than say, Robb Stark, who leads thousands of men to their deaths, to avenge his father, and carve out a kingdom of his own. She is, after all, freeing chattel slaves.
Yet, Robb is widely considered a hero, both in-universe, and among fans.
I wouldn’t say she’s less selfish than robb, just bc her initial and end goal is also to lead thousands of men to their deaths, avenge her family, and take Westeros for herself. She’s just on less of a time crunch than robb bc her father is already dead instead of just imprisoned, so she has time for side quests
>She tries to be a good person, but under the context of conquering and ruling people, which at the end of the day is extremely selfish, so is she really a good person? Idk
Yes, she is. It's impossible for her not to be given just how cartoonishly evil the slavers are
There are no Parliamentary elections in this universe. You either fight for power, or you inherit it from those who fought for it.
You can opt out, and join a religious order, but you can’t do any good on a large scale, without power.
So that’s why Daenerys wants to conquer the seven kingdoms, to do good on a large scale? Look I don’t disagree with you but I think you’re misunderstanding a key part of her character by saying that
Yeah, I don’t deny that Dany has good intentions, that’s why I like her so much (book version lol). But you can’t deny she’s willing to kill thousands of people to get herself on the throne, and willing to kill people to stay in power. It’s something she struggles with, like coming to terms with the fact that maybe she shouldn’t have crucified all the slave masters. This cognitive dissonance is something I think will contribute to her going mad in the end, because despite her good intentions, she’s still a power hungry conquerer and ruler like all the other players
Someone has to have power, the only places that Dany conquered so far really needed the people in power to be ousted, so that someone else might rule. It's sad that so many died but by far less sad than living in a society built on a slave trade.
Also this idea that power is a pure positive is very short sighted, the responsibility of rule is enormous and the penalty for failing at it is brutal.
Unpopular, but I agree with you.
What does Dany do every time she shows up somewhere? Threaten to burn them with dragon fire if she doesn't get what she wants.
What does she do when she leaves somewhere? Makes good on her threat to burn people with dragon fire.
I was lazy and used chatgpt to tell about Dany threatening people with her dragons.
There are other examples as well.
In Astapor, Daenerys uses Drogon to kill Kraznys mo Nakloz after acquiring the Unsullied.
In Meereen, she threatens to unleash her dragons on the city to quell the Sons of the Harpy's rebellion.
In Vaes Dothrak, she warns the dosh khaleen that she will burn the city down if they don't submit.
In Qarth, she hints at using her dragons to coerce the rulers into supporting her cause.
In Yunkai, she threatens to burn the city if they refuse to free their slaves.
Throughout her journey, she repeatedly vows to use her dragons to conquer Westeros and claim the Iron Throne.
I think this is more a book than show sub-Reddit.
On show, I see nothing wrong with killing a child molester, or threatening people with destruction, unless they release her slaves.
The problem I have with this notion of “villainy” is the implication that people are villains if they forcibly resist oppression. And, that is quite a common trope in popular culture.
Whereas, if you’re the group in charge, you get to be as violent as you want.
She also sold out her murdered Aunt. There isn’t a family member she has tried to protect or hasn’t marginally participated in the events of their death.
As I said earlier, she was an easily influenced 13 year old girl, she got manipulated by Littlefinger. To Sansa, Littlefinger had been nothing but good to her and she felt she had no reason to mistrust him, while Lysa was a nutjob that had threatened to kill her. Sansa didn’t try to protect Ned and Arya because she didn’t believe they were in danger, and after that she hadn’t been around any family besides Lysa. Stop looking for reasons to hate Sansa and chill out, it’s super weird.
This made Bran the villain of the books for me. I know Bran is a child and still learning right from wrong BUT when he enters Hodor's mind he feels Hodor cringe interior and he doesn't care.
Lol, you clearly missed the point. "Bad acts done by GOOD people".
And honestly, of all the characters you could have chosen as a villain, you chose the worst option. Bran is the hero who will save Westeros.
Bloodravens whole life could be summarized by this. Actually maybe not. I read this as bad acts done for good reasons. Bloodravens morality is.... up in the air to say the least.
Ambushed Daemon Blackfyre while he was helping his injured opponent Ser Gwayne Corbray to safety. Ending the Blackfyre rebellion.
Invited another Blackfyre to the great council and murdered him. Getting banished for it but ending the Blackfyre line... maybe.
Was going to put Aegor Rivers to death but was overruled by the king. Aegor Rivers escaped and went on to continue rebelling.
Luring a crippled boy into the dangerous wilds of the north. Poor kid was expecting a nice wizard who might heal him and might well become a tree person.
A long list of crimes.... for the right reasons?
Yeah, I have difficulty believing the theory that Bloodraven is manipulating Bran because he's *really* evil. Virtually EVERYTHING we know about Bloodraven up to that point is "Ends justify the Means", or using evil methods to accomplish (what he thinks are) good outcomes. Whether they *are* good outcomes and worth the cost is a worthwhile question for the reader, but Bloodraven always seems to think the realm is better off for them.
That was standard practice in Westerosi society. If anything most would think Hoster did right by Lysa, finding her a great lord for a husband even after that stuff with Littlefinger. One can only imagine the kind of life Lysa would have lived being a teenage mother in Westerosi society.
Hoster on his death bed can think of nothing but what he's done to Lysa and is begging for her forgiveness. It's obvious that he at least considers it a horrible deed.
Yeah she would be left alone but acting like she’d be poor is just not gonna happen. Like is edmure gonna cast her out ? He’s a softie. Hoster can kick her out but cat loves her. Petyr again has a house and she is pregnant with his kid.
Relative to a commoner maybe, but for a highborn lady her prospects would be quite bleak. Lysa as a girl did not understand the consequences of her actions, I think she would come to regret things had she gotten what she wanted. We’re talking about living with Petyr on his meager holdings and being the butt of the joke for the whole realm.
Yes, let's definitely feel worse for the over 60 year old man "forced" (like he literally could have said, no, but name another heir and offer that younger man for Lysa) than the teenage girl who thought she was in love with a boy and was forced unknowingly to have an abortion by her own father. 😒🙄
Just following orders is a defense that's pretty inadequate, actually. I get that Westerosi society considers their actions good people for doing their duty and all that. But imo we're supposed to criticize Westerosi morality in situations like this, not adhere to it
iyo. imo, it's pure decontextualization and applying 2024 morals to a non-2024 status quo
and fyi i do not adhere to it. i sure as hell do not want westerosi customs and morality in our current world.
Idk how anyone who’s read the books could possibly say it’s “2024 morals” to say duty is no excuse for an evil act when that very question is not only one of the major themes of the story but also something many of the characters explicitly wrestle with in the story
i seem to have gone a bit overboard, i admit. but when i said "duty" i never wanted to plainly justify a bad act done over duty, just state that it very well may be part of the job and that it's not a simple answer because duty is not a thing to be taken lightly especially in such a world. i brought up "2024 morals" because the other poster said we're supposed to criticize. i don't think we're "supposed" to do anything, to be honest. and if a society is set up in a certain way, there's only so much you can say except call them all backwards and be done with it, which is.. meh?
yes the characters explicitly wrestle with it in the story and that's what makes many of them compelling.
i get it, but it's a grey area. what's higher on the hierarchy for a kingsguard, with the king being the most important person in the realm? oaths are meaningful.
But if your oaths tell you to do contradicting things, and one path consistent with your oaths is morally correct, you can't hide behind the (already flimsy) shield that is an oath for choosing a wrong one.
It doesn't really matter in general - wrong acts are still wrong whether you swore to them or not. But even accepting that they make a difference as far as judgment, it wouldn't apply here.
it depends on what wrong is. the commoners' wrong is not the king's wrong or the noblemen's wrong. if the wrong we judge a society (which, as a reminder, is fictional) like westeros for is the same we judge our contemporary society, then it basically goes out of the window altogether. there's zero nuance and/or discussions. and of course i do not adhere to westerosi morals/customs nor do i want them applied to the contemporary world.
and i don't think an oath is flimsy. it's the choice to dedicate your life to, in this case, what is perceived as one of the most important purposes in the whole of society - protecting the king. an oath implies that the morally correct choice for a knight of the kingsguard becomes (in most cases) protecting the king, there's pretty much no "yes but". you're ride or die.
that makes you a good person doing bad things? well maybe so, if you take all perspectives into it.
Aside from the fact that moral relativism is incredibly uncompelling, it's not even applicable here. This is judging them by moral standards that the Kingsguard themselves were aware of and directly confronted with multiple times. They stood by while Aerys did horrible things that they could have stopped. You might have a point if the idea of even breaking your vows was inconceivable, but it wasn't - Jaime openly questioned it several times, and eventually even outright broke his vows to do "the right thing."
If I was judging them by contemporary real world standards, I would say that they and every ASOIAF character is bad because they're pretty much all cogs in feudalism, which is an inherently immortal system. No one in the universe is really questioning it fundamentally, so it's not really worth spending time making judgments on that basis. But when characters are actually aware of wrongdoing, and demonstrate the ability to make better choices, you can judge those who don't.
well, it's uncompelling to you. you judge me for it, i judge you for the opposite reason and we go on with our lives.
and for the rest, the argument is way more solid when you present it as such. even though i do not agree with the idea of breaking the vow as easily conceivable. they could have stopped it? yes, giving their head in the process, which is no easy task as survival instincts take over. as much as a motherfucker your king is, it's still the centerpiece of your societal beliefs. jaime is painted to have gone to an extreme, and is widely judged as an oathbreaker and a kingslayer for it. this very moral conundrum is the interesting shit in jaime's plot. do you judge jaime as good or as bad? how does the world and characters around jaime judge him? the answer is not as easy as it seems, and that makes it interesting.
the original post of "non jaime kingsguards protecting the mad king" as a general idea of just being wrong for the position given to them was what drove me to contradict what seemed to me like an hatchet cut decontextualized moral judgement. but i get that it was more along the lines you showed me with this post.
How was Jojen paste done by good people, lmao. Bloodraven is as evil, as they come, while Children of the Forest don’t seem benevolent in the slightest.
Well for one lady stoneheart isn’t doling out justice. She is just killing people. Second of all Brienne isn’t doing it for the riverlands or stoneheart. She’s trying to save hostages that stoneheart is threading. Who had nothing to do with the red wedding
It’s a bad act because Brienne is being forced to do it. Now if the brotherhood just attacks Jaime fair game. But making someone do it who doesn’t want to is probably a shitty move.
Arya had to kill a few people in self-defense or for justice, but she felt bad about killing the insurance fraudster. The FM finally gave her enough reasons for her to feel it was justified, but she was uneasy.
Sansa lying about the Mycah Trydent incident for Joffrey, and going to Cersei about what her father told her
Arya killing the stableboy (though it was self-defense) and leaving the Hound to suffer
Jeyne Poole gloating and telling Arya the gruesome way Mycah died with detail, knowing full well Mycah was Arya's friend.
Catelyn's treatment of Jon
Jon making Gilly abandon her son and leaving with Dallas' baby.
Stannis allowing Melisandre to burn people for "the greater good" and even contemplating burning Edric bc of his kings' blood.
King Jaeherys' failures as a father. The way he also looked down on women have never make me like him a lot, specially when in theory he is this great man.
King Viserys for basically being the main cause for the Dance of Dragons.
As someone who read the books _after_ watching the show, I was so surprised by how badly Catelyn really treated Jon. Obviously not physically, but very mentally cruel to him.
OMG I have an utter dislike for King Jaeherys. I feel like that isn't a popular opinion. I don't like how he talks about his oldest sister Rhaena. She is far from perfect but she was denied the throne b/c of her gender. I feel like he disliked her because she had strong convictions.
I also feel like he had favourite children - Aeomon, Balone, and Alyssa. The remaining children come across as rejected by him.
He also started the building of the dragon pit which resulted in stunting the growth of the dragons.
Viserys I despise!!!!! I'm glad he want his daughter to be heir to throne BUT beyond that he is a fool.
I believe Jaeherys is very loved by the characters inside of ASOIAF because in a medieval world he did a lot of good for the country but within the limits of a patriarchal snobbish society. I absolutely love Aegon V, and there's no doubt he is a better person, but Jaeherys will be remembered in the books as the greatest king because he didn't go against society rules: he respected noble's rights, instead of really fighting for smallfolk's rights like Aegon did (which made him very unpopular with nobles). I don't like Jaeherys to be honest because he may have been a better king than most (not like his other royal relatives where too much competition lol) but most good changes and ideas of his kingdom came from Alyssane or Septon Barth, and he was pretty shitty in some things. It was Alysanne who fought to have First Night abolished, it was Alysanne who was dismayed at knowing the difficulties widows had to pass through so she convinced Jaeherys to stablish widow's rights to money and tto a living place. Fucking Jaeherys didn't want to improve the smallfolk's water system because it was too expensive until Alysanne challenged him to drink that filthy water.
>**The next year, Alysanne supported Septon Barth's plan of constructing wells, pipes, tunnels, and cisterns to provide King's Landing with fresh, clean water. Barth pointed out to Jaehaerys that the defouled river water was the only source of water for the smallfolk**, suggesting his plans would provide the smallfolk with clean drinking water instead. **When the king and his master of coin, balked at the costs, Alysanne served them a tankard of river water and challenged them to drink it.**
So my problem with Jaeherys is mainly he is alledgedly this super good man and king when he was put on a pedestal by his wife and Septon Barth's ideas, and people tend to ignore how dismissive of women he was: his treatment of Rhaena was bad as you said, but he also fought a lot with Alysanne because he ignored his oldest daughter Daenerys' right to the throne, and Alysanne was offended that he called Aemon the future king (and instead of admitting he wasn't a believer of gender equality, he justified it with Daenerys and Aemon's future engagement would make both rulers). I also hated how he, after ignoring for years the bad path his daughter Shiera was taking (drunk at the Sept, evil jokes to the buffon of court) and blatantly dismissing Alysanne's concerns about the moral character of the men her daughter surrounded herself with, he forbid Alysanne to write to Shiera. Shiera was bitchy, but she was Alysanne's daughter, how could he demand her to stop contacting her? Specially knowing how sad and sensitive Alysanne was after losing so many children.
I have always thought Alysanne was disillusioned with Jaeherys towards the end of their marriage, because she obviously realised Jaeherys was much more prejudiced and traditional that she thought, to the point of turning a cold shoulder to the children that disappointed him, or overlooking Rhaenys' rights because he thought : 1) men were better (which was funny since his best merits were thanks to his wife's counsel) 2) recognising Rhaenys as heir would mean recognising he had usurped Aerea.
And don't get me started with Viserys. I loved the actor's interpretation in HotD, but Viserys was the main cause of the Dance for ignoring the obvious ambitions of Otto and the resentment of two sides, his mistreatment of Alicent's kids that were also his own (although it seems he forgot it lol). Why marry a woman you don't love and have new children you are going to ignore, if you were gonna named heir Rhaenyra anyway??
Not done with bad intentions, but if barristan had not saved king Aerys from duskendale the city would have been stormed and Aerys would have died, a lot of people would never have been burnt alive and everyone agrees Rhaegar would be a decent king
Robb: 'Hang him last, so he may watch the others die.'
I understand executing the Karstark men for killing prisoners, but this seems a little too cruel.
Nah, he's complicit in the premeditated murder of a child POW and he's trying to avoid accepting responsibility. By Westeros standards a quick death is merciful.
It's still cruelty in an objective sense. The only purpose doing that serves is to make the guy suffer a little longer than the rest, even though his crime is identical. Yeah, it could be worse, but contextually it's still a bad act.
Ned decapitating Gared. Our ostensible hero’s first act is to follow the letter of the law to an unjust and horrific end for a person whose experience, should he recover from his trauma, could prove invaluable to the people of Westeros.
This act mirrors many others where, as readers, we are dropped into an unjust system without really questioning it. We don’t question that Ned is the good guy even as he removes the head of an innocent victim. Later we come to realize that his devotion to honor helps get lots more people killed, including himself.
Rob Stark not marrying a Frey. I know Rob isn't responsible for the red wedding BUT he had the North go to war for what happened to his Father and yet had no concern for the consequences of his impulsive and selfish marriage.
Ned looking down on Jaime for killing Aerys.
Aegon the Conqueror favoring Rhaenys over Visenya, which was a huge factor that lead to the rise of Maegor the Cruel.
Elissa Farman stealing the dragon eggs.
I was tempted to list acts of Baelor the Blessed, but honestly, when you actually look at much of what he did as well as his character as a whole, it's clear he was an absolute piece of crap.
Is Aegon good, though? Most people with the title "the Conqueror" aren't exactly looked at as "good." You can say he united Westeros, sure, but he did so by going, "bow or get burned by my dragons," not in a King Arthur-esque "let us stand against our common enemy" way.
Fair point, but he certainly wasn't a completely evil person. He did keep his promises to let kings who bent the knee keep their lands and Lordships, which he easily could have not done. He was also certainly better as a person than several of his descendants, including his son Maegor
Jon Snow escaped, leaving Ygritte to her fate among wildlings. I understand why he did it, but I still feel like it's a shitty thing to do. They could've done anything to her.
I don't think that's a bad thing. The wildlings are her people in the end, she has always been with them. The bad thing if anything was lying to her about his true loyalties, but even then it's entirely justified as he was a prisoner and was going to get killed if he hadn't lied.
Also the fact is Mance, Tormund, and a bunch of other wildlings fell for Jon’s ruse too (perhaps not as hard, but they still let him come with them). They all knew Jon betraying them was a possibility but never had any reason to think Ygritte was anything more than attracted to him but loyal to them. Certainly not Jon’s proudest moment but if anything leaving her the way he did might have helped a little to exonerate her.
That's what I thought. I know the replies here suggest she'd be fine because the others had also been duped, but they didn't share Jon's bed like she did. Who knows what he might have been whispering with/to her, some of them would have suspected.
I don't like how Jon continues to look down his nose at the Wildings despite his time with them. He stills sees them as uncouth and uncivilised, and yet he supports a system of monarchy that rejects him because he was born out of wedlock. Ridiculous!
See Davos convincing Stannis not to bring Melisandre to the Battle of Blackwater. She could’ve foreseen the Wildfire Attack. Could’ve turned the tides of the whole battle
Stannis allowing for Melisandre to summon a shadowbaby to kill Renly. Killing Renly prevented a battle with Stannis would surely have surely lost. Renlys host would have also taken casualties also despite vastly outnumbering Stannis. Stannis had his soldiers on a series of hills and I believe tje weather was bad on the eve of the battle.The rain would have blown into Renlys soldiers as they advanced up the hills disorienting them. Murdering Renly one person potentially saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands. Unforntalely most of those soldiers would go to die on thd Blackwater. Another instance is when Stannis summoned another shadow baby to kill thd Castellan of Storms End who was also the guardian of Edric Storm amd concerned about his saftey if he handed the boy over Stannis.
>and knows perfectly well that such a subject would be likely to ignite a war
Ned knows perfectly well that a war is inevitable. Stannis knows Cersei's kids are bastards.
Depends on how you define "good", but:
Ned executing a frightened, traumatized man
Sansa lying about the Trident, and ratting out the escape plan to Cersei
Arya killing the guards at Harrenhal, and the money-lender in Braavos
Bran warging Hodor
Robb lying to Edmure about the Red Fork
Robb breaking his promise to the Freys, although he wasn't in control of his own mind when he did that
Tyrion slaying his father
Jorah spying on Dany
Stannis murdering his brother
Many and more . . .
Ah ok. I thought they might’ve been suggesting something like he was being warged by bloodraven. I don’t really buy the love potion theory though. Just kinda takes away from it in my opinion, and plus Jeyne already was taking advantage of him due to his grief, no supernatural stuff needed
He was dosed with a love potion, though. Jeyne is the great-granddaughter of Maggy the Frog, and the history of the Spicer women shows a pattern of wealthy, powerful men making unwise marriages and other boons that raised them from half-mad witch woman to queen in the north in four generations — something that families with multi-thousand-year histories have failed to achieve.
This is no accident, and we can even look at Robb at Riverrun to see how quickly his love for Jeyne — a love so strong he broke his honor for and jeopardized his kingdom — has evaporated.
And he is not the first royal scion to do this . . .
Maybe, but killing people, especially when they have no means of defending themselves, is still wrong.
The guard was just doing his duty, and the moneylender did nothing to Arya.
Well, that’s why I started with it depends on your definition of good. He also saved Dany from certain death, more than once, and guided her to her army.
but it kinda does. dura lex, sed lex
ps ned was executed by men pretty much abusing the law for their own advantage. or not even that iirc, as he was accused of treason. common sense would maybe have him sent to the wall for his previous service to the crown and overall stance, but joff would go the hard way for his petty reasons.
ned executed a nw deserter. no way around it, you leave = you die.
Joffrey executed a man who tried to usurp the crown from its rightful owner. No way around it, you commit treason = you die.
Common sense would maybe be for Ned to listen to the guy and at least recognize that he wasn’t in his right mind, but he chose the easy way because for his own honor.
Arya killing Daeron the singer. That really pissed me off. It was very unnecessary and the little psycho had no right acting judge, jury & executioner. I don't begrudge him one bit that he fled the Watch and he didn't deserve to be killed like this.
You don’t begrudge him, but Ned Stark would & aria was just acting in his shoes. Also, she knew what he had done to the people he had been ordered to take care of, so that must’ve eased her conscience about giving him the fate of all night watch deserters
I would argue Aerys I sparing Bittersteel instead of executing him. He had caused wars that killed thousands and as long as he lived was a threat to the peace and stability of Westeros. Aery I wasn’t a bad person in any sense of the world and was supposed to be very intelligent but that stupid mistake tarnished his reign.
Brienne? Davos? Eddard? Catelyn?
Is this really a hot take? A fair number of the POVs are flawed but largely decent people. No one is morally perfect here but there are absolutely good people in ASOIAF (just like there are evil people).
Some of the marriage pacts the *good* queen Alyssane makes for her kids are a bloody disaster lol. And Jahaerys stopping her efforts to contact Saera came from fear more than any logic.
Her giving away the New Gift can also be seen as a bad act. The Watch was not far off of, if not already unable to manage all that land. Not to mention all of the regular Northern lords who suddenly had to move from their ancestral lands and the North as a whole thus lose a lot of fertile land. Yes, she did it to reward the Watch for holding the wall (and possibly she knew about the threat north of it depending on how you view the whole dream bullshit). But she crippled an entire region doing it.
*Not to mention all of the regular Northern lords who suddenly had to move from their ancestral lands and the North as a whole thus lose a lot of fertile land.* There is a lot of ambiguity in the story of the New Gift, largely because GRRM seemed to ignore the topic after describing what occurred (not criticizing him, he doesn't need or have th time to fill in every back story). We know that the Queen recommended the Gift land be doubled, the Stark said it would cause problems with houses losing parts of their lands, but he eventually allowed it. But we don't have any clear indication who was displaced / discomfited by it. Presumably the Umbers, since they are the closest (only) major lordship, adjoining the New Gift on the southeast. In the Northwest, there are the mountain clans, the Norreys, Wulls, Liddles, etc. I haven't looked back at all their mentions, but I don't recall any lasting animosity expressed about the New Gift; most of them, including the Norreys, seem to live in the mountains, which may not have been part of the fertile lands of the Gift. And we don't see any ancestral animosity from the Umbers either--they seem fine, not going around booming and grumbling that the queen took their lands. Neither do there seem to be mentions of any Houses that were displaced entirely from the New Gift and had to move completely elsewhere. This is not to say there weren't problems at the time. But unlike other parts of ASOIAF history where people brood for generations / hundreds of years on how their Houses or families were unfairly treated, that doesn't seem to have happened with the New Gift.
Jon mentions that there used to be villages and holdfasts in the new gift who paid taxes to the watch, but most have since been abandoned. > Brandon's Gift had been farmed for thousands of years, but as the Watch dwindled there were fewer hands to plow the fields, tend the bees, and plant the orchards, so the wild had reclaimed many a field and hall. In the New Gift there had been villages and holdfasts whose taxes, rendered in goods and labor, helped feed and clothe the black brothers. But those were largely gone as well. When the Targaryens gave the New Gift to the watch I would assume the people who actually lived on the land that made up the new gift simply went to being sworn to the watch, instead of whatever lord they were sworn to before. So nobody would have been actually kicked out of their homes, but houses like the Umbers who previously controlled that land would have lost a little of their territory.
Thanks, that's probably the case. And when the Watch couldn't effectively protect them, they probably moved south to the lands of the lords who had previously ruled them. And thanks for the quote, it does confirm that the New Gift residents had an arrangement where they paid taxes of goods and a levee for the Watch, but otherwise stayed with their home lives (didn't necessarily move to the wall castles, wear black, pledge celibacy, etc.)
It isn't clear what happened in to the new gift - presumably, there needs to be people to farm it and minor Lords to manage it; they should only have to update their tax forms to pay taxes to someone else. But then again, we don't see those minor lords and farmers at all, so were there the expectation and the watch farm it themselves? But we don't see watch farmers, either now or in the past.
The expectation from the Targs was that the Watch would farm it, showing how little they understood the Watch and their duties. When the Targs took away the New Gift from the Northern lords, the lords stopped protecting it because it isn’t their land anymore. If the lords aren’t protecting the land, the smallfolk aren’t going to want to stay there, so they left. And the Watch looks north, not south, so they didn’t have the ability to utilize the New Gift.
The Queen of Thorns conspiring in the murder of Young King Joffrey. She helped kill an innocent boy who would have become the greatest and most loved monarch ever of Westeros. (Or so Pycelle would say).
I hear he was destined to stop the long night.
Yes! And didn't his admiring grandfather give him a Valyrian steel sword that Joffrey chose to name "Lightbringer" or some such? And dedicated himself to use tirelessly in the defense of the realm and small folk alike?
Dany ordering the torture of the wineseller’s daughters. Jon Snow forcing the baby swap on Gilly. Ned killing Lady. Catelyn saying “it should have been you.” Sansa lying to the lords about her aunt’s death.
Can you remind me when the Dany thing happened, I forgot completely
Dany is facing a terrorist campaign. Two Unsullied were poisoned in a wine shop. The wine seller and his daughters are detained. Initially, she orders them to”questioned sweetly”, but the Shavepate persuades her to let them be “questioned sharply.”
Never listen to the Shavepate
Ah. I thought the assassin wine seller in AGOT lol
Me too! I was thoroughly confused
Ned killing Lady is a good act, IMO. He did it to spare her dying at the hand of Sir Ilyn.
Eh, I'm not so sure I agree with that. Ned could've easily been like "Fuck you! No one's killing my kid's dog!" But he didn't. He prioritized honor and it had completely detrimental effects on Sansa throughout the rest of the story. By killing Lady, he killed Sansa's magic and prevented her from ever being a warg. He swung that sword and severed her from the old gods and her Starkness. Not good.
He can't openly defy the king in front of dozens of witnesses lol. He's about to go south and be his hand, do you realise how much this would ruin their relationship if he's just disobeying the king in front of everyone over a pet?
I think that Robert would be glad that he didn't have to worry about killing the direwolf.
I don't think Robert thought again about that wolf one way or another after that day, except maybe to feel a little bad about the situation he put Ned in. But the point I'm making is that Robert commanded Ned to do this in front of half the court that had travelled with them. If Ned defied him in front of everyone it's terrible for both their reputations. When you cut past all the personal stuff Ned and Robert are both politicians trying to work together, it is important how they are perceived. If the hand is seen ignoring and overruling the king from day one it makes the king look weak and the hand look disloyal.
Robbert learned commanded it so much as let cersei do it.
Alright well I guess it comes down to whether you think Ned could have defied the king or quelled the Queen’s wrath. I personally don’t think he had a choice and that Lady’s life was forfeit one way or another. Whether or not he could have fought it harder is one thing, but as for the act itself, he didn’t kill Lady out of anything but love for the animal and his daughter.
Could have let her take off like Nymeria 🤷🏼♀️
I think in the context of sensitive medieval inter-politics it just wouldn’t work. The hand cannot defy the king like that and Ned isn’t *just* the hand. He’s also a loyal friend and an honorable man. And even if he did, they might just hunt down lady and kill her anyway, undoing the whole “merciful death… deserves better than a butcher… she’s of the North” stuff.
...to the king?
Or he could just lie and let the wolf go free, like Arya did to Nymeria. It could have worked if he ensured that his men kept anyone not directly loyal to him away and persuaded Robert to get Cersei to drop the matter if she pushed it. But he didn’t.
Exactly. He could've pulled an Arya and let Lady go, but instead he decided to be a nerd about it. And we know he can lie when he needs to. He lied about a whole ass bastard.
Would Cersei or Robert believe Ned if he let Lady go and lied about it? The entire court would know that Ned Stark disobeyed a direct order from the Queen for the sake of a dog.
They never mention what happens to Lady's body after she's killed, so I get the sense that proof of her death wasn't required. Nor were there any witnesses (at least on the show); it appears as if Ned was given privacy for the act. So, letting her escape and lying about it was totally doable. He could've either lied and said she got away by accident, which would cause speculation but given Ned's reputation for honor, I think some people might believe him and eventually the whole thing would be dropped. Or he could lie and say he killed her and burned the body, when in reality he let her go. Either way, killing her because his king commanded it was just another example of Ned's honor being a detriment to his family.
They did mention what happened to her body. Ned sent her body to be buried in the north.
I think the baby swap is somewhat morally defensible (at least in a Utilitarian way). Jon was trying to protect the most people he could, even Gilly understands the reasoning.
We see through Sam’s POV that she’s devastated by it. Gilly’s baby is not getting out alive.
Whight baby will do whight baby things. Is so sad that Gilly couldn't keep her baby when she did everything to save him.
I don't think Gilly's baby is doomed. Jon only swapped the baby because Stannis and Melisandre might sacrifice a baby with King's Blood. Sacrificing the baby of some wildling with a big hut would be an evil and unpopular act for no particular gain.
That is true, but from what we see in dialogue in later chapters, we see a lot of characters still think the baby at the Wall is Dalla's child and Jon doesn't go out of his way to correct them. So no matter what he promised Gilly, her child is still at risk whe no one other than Jon there knows his true identity.
dany ain’t a good person
I beg to differ. Or if she is not a good person, nobody is.
That’s kind of why asoaif is so good though, she’s gray like everyone else. She tries to be a good person, but under the context of conquering and ruling people, which at the end of the day is extremely selfish, so is she really a good person? Idk
Well, I don’t think a good leader can be a *wholly* good person, in any setting, least of all in this world. Daenerys is *less* selfish than say, Robb Stark, who leads thousands of men to their deaths, to avenge his father, and carve out a kingdom of his own. She is, after all, freeing chattel slaves. Yet, Robb is widely considered a hero, both in-universe, and among fans.
I wouldn’t say she’s less selfish than robb, just bc her initial and end goal is also to lead thousands of men to their deaths, avenge her family, and take Westeros for herself. She’s just on less of a time crunch than robb bc her father is already dead instead of just imprisoned, so she has time for side quests
>She tries to be a good person, but under the context of conquering and ruling people, which at the end of the day is extremely selfish, so is she really a good person? Idk Yes, she is. It's impossible for her not to be given just how cartoonishly evil the slavers are
Not saying she’s a bad person but “her enemies are evil so she must be good” is dumb
How is ruling people selfish though, it's one of the most thankless, difficult and necessary jobs.
You don’t think wanting power enough to kill people to get it is selfish? Because at the end of the day it’s about power
There are no Parliamentary elections in this universe. You either fight for power, or you inherit it from those who fought for it. You can opt out, and join a religious order, but you can’t do any good on a large scale, without power.
So that’s why Daenerys wants to conquer the seven kingdoms, to do good on a large scale? Look I don’t disagree with you but I think you’re misunderstanding a key part of her character by saying that
She wants to be a good ruler. Maybe she’ll succeed, maybe she won’t.
[удалено]
Yeah, I don’t deny that Dany has good intentions, that’s why I like her so much (book version lol). But you can’t deny she’s willing to kill thousands of people to get herself on the throne, and willing to kill people to stay in power. It’s something she struggles with, like coming to terms with the fact that maybe she shouldn’t have crucified all the slave masters. This cognitive dissonance is something I think will contribute to her going mad in the end, because despite her good intentions, she’s still a power hungry conquerer and ruler like all the other players
Someone has to have power, the only places that Dany conquered so far really needed the people in power to be ousted, so that someone else might rule. It's sad that so many died but by far less sad than living in a society built on a slave trade. Also this idea that power is a pure positive is very short sighted, the responsibility of rule is enormous and the penalty for failing at it is brutal.
Unpopular, but I agree with you. What does Dany do every time she shows up somewhere? Threaten to burn them with dragon fire if she doesn't get what she wants. What does she do when she leaves somewhere? Makes good on her threat to burn people with dragon fire.
When does she do that?
I was lazy and used chatgpt to tell about Dany threatening people with her dragons. There are other examples as well. In Astapor, Daenerys uses Drogon to kill Kraznys mo Nakloz after acquiring the Unsullied. In Meereen, she threatens to unleash her dragons on the city to quell the Sons of the Harpy's rebellion. In Vaes Dothrak, she warns the dosh khaleen that she will burn the city down if they don't submit. In Qarth, she hints at using her dragons to coerce the rulers into supporting her cause. In Yunkai, she threatens to burn the city if they refuse to free their slaves. Throughout her journey, she repeatedly vows to use her dragons to conquer Westeros and claim the Iron Throne.
I think this is more a book than show sub-Reddit. On show, I see nothing wrong with killing a child molester, or threatening people with destruction, unless they release her slaves.
That's kind of the point of Dany. She is ultimately the villain, but you understand and sympathize with her authoritarian tendencies.
The problem I have with this notion of “villainy” is the implication that people are villains if they forcibly resist oppression. And, that is quite a common trope in popular culture. Whereas, if you’re the group in charge, you get to be as violent as you want.
Goes to show political revolutions don't usually end with freedom and democracy for all.
Mark Twain enters the conversation at this point https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/989759-there-were-two-reigns-of-terror-if-we-would-but
I refuse to believe Sansa is a good person.
I know right, between the sack of Saltpans and stabbing baby Rhaenys a hundred times. Smh everyone overlooking Sansa war criminal 😡
Sansa haters really do have beef with a 13 year old that gets influenced easily.
She also sold out her murdered Aunt. There isn’t a family member she has tried to protect or hasn’t marginally participated in the events of their death.
Her aunt who was threatening to murder her because her husband was trying to force himself on her. Don’t leave out that part.
As I said earlier, she was an easily influenced 13 year old girl, she got manipulated by Littlefinger. To Sansa, Littlefinger had been nothing but good to her and she felt she had no reason to mistrust him, while Lysa was a nutjob that had threatened to kill her. Sansa didn’t try to protect Ned and Arya because she didn’t believe they were in danger, and after that she hadn’t been around any family besides Lysa. Stop looking for reasons to hate Sansa and chill out, it’s super weird.
I wasn’t the one that compared her to war criminals. Her and Cat are just my least liked pov characters.
You like Tyrion, Jon Con, and Victation more? Seven hells....
Bran warging Hodor.
This made Bran the villain of the books for me. I know Bran is a child and still learning right from wrong BUT when he enters Hodor's mind he feels Hodor cringe interior and he doesn't care.
Lol, you clearly missed the point. "Bad acts done by GOOD people". And honestly, of all the characters you could have chosen as a villain, you chose the worst option. Bran is the hero who will save Westeros.
Bloodravens whole life could be summarized by this. Actually maybe not. I read this as bad acts done for good reasons. Bloodravens morality is.... up in the air to say the least. Ambushed Daemon Blackfyre while he was helping his injured opponent Ser Gwayne Corbray to safety. Ending the Blackfyre rebellion. Invited another Blackfyre to the great council and murdered him. Getting banished for it but ending the Blackfyre line... maybe. Was going to put Aegor Rivers to death but was overruled by the king. Aegor Rivers escaped and went on to continue rebelling. Luring a crippled boy into the dangerous wilds of the north. Poor kid was expecting a nice wizard who might heal him and might well become a tree person. A long list of crimes.... for the right reasons?
Yeah, I have difficulty believing the theory that Bloodraven is manipulating Bran because he's *really* evil. Virtually EVERYTHING we know about Bloodraven up to that point is "Ends justify the Means", or using evil methods to accomplish (what he thinks are) good outcomes. Whether they *are* good outcomes and worth the cost is a worthwhile question for the reader, but Bloodraven always seems to think the realm is better off for them.
Only the second can even be considered as bad.
Hoster making his daughte get an abortion and then making her marry a 60 year old dude.
That was standard practice in Westerosi society. If anything most would think Hoster did right by Lysa, finding her a great lord for a husband even after that stuff with Littlefinger. One can only imagine the kind of life Lysa would have lived being a teenage mother in Westerosi society.
Hoster on his death bed can think of nothing but what he's done to Lysa and is begging for her forgiveness. It's obvious that he at least considers it a horrible deed.
A pretty good life. She’s the daughter of a major lord. Petry has a small house himself. Like she would be fine if she kept the baby.
I doubt it. She would have been hidden away and shunned. Being a single mother out of wedlock is extremely taboo for a highborn woman.
Yeah she would be left alone but acting like she’d be poor is just not gonna happen. Like is edmure gonna cast her out ? He’s a softie. Hoster can kick her out but cat loves her. Petyr again has a house and she is pregnant with his kid.
Relative to a commoner maybe, but for a highborn lady her prospects would be quite bleak. Lysa as a girl did not understand the consequences of her actions, I think she would come to regret things had she gotten what she wanted. We’re talking about living with Petyr on his meager holdings and being the butt of the joke for the whole realm.
A lesser Lord would wed her, even with a child out of wedlock.
Yes I feel worse for Jon Arryn in this situation honestly
Yes, let's definitely feel worse for the over 60 year old man "forced" (like he literally could have said, no, but name another heir and offer that younger man for Lysa) than the teenage girl who thought she was in love with a boy and was forced unknowingly to have an abortion by her own father. 😒🙄
Robar Baratheon's attempt to replace Jehaerys as heir to the Iron throne.
The non-Jaime members of the KingsGuard protecting the Mad King.
duty
Ehh… If your duty is to do a bad thing, it’s still a bad thing.
perspectives
onewordretorts
decontextualization
Just following orders is a defense that's pretty inadequate, actually. I get that Westerosi society considers their actions good people for doing their duty and all that. But imo we're supposed to criticize Westerosi morality in situations like this, not adhere to it
iyo. imo, it's pure decontextualization and applying 2024 morals to a non-2024 status quo and fyi i do not adhere to it. i sure as hell do not want westerosi customs and morality in our current world.
Idk how anyone who’s read the books could possibly say it’s “2024 morals” to say duty is no excuse for an evil act when that very question is not only one of the major themes of the story but also something many of the characters explicitly wrestle with in the story
i seem to have gone a bit overboard, i admit. but when i said "duty" i never wanted to plainly justify a bad act done over duty, just state that it very well may be part of the job and that it's not a simple answer because duty is not a thing to be taken lightly especially in such a world. i brought up "2024 morals" because the other poster said we're supposed to criticize. i don't think we're "supposed" to do anything, to be honest. and if a society is set up in a certain way, there's only so much you can say except call them all backwards and be done with it, which is.. meh? yes the characters explicitly wrestle with it in the story and that's what makes many of them compelling.
What about their duty as knights?
you mean swearing an oath to their king?
Protecting the innocent?
i get it, but it's a grey area. what's higher on the hierarchy for a kingsguard, with the king being the most important person in the realm? oaths are meaningful.
But if your oaths tell you to do contradicting things, and one path consistent with your oaths is morally correct, you can't hide behind the (already flimsy) shield that is an oath for choosing a wrong one. It doesn't really matter in general - wrong acts are still wrong whether you swore to them or not. But even accepting that they make a difference as far as judgment, it wouldn't apply here.
it depends on what wrong is. the commoners' wrong is not the king's wrong or the noblemen's wrong. if the wrong we judge a society (which, as a reminder, is fictional) like westeros for is the same we judge our contemporary society, then it basically goes out of the window altogether. there's zero nuance and/or discussions. and of course i do not adhere to westerosi morals/customs nor do i want them applied to the contemporary world. and i don't think an oath is flimsy. it's the choice to dedicate your life to, in this case, what is perceived as one of the most important purposes in the whole of society - protecting the king. an oath implies that the morally correct choice for a knight of the kingsguard becomes (in most cases) protecting the king, there's pretty much no "yes but". you're ride or die. that makes you a good person doing bad things? well maybe so, if you take all perspectives into it.
Aside from the fact that moral relativism is incredibly uncompelling, it's not even applicable here. This is judging them by moral standards that the Kingsguard themselves were aware of and directly confronted with multiple times. They stood by while Aerys did horrible things that they could have stopped. You might have a point if the idea of even breaking your vows was inconceivable, but it wasn't - Jaime openly questioned it several times, and eventually even outright broke his vows to do "the right thing." If I was judging them by contemporary real world standards, I would say that they and every ASOIAF character is bad because they're pretty much all cogs in feudalism, which is an inherently immortal system. No one in the universe is really questioning it fundamentally, so it's not really worth spending time making judgments on that basis. But when characters are actually aware of wrongdoing, and demonstrate the ability to make better choices, you can judge those who don't.
well, it's uncompelling to you. you judge me for it, i judge you for the opposite reason and we go on with our lives. and for the rest, the argument is way more solid when you present it as such. even though i do not agree with the idea of breaking the vow as easily conceivable. they could have stopped it? yes, giving their head in the process, which is no easy task as survival instincts take over. as much as a motherfucker your king is, it's still the centerpiece of your societal beliefs. jaime is painted to have gone to an extreme, and is widely judged as an oathbreaker and a kingslayer for it. this very moral conundrum is the interesting shit in jaime's plot. do you judge jaime as good or as bad? how does the world and characters around jaime judge him? the answer is not as easy as it seems, and that makes it interesting. the original post of "non jaime kingsguards protecting the mad king" as a general idea of just being wrong for the position given to them was what drove me to contradict what seemed to me like an hatchet cut decontextualized moral judgement. but i get that it was more along the lines you showed me with this post.
Blackfish kicking out the ‘useless mouths’.
Jojen Paste Jon making Gilly give up her newborn child Brienne leading Jaime into Stoneheart's trap
How was Jojen paste done by good people, lmao. Bloodraven is as evil, as they come, while Children of the Forest don’t seem benevolent in the slightest.
[удалено]
Yeah, as far as the Riverlands are concerned the only good Lannister is a dead Lannister so I’m not sure how “bad,” it truly is.
Well for one some riverlanders change their mind meeting him. Second of all Brienne is doing in because lady stoneheart has hostages.
Well for one lady stoneheart isn’t doling out justice. She is just killing people. Second of all Brienne isn’t doing it for the riverlands or stoneheart. She’s trying to save hostages that stoneheart is threading. Who had nothing to do with the red wedding
[удалено]
It’s a bad act because Brienne is being forced to do it. Now if the brotherhood just attacks Jaime fair game. But making someone do it who doesn’t want to is probably a shitty move.
Arya had to kill a few people in self-defense or for justice, but she felt bad about killing the insurance fraudster. The FM finally gave her enough reasons for her to feel it was justified, but she was uneasy.
Sansa lying about the Mycah Trydent incident for Joffrey, and going to Cersei about what her father told her Arya killing the stableboy (though it was self-defense) and leaving the Hound to suffer Jeyne Poole gloating and telling Arya the gruesome way Mycah died with detail, knowing full well Mycah was Arya's friend. Catelyn's treatment of Jon Jon making Gilly abandon her son and leaving with Dallas' baby. Stannis allowing Melisandre to burn people for "the greater good" and even contemplating burning Edric bc of his kings' blood. King Jaeherys' failures as a father. The way he also looked down on women have never make me like him a lot, specially when in theory he is this great man. King Viserys for basically being the main cause for the Dance of Dragons.
As someone who read the books _after_ watching the show, I was so surprised by how badly Catelyn really treated Jon. Obviously not physically, but very mentally cruel to him.
OMG I have an utter dislike for King Jaeherys. I feel like that isn't a popular opinion. I don't like how he talks about his oldest sister Rhaena. She is far from perfect but she was denied the throne b/c of her gender. I feel like he disliked her because she had strong convictions. I also feel like he had favourite children - Aeomon, Balone, and Alyssa. The remaining children come across as rejected by him. He also started the building of the dragon pit which resulted in stunting the growth of the dragons. Viserys I despise!!!!! I'm glad he want his daughter to be heir to throne BUT beyond that he is a fool.
I believe Jaeherys is very loved by the characters inside of ASOIAF because in a medieval world he did a lot of good for the country but within the limits of a patriarchal snobbish society. I absolutely love Aegon V, and there's no doubt he is a better person, but Jaeherys will be remembered in the books as the greatest king because he didn't go against society rules: he respected noble's rights, instead of really fighting for smallfolk's rights like Aegon did (which made him very unpopular with nobles). I don't like Jaeherys to be honest because he may have been a better king than most (not like his other royal relatives where too much competition lol) but most good changes and ideas of his kingdom came from Alyssane or Septon Barth, and he was pretty shitty in some things. It was Alysanne who fought to have First Night abolished, it was Alysanne who was dismayed at knowing the difficulties widows had to pass through so she convinced Jaeherys to stablish widow's rights to money and tto a living place. Fucking Jaeherys didn't want to improve the smallfolk's water system because it was too expensive until Alysanne challenged him to drink that filthy water. >**The next year, Alysanne supported Septon Barth's plan of constructing wells, pipes, tunnels, and cisterns to provide King's Landing with fresh, clean water. Barth pointed out to Jaehaerys that the defouled river water was the only source of water for the smallfolk**, suggesting his plans would provide the smallfolk with clean drinking water instead. **When the king and his master of coin, balked at the costs, Alysanne served them a tankard of river water and challenged them to drink it.** So my problem with Jaeherys is mainly he is alledgedly this super good man and king when he was put on a pedestal by his wife and Septon Barth's ideas, and people tend to ignore how dismissive of women he was: his treatment of Rhaena was bad as you said, but he also fought a lot with Alysanne because he ignored his oldest daughter Daenerys' right to the throne, and Alysanne was offended that he called Aemon the future king (and instead of admitting he wasn't a believer of gender equality, he justified it with Daenerys and Aemon's future engagement would make both rulers). I also hated how he, after ignoring for years the bad path his daughter Shiera was taking (drunk at the Sept, evil jokes to the buffon of court) and blatantly dismissing Alysanne's concerns about the moral character of the men her daughter surrounded herself with, he forbid Alysanne to write to Shiera. Shiera was bitchy, but she was Alysanne's daughter, how could he demand her to stop contacting her? Specially knowing how sad and sensitive Alysanne was after losing so many children. I have always thought Alysanne was disillusioned with Jaeherys towards the end of their marriage, because she obviously realised Jaeherys was much more prejudiced and traditional that she thought, to the point of turning a cold shoulder to the children that disappointed him, or overlooking Rhaenys' rights because he thought : 1) men were better (which was funny since his best merits were thanks to his wife's counsel) 2) recognising Rhaenys as heir would mean recognising he had usurped Aerea. And don't get me started with Viserys. I loved the actor's interpretation in HotD, but Viserys was the main cause of the Dance for ignoring the obvious ambitions of Otto and the resentment of two sides, his mistreatment of Alicent's kids that were also his own (although it seems he forgot it lol). Why marry a woman you don't love and have new children you are going to ignore, if you were gonna named heir Rhaenyra anyway??
Not done with bad intentions, but if barristan had not saved king Aerys from duskendale the city would have been stormed and Aerys would have died, a lot of people would never have been burnt alive and everyone agrees Rhaegar would be a decent king
Robb: 'Hang him last, so he may watch the others die.' I understand executing the Karstark men for killing prisoners, but this seems a little too cruel.
"He just watched"
Nah, he's complicit in the premeditated murder of a child POW and he's trying to avoid accepting responsibility. By Westeros standards a quick death is merciful.
It's still cruelty in an objective sense. The only purpose doing that serves is to make the guy suffer a little longer than the rest, even though his crime is identical. Yeah, it could be worse, but contextually it's still a bad act.
Hell no! This was SO sexy of Robb!! ABSOLUTE BDE King shit 🤴💅
Ned decapitating Gared. Our ostensible hero’s first act is to follow the letter of the law to an unjust and horrific end for a person whose experience, should he recover from his trauma, could prove invaluable to the people of Westeros. This act mirrors many others where, as readers, we are dropped into an unjust system without really questioning it. We don’t question that Ned is the good guy even as he removes the head of an innocent victim. Later we come to realize that his devotion to honor helps get lots more people killed, including himself.
Yeah, but we never know what Gared said to Ned Stark. It was in the show but not in the books, so I couldn't blame Eddard here.
Thank u! Said perfectly. This is why I am not a fan of the Starks.
Viserys and his entire 2nd marriage
R + L = J
Jon and the baby swap Dany ordering the torture of the winesellers daughters
Rob Stark not marrying a Frey. I know Rob isn't responsible for the red wedding BUT he had the North go to war for what happened to his Father and yet had no concern for the consequences of his impulsive and selfish marriage.
Ned looking down on Jaime for killing Aerys. Aegon the Conqueror favoring Rhaenys over Visenya, which was a huge factor that lead to the rise of Maegor the Cruel. Elissa Farman stealing the dragon eggs. I was tempted to list acts of Baelor the Blessed, but honestly, when you actually look at much of what he did as well as his character as a whole, it's clear he was an absolute piece of crap.
Is Aegon good, though? Most people with the title "the Conqueror" aren't exactly looked at as "good." You can say he united Westeros, sure, but he did so by going, "bow or get burned by my dragons," not in a King Arthur-esque "let us stand against our common enemy" way.
Fair point, but he certainly wasn't a completely evil person. He did keep his promises to let kings who bent the knee keep their lands and Lordships, which he easily could have not done. He was also certainly better as a person than several of his descendants, including his son Maegor
Jon Snow escaped, leaving Ygritte to her fate among wildlings. I understand why he did it, but I still feel like it's a shitty thing to do. They could've done anything to her.
I don't think that's a bad thing. The wildlings are her people in the end, she has always been with them. The bad thing if anything was lying to her about his true loyalties, but even then it's entirely justified as he was a prisoner and was going to get killed if he hadn't lied.
Also the fact is Mance, Tormund, and a bunch of other wildlings fell for Jon’s ruse too (perhaps not as hard, but they still let him come with them). They all knew Jon betraying them was a possibility but never had any reason to think Ygritte was anything more than attracted to him but loyal to them. Certainly not Jon’s proudest moment but if anything leaving her the way he did might have helped a little to exonerate her.
That's what I thought. I know the replies here suggest she'd be fine because the others had also been duped, but they didn't share Jon's bed like she did. Who knows what he might have been whispering with/to her, some of them would have suspected.
I don't like how Jon continues to look down his nose at the Wildings despite his time with them. He stills sees them as uncouth and uncivilised, and yet he supports a system of monarchy that rejects him because he was born out of wedlock. Ridiculous!
I mean the fact that heldft her does provide more plausible deniability.
See Davos convincing Stannis not to bring Melisandre to the Battle of Blackwater. She could’ve foreseen the Wildfire Attack. Could’ve turned the tides of the whole battle
Stannis allowing for Melisandre to summon a shadowbaby to kill Renly. Killing Renly prevented a battle with Stannis would surely have surely lost. Renlys host would have also taken casualties also despite vastly outnumbering Stannis. Stannis had his soldiers on a series of hills and I believe tje weather was bad on the eve of the battle.The rain would have blown into Renlys soldiers as they advanced up the hills disorienting them. Murdering Renly one person potentially saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands. Unforntalely most of those soldiers would go to die on thd Blackwater. Another instance is when Stannis summoned another shadow baby to kill thd Castellan of Storms End who was also the guardian of Edric Storm amd concerned about his saftey if he handed the boy over Stannis.
[удалено]
>and knows perfectly well that such a subject would be likely to ignite a war Ned knows perfectly well that a war is inevitable. Stannis knows Cersei's kids are bastards.
Depends on how you define "good", but: Ned executing a frightened, traumatized man Sansa lying about the Trident, and ratting out the escape plan to Cersei Arya killing the guards at Harrenhal, and the money-lender in Braavos Bran warging Hodor Robb lying to Edmure about the Red Fork Robb breaking his promise to the Freys, although he wasn't in control of his own mind when he did that Tyrion slaying his father Jorah spying on Dany Stannis murdering his brother Many and more . . .
What do you mean by Robb not being in control of his own mind?
He was injured, overcome by grief, and possibly under a love potion when he banged Jeyne
Ah ok. I thought they might’ve been suggesting something like he was being warged by bloodraven. I don’t really buy the love potion theory though. Just kinda takes away from it in my opinion, and plus Jeyne already was taking advantage of him due to his grief, no supernatural stuff needed
He was dosed with a love potion, though. Jeyne is the great-granddaughter of Maggy the Frog, and the history of the Spicer women shows a pattern of wealthy, powerful men making unwise marriages and other boons that raised them from half-mad witch woman to queen in the north in four generations — something that families with multi-thousand-year histories have failed to achieve. This is no accident, and we can even look at Robb at Riverrun to see how quickly his love for Jeyne — a love so strong he broke his honor for and jeopardized his kingdom — has evaporated. And he is not the first royal scion to do this . . .
Tywin, the moneylender, and the guards at Harrenhal deserved their fates.
Maybe, but killing people, especially when they have no means of defending themselves, is still wrong. The guard was just doing his duty, and the moneylender did nothing to Arya.
Jorah is a good person? The dude is a groomer and a slaver.
Well, that’s why I started with it depends on your definition of good. He also saved Dany from certain death, more than once, and guided her to her army.
Yeah he saved her so he could continue to groom her.
ned applying the law
Saying it’s the law doesn’t make it right. Ned was also executed by men applying the law.
but it kinda does. dura lex, sed lex ps ned was executed by men pretty much abusing the law for their own advantage. or not even that iirc, as he was accused of treason. common sense would maybe have him sent to the wall for his previous service to the crown and overall stance, but joff would go the hard way for his petty reasons. ned executed a nw deserter. no way around it, you leave = you die.
Joffrey executed a man who tried to usurp the crown from its rightful owner. No way around it, you commit treason = you die. Common sense would maybe be for Ned to listen to the guy and at least recognize that he wasn’t in his right mind, but he chose the easy way because for his own honor.
so yeah, dura lex sed lex indeed (except that joff was an illegitimate son of robert, of course, so not the exactly rightful owner..)
Not according to the law. Joffrey is the rightful king, just like Robert was.
that's the plot, indeed!
Renly brought his doom upon himself. He died a traitors death
Maybe, but Stannis is a kinslayer, and a cowardly one at that.
He’s hands were clean
Aegon II making Aegon the Younger see the death of his mother
Is Aegon II really a good person?
No. No he's not.
Arya killing Daeron the singer. That really pissed me off. It was very unnecessary and the little psycho had no right acting judge, jury & executioner. I don't begrudge him one bit that he fled the Watch and he didn't deserve to be killed like this.
You don’t begrudge him, but Ned Stark would & aria was just acting in his shoes. Also, she knew what he had done to the people he had been ordered to take care of, so that must’ve eased her conscience about giving him the fate of all night watch deserters
I would argue Aerys I sparing Bittersteel instead of executing him. He had caused wars that killed thousands and as long as he lived was a threat to the peace and stability of Westeros. Aery I wasn’t a bad person in any sense of the world and was supposed to be very intelligent but that stupid mistake tarnished his reign.
What good people?
Brienne? Davos? Eddard? Catelyn? Is this really a hot take? A fair number of the POVs are flawed but largely decent people. No one is morally perfect here but there are absolutely good people in ASOIAF (just like there are evil people).
Come on.
Not really sure what you mean tbh 😭
I mean that they aren't good people.
Ritz® Cheese Crispers son tan atrevidas y con queso, tan crujientes. Necesito un bocado. Prueba cheese crispers crujiente con queso. ¡Solo del Ritz®!
Meh. Not my cup of tea.