Explain the Morality of this Veeky Forums

>emotional responses are invalid
Where did this meme start? We have emotions for a reason.

Not op here, but that makes a shit ton of sense actually. From a purely practical perspective without interjecting any of my own morality into it.

A soldier knows his job is to kill and die in defense of his country, ideals, family etc. He goes to his fate willingly.

A man going to dinner expects to eat, and in the case of enemies going to parley, perhaps even reach peace before war breaks out.

I remember when this was first posted. Has it become pasta?

Because there are societal rules for a reason. Things start to breakdown when no one trusts anyone and everyone's stabbing each other in the back or over dinner.

>Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner.

I would imagine it'd be considered unsporting and sends a message to the other nobles that you can't and shouldn't be trusted, basically eliminating any credibility you had and preventing or otherwise hindering future diplomacy. It basically removes your credibility.

Imagine you're trying to talk some guys down from resisting a siege and just letting you in to take the castle so everybody can avoid wasting time, money, and resources and as well; avoid having hundreds or possibly thousands of perfectly fine smelly tax-paying peasants die.
So you walk up to their keep and request an audience with their lord.
He comes out and shoots you in the neck with a crossbow, because why wouldn't he? You can't be trusted. He's just going to let you in? After what you did to the last guy? You'll be lucky if he doesn't drag your dead body back into the keep and hang it from his walls to demoralize your siege party.

Because killing them at dinner is a violation of social mores.

And when you violate social mores, homosex happens.

Because a pitched battle is an engagement in which both parties agreed to and everyone knows what's going to happen, while the fallout of a treachery like that is going to make it impossible to have peace even if you defeat your enemy.

It's never been and never will be (if the number of killings is clear before doing it).

That being said, killing people in a socially restricted environment, and going against hospitality rules is generally a bad idea.

SJW's MUH FEELZ bullshit.

We explained it to you a thousand times already, but fine, user, I enjoy talking about ASOIAF, so I'll indulge you.

The fact that Tywin even had to ask this question is the reason he died. Tywin is the embodiment of Lawful Evil - for his entire life he's been looking out for number one while crushing number two. The greatness and legacy of his family is the only thing that matters ot him, and he just doesn't care about anything else. He does not understand honor, friendship, loyalty - this is why he freaks out so hard, when Jaime refuses to betray his Kingsguard oath. For him, Jaime did not choose honorably, he chose to commit a personal betrayal for irrational, completely alien reasons. Tywin is a sociopath, lacking the humanity required to understand Jaime's motives - or to raise his children properly. Or to engage in politics. Or to actually achieve his goals.

Because in the end, he doesn't win. Every immoral, monstrous deed he has ever done catches up with him and his kin - from the Red Wedding that you're asking about, to mistreatment of his children. Tywin dies on a shitter, with a whore in his bed, killed by the son he callously abused. And the moment he dies, the legacy he worked so hard to build falls apart. The Seven Kingdoms are a wartorn wreck, the Lannisters are living on a borrowed time, his own children start rejecting his legacy, and nobody sheds a tear for him.

And Tywin has nobody to blame for this but himself.

Why is a boar a more impressive part of a feast than a carrot?

One shows off your prowess, your bravery. You put yourself at risk.

people will die regardless. civility is another matter.

Because you keep posting the same gay ass thread, that's why.

Pretty much.

We look back at things like 'honor' as being stupid because WE have a strong central authority and the ability to look up information easily. In a time when help was months of travel away, and no one could read shit, you had to be able to take people at their word.

Systems of honor were established to define who was someone who you could trust not to screw you over, and everyone else. The groups that didn't have these honor systems generally lagged behind the ones that did when it came to achieving larger scale civilizations, because jumping the hurdle of working together in larger groups became more difficult, and generally relied much more on brute force as a unifier.

Worse than this, the Red Wedding violated Guest Rights, which is a HUUUGE fucking deal. Giving food and shelter to travelers in the real world was a common trait of both successful cultures and people who lived in shitty conditions especially. If your land is shitty, giving water to travelers in the desert is fucking important. Not just because there is a real chance they will die without your help, but because it could just as easily be YOU needing water next time, so its in everyone's best interests to pay it forward.

This, again, leads to success as a culture. If your merchant thinks traveling the 20 miles to the big city is too dangerous and not worth the risk, he won't go. If your traders are not willing to brave the journey, trade doesn't happen. If you have no trade, your economy is shit and your kingdom is likely shit as well. You are certainly going to end up eventually getting conquered by another kingdom that was able to get bigger because it was able to sustain larger travellable area, which is a logistical boon many times over. But that's probably your grandkids problem rather than yours.

Now let's compare Tywin to Ned Stark. You know, the idiot who's too honorable to play the game of thrones. The so called idiot, who tied a noose around his own neck.
Unlike Tywin, Ned Stark lived his entire live doing the right thing, and he died doing the right thing. And while Tywin and Cersei may have outlived him, for a short while, their legacy did not outlive his.

Let's look at the North. Unlike with Tywin, tears were shed for Ned. Avenging his death was a reason for a bloody war. It was ended with a Red Wedding, Tywin's supposed master stroke - and Starks were finally crushed and destroyed for good.
Except not.
The North remembers - it remembers Starks being it's lords and protectors for centuries, it remembers the treachery of the Lannisters, the Freys and the Boltons. It remembers the good and honorable Ned Stark. And while Tywin's legacy died with him, the entire North is risking their lives to protect and restore Ned's. And when I mean the North, I mean the entire North.
Manderlies, Umbers, Dustins, Stouts, every northern house (except for Ryswells). they all could have just accepted the rule of the Boltons. But they didn't. Immediately, they started plotting their demise and the restoration of Starks, just because they remember the just man Ned was, and they want to pay him back for the good he has done. They seek to destroy his killers and restore his family to power. They are risking to sacrifice everything for a dead man and his powerless children, with NOTHING, absolutely nothing to gain for themselves. This is loyalty you can't get with scheming.

Ned Stark is more powerful in death than Tywin ever was in life.

What is morality beyond emotions and feelings, user? Your caring about the matter is simply emotions and feelings, and your caring is valid.

What the fuck are you talking about

Its worth remembering that traditions and codes rarely persist without good reason. A lot of shit that ends up being common practice gets that way not necessarily because it gives you a bonus, but because the cultures that didn't do that were worse off and failed.

Take the taboo against cannibalism, for example. From a purely resource oriented standpoint, eating your dead means food you don't have to hunt for. Even if you only eat people who die under normal circumstances, you are not letting that meat go to waste. Its easy and expedient.
But of course, as we know now, eating your dead exposes you to all kinds of health risks. This is especially true if you keep doing it, rather than it being an isolated occurrence. Filthy peasants and tribe people don't need to know that this is true, because natural selection does the sorting for history. The people that ate their dead died out over time, leaving the ones with taboos against cannibalism to succeed. The fact that the taboo was started 'because that's my mom!' rather than 'because prions' doesn't matter, what matters is that it works.

The Lannisters and Freys don't understand this. They are essentially the same as cannibals, treating the taboo as a superstition that only matters so far as how unethical you think it is. That's why, even now, the Lannisters and Freys are getting fucking butchers and are struggling to maintain their grip on their lands. They failed to understand why the taboos exist in the first place.

But the Freys killed a lot of Robb's army by setting the tents they were in.

On fire.

Because it didn't end the blood shed and ended up making everything way, way worse.

The ten thousand people you didn't kill were all horrible people willing to kill other people for unclear reasons and spooks. Obviously, they all deserved to die, and your circumvention of their deserved fate by murdering a dozen at dinner is moral cowardice.

Men in battle have the chance to defend themselves -
The men on the battlefield have arms, armour and are mentally prepared to fight. They can defend themselves. Hell, they might whip your ass and defeat you, for all you know. Robb Stark has demonstrated that on more than one occasion, which is why you ran scared and stooped so low.

The ones at your dinner table are not armed, and they are not prepared to fight anything more than an errant shred of meat stuck between their teeth. That robs them of their right to self-defense. That is ignoble.

The sacred law of hospitality and guest right stays unbroken -
Westeros has few laws and regulations that are observed by all. The right to safety of a guest is probably the only law that is followed across the length and breadth of the land.

By killing people at your dinner table instead of on the battlefield, you violate that law, and you sow the seeds of further distrust and anarchy into an already lawless land.

You fight to take control of Westeros. You plan to rule the North and South with your family. How can you do that successfully when you refuse to observe the only sacred law of the land?

Because diplomacy.

>diplomacy
diplomacy is for the Weak. The Strong takes what is theirs

This is some nigger-tier logic.

Look everyone, it's an outdated and discredited ideology that can't survive in modern times.

Let's point and laugh at him.

How'd that ending the war thing go? Oh, the war hasn't stopped, even well after your death on the shitter?

Well, I guess killing a bunch of people at dinner didn't stop deaths. I hope getting your name immortalized along such luminaries as The Rat Cook was worth it.

Hey, some very successful empires that usually only last a generation or two have benefited from that ideology!

>Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. And some will lose more than the tips of their fingers, I promise you. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that.

I daresay, Is Stannis Baratheon our guy?

You know, maybe Hitler was on to something

FWIW, Robb never said any sacred marriage vows to the Freys. He made a deal with them, but that's different than saying sacred marriage vows. Until the bride is wedded and bedded, there's nothing sacred about the deal. And nobody can compel another to speak the vows of marriage.

Ruining the social more of hospitality makes it a lot harder for conflicts to end. If there is no way to expect fair dealing or ceasefires to be upheld then wars will simply continue until one side is exterminated, thus making those dozen killed at dinner equal ten thousand or more dead on a battlefield.

Also, he didn't really fail to "keep it in his pants". He was delirious from painkillers at the moment, I don't even think he fully understood what was going on.

Never mind the whole Lannister bannermen element to it that the show took out for no apparent reason
Or that since he was "The King in the North" he could have just said fuck it and had two wives, but that's a different thing entirely

He'd also recently been told that his brothers had been murdered, right? Guy was not in a good state on any level.

Book Stannis gets some of the best speeches, and the ideals he at least strives to uphold are some of the highest-minded in the series. But even Stannis falls short of those ideals at times. He abandoned his small council post when it became clear Ned was Robert's pick for hand. He killed his brother.

And leaving King's Landing ended with terrible repercussions. Stannis could have been a real ally to Ned. And when Robert died, Ned might have actually gone for the "seize Cersei and the kids" plan if it was to seat Stannis, preventing so much bloodshed down the road.

>He killed his brother.
That's not a bad thing.

Joffrey's murder was a mistake.

>The kinslayer is accursed in the eyes of gods and men.
In the books kinslaying is on par with breaking guest right as far as taboos go.

It's not as if he did it himself.

Don't forget he also killed his daughter. The Only person he ever loved and the reason why he fought in the war in the first place

>In the books kinslaying is on par with breaking guest right as far as taboos go.
What do you think Renly would do to Stannis, if he wasn't assassinated?
>Don't forget he also killed his daughter
Showfags, leave.

Did any character (who actually appears in both) get mangled by the adaptation worse than Stannis? Maybe Ellaria and the Sand Snakes. Maybe Euron.

>Don't forget he also killed his daughter
Showfags, leave.

She will get a similar fate on the book. Martin told them to kill her.

This thread might have been okay the first time.

Shireen is at castle black. If she burns, Stannis will have had nothing to do with the decision. His batshit crazy wife and Mel are far more likely culprits.

The show saved Euron for being the edgy fuck he was in the books.

Sansa feeds a man to dogs in the show. I was like, what the fuck? They really fucked up her character, but this was the worst part.

There's nothing noble, you are right. Governing is a dirty bussines and societies are build on lies.

>His batshit crazy wife
Pretty fucking sure Selyse won't kill the Heir to the Iron Throne

The evil morality of the archaic and feudal society must be smashed into smithering. It is time for a strong state supported by professional soldiers.

Or they end up at the top of the heap.

You mean, that daughter of hers that she really fucking hates? Sure, she won't burn her.

Selyse doesn't Shireen in the Books you fucking showfag. She just laments she couldn't give Stannis the Sons he wanted

Nobility scales with killing power. Kings can have entire countries put to the sword, while a peasant might kill one person in his entire lifetime if he's exceptionally skilled.

Cersei acts like a quee sorceress but with none of the powers to back her up. She better marry Euron to learn a trick or two.

>Calls me a showfag
>Blames Stannis for burning Shireen
Hm-m-m-m

Do you honestly need a explanation for why It's dishonourable to poison someone after inviting them into your home; offering them food, shelter, and not to kill them.
Instead of on the field of battle, by the rule of fair play, where they have a just chance to defend themselves?

fine, fine, because of the Hospitium
that is to say the divine right of the guest and the divine duty of the host.
The Romans and/or Greeks thought it up.
Imported it when they concurred the place and left it behind along with the roads.
the nobles kept it going because quite frankly who wants to be killed by a soufflé and Mr R. R. Martin picked it up along with most of the story from whatever history book he was reading.
now quit being a faggot

Any Stannisfags left?

>Take the taboo against cannibalism, for example
Ironically, the Maori were the most successful Polynesian culture leading into the modern age and they practiced cannibalism.

Because killing ten thousand men in battle is more exhilarating. Blood for the blood god.

So long you can get away with it, it's fine. It helps that the ones who did the deed were treacherous snakes or desperate and not Tywin himself. Dont get your hands dirty when others can do it in your name.

He should have left the Boltons and Freys rule. Then, at the heigh of their tyranny overthrow them with a champion supported by you. All the evil acts will be blamed on him and you will be greated as a savior. Basic strategy to pacify people. Send a tyrant to do the dirty job, send a "hero" who will get rid of him making the population grateful to you and your champion. Do you even politics?

The mountain clans so respected Ned (because he treated them with respect) that they were willing -- eager -- to join Stannis and try to take Winterfell to save just one of his kids (although it wasn't actually her), and they want to make the Boltons pay for their treachery. Although, admittedly, that's partly because they saw it as better than the alternative of trying to wait out the winter. Here's what the Wull has to say about it.

>I want to live forever in a land where summer lasts a thousand years. I want a castle in the clouds where I can look down over the world. I want to be six-and-twenty again. When I was six-and-twenty I could fight all day and fuck all night. What men want does not matter. Winter is almost upon us, boy. And winter is death. I would sooner my men die fighting for the Ned's little girl than alone and hungry in the snow, weeping tears that freeze upon their cheeks. No one sings songs of men who die like that. As for me, I am old. This will be my last winter. Let me bathe in Bolton blood before I die. I want to feel it spatter across my face when my axe bites deep into a Bolton skull. I want to lick it off my lips and die with the taste of it on my tongue.

I'll never forgive them for killing /ourboy/ like that in the show.

Euron will be revealed to be an ally of the Others kill everyone i Wsteros making all this talk of honour and ruleship pointless in the emd.

>Ramsay Snow needed 20 good men to burn some supplies when Bronn could impregnate the bitch (the Eyrie) with 10 good men.

He's falsely equating the act of believing what "feels" true to him over what logic says (what he does) with the act of acknowledging the existence of feelings and applying logic to them (what his enemies do).

For example, one might strenuously object to physical abuse but willfully ignore emotional abuse, because the emotions of others "feel" like meaningless nothings to his own while physical abuse is easily observable and thus harder to deny or ignore. This is the "MUH FEELZ bullshit" he mentioned, though he would likely object to this particular example.

Conversely, one might believe that feelings are good and hurting people's feelings is bad, observe that physical and emotional abuse hurt people's feelings, and conclude that abuse is bad. This is sound logic based on objective reality, though logic of this sort is often falsely dismissed as "MUH FEELZ bullshit" due to actual MUH FEELZ bullshit.

On the battlefield they know what they're getting into. Killing them at dinner is like ripping up a character sheet.

Not an argument

BUT FOR THE BLOOD GOD

SKULLS FOR HIS SKULL THRONE

ANYTHING LESS IS PROFLIGACY

YOU'RE PROBABLY ONE OF SLAANESH'S CATAMITES

Why is it not noble to kill people in any context?

You're members of the same species competing for resources. Fuck them, if they're too weak or too stupid to win, their genes shouldn't pass on. Killing the weak and foolish is the only moral choice. It makes the species stronger.

There was nothing to argue against. I'm just stating facts.

I bet you're a real ubermensch, user, posting on a mongolian herding forum from your mother's basement.

Not every Nazi started as an ubermensch. I may have started lifting and caring about my race, but I can't find a way to forsake old vices... like shitposting and playing table-top RPGs.

Either way, the question stands -- why is Judeo-Christian morality the default? Kill the weak -- keep the people strong.

>than a dozen at dinner.

Pretty sure the army camping outside was slaughter.

You sound a lot like "the weak". Have you considered suicide? I bet the internet will really like your sick manifesto

Sure thing, faggot.

Because there is no guarantee that today's strong would not become tomorrow's weak, or vice versa. To give in to the law of the wild would be to reject the chance for these people to rise again.

Besides, I doubt you wouldn't beg for mercy if your head was on the chopping block.

Sometimes you get lucky.

Everybody would beg for mercy -- the question is why is the law of the wild less moral than any other arbitrarily "moral" system.

I guess that my main objection is my first point -- that by having the "strong" stamp down on the "weak," knowledge and experience that could have been gained in other fields is necessarily usurped by the need to know how to become strong. I'm no philosopher, and I'm sure as hell missing a lot of pertinent points, but it seems blinkered to base a society purely around strength.

But what do I know? I'm just another poster on this Khmer kayaking webspace.

The practitioners of such philosophies tend to be huge cunts.

One God, One Land, One King

More importantly they tend to kind of run themselves into the ground anyway.

There is an implicit trust in agreed-upon diplomacy. If that trust falters, wars wouldn't ever really stop. You'd have clan-style blood feuds writ large.

Shorthand? Consent, to a degree.

What if you were smart and strong enough to amass a bunch of resources and win the loyalty of a large family/tribe such that they will protect you even when you're old and weak?

So you are the biggest, strongest, smartest, and most charismatic guy around and everyone loves you?

You wanna throw some heterochromia in there? I think a tragic backstory, something involving an unspeakable power that lives inside you, would really round out that exceptionalist fantasy.