Chapter 27: Game of Thrones' View on Good and Evil and Some Customs

Reader Chixiaodianfeng asked two questions in the comment section, I will answer them first.

Are nobles just employees, and can Yule inherit the title and territory if he kills Arthur?

First, in the regions of Westeros in Game of Thrones that worship the Seven, one should add the prefix "Armed" to nobles.

"Armed" Noble is their true designation.

The social division of labor for these nobles integrates the functions of the military, police, urban management, and all other violent institutions.

What noble families need to do is ensure that the smallfolk are not subjected to violent infringement by any forces other than the lord.

The smallfolk only need to pay taxes on time to receive the lord's protection.

Furthermore, Westeros uses a system of enfeoffment; higher-level nobles protect the territories of lower-level nobles from being encroached upon by others, but they cannot control those who flee the territory.

To be precise, they do not have a household registration system (only those who speak Chinese should have a household registration system), it is just that because the cost of moving is too high, there is no circulation.

Combining these two points, it seems that in a certain sense, nobles are just employees.

Similar to the positioning of a sheepdog.

Second question, if Yule kills Arthur, he will be exiled to the Wall to become a Black Brother.

This is also closely related to the Armed Noble.

In order to maintain family power and reduce internal friction caused by infighting among members, the act of an heir killing the Jiaodu to obtain the family inheritance is resisted by the entire continent.

For one, it truly infringes upon the interests of Dukes and Counts.

Secondly, it violates the unspoken rules of inheritance law.

Thirdly, such infighting would greatly consume the family's strength, giving rivals an opportunity to exploit.

To ensure the strength of their family power, nobles use every means possible; the custom of positioning second sons as warriors, and the culture of younger sons being named foster sons but actually serving as hostages, are all ways to squeeze the utility out of family members.

In such an atmosphere, if an heir could inherit just by killing the Jiaodu, then all heirs would have ideas.

Therefore, as long as one case appears, it will be firmly suppressed.

Such a millennia-old convention makes second sons prefer to go out and be mercenaries rather than return to their own families to rebel.

The Blackfyre Rebellion of the Targaryen Dynasty is an exception; that was actually a conflict ignited by long-standing grudges in The Reach, the Stormlands, and Dorne.

These two questions are answered.

Thanks again to Chixiaodianfeng for the tip and monthly ticket.

The following is the view on good and evil in Game of Thrones:

If you divide order, neutrality, and chaos, and good, neutrality, and evil into a nine-grid combination.

Then the view on good and evil in Game of Thrones that the author of A Song of Ice and Fire wants to express is absolute neutrality.

This manifests in killing as only being able to kill those who kill you, and blood feuds.

As for the life and death of others, unrelated people have no right to interfere.

Eddard Stark interfered in the death of that deserter, and he was interfered with in the same way.

But those who read our novels are all people who speak Chinese, so this view of good and evil has some conflicts.

For the Chinese-speaking population, the vast majority of people's good-evil spectrum is in good-neutral, and sways between good-order and good-chaos depending on different events.

There is a flexible good-evil spectrum, right?

For example, when longing for a righteous official to make decisions for the common people, it is good-order.

But when saying "Are kings and nobles born with more noble blood?", it is good-chaos (this also counts as the good camp, because it occupies the moral high ground of fighting for oneself).

Under this culture, people like chivalrous heroes and chivalrous thieves who rob the rich to help the poor and plunder houses will gain the sympathy and understanding of most people.

Like the 108 heroes of Liangshan, they are actually 108 villains, but in public opinion, they are not images of extreme evil.

Even Lu Zhishen, the only hero, has several lives on his hands.

But he has wisdom roots; the abbot saying it is not easy for him to kill and set fires is not mocking him, because he truly jumped out of the category of "hero" in the end.

And having a flexible good-evil spectrum is also very common.

Song Jiang acted on behalf of Heaven, but while acting, he ran to the Eastern Capital to bow down to Song Huizong.

Take the time when Guan Yu shook Huaxia. The bandits of Liang, Jia, and Luhun either remotely accepted Guan Yu's seals and titles or became his supporters; Guan Yu's power shook Huaxia, and Cao Gong discussed moving the capital to Xudu to avoid his sharpness.

These greenwood bandits actually responded to another separatist force, instantly changing their spectrum to the order camp.

We might think such behavior is normal, but it does not conform to the view of good and evil in Game of Thrones.

I think the good and evil value orientation that Martin wants to express is very similar to a movie.

Forrest Gump.

In it, Gump is good to whoever is good to him; whoever is bad to him, he runs away, staying away from those who are bad to him, rather than fighting back.

Of course, he also hits people, but this is in the situation where Jenny is bullied (in his opinion); in the West, this can be considered a blood feud.

It is Justice, and it is moral.

Later, Jenny did indeed become his family.

Our blood feuds were abolished as early as the beginning of the Western Han Dynasty because they did not conform to the ruling order of Confucianism on the outside and Legalism on the inside.

Because blood feuds gave the families of executed criminals a legitimate reason for revenge.

And considering that most executions in autumn were ordered by the Emperor, the target of this revenge became the supreme ruler.

This is a disaster for the stability of order, so it was quickly abolished.

Many people say that my earlier part about not killing the bandits disguised by Brynden and others is a bit "poisonous," but I think not killing them is normal.

They did not kill the villagers of Riverbank Village first, so this is just a dispute, not the lord's Justice of blood feud.

But after Santaga killed someone, the lord, as family in a certain sense (the "parent-official"), can then carry out a "blood feud."

The above is my point of view; if you have any questions, then you are right.

(End of chapter)