Dominate the Game of Thrones with Mount and Blade

Chapter 27: The View of Good and Evil and Some Customs in Game of Thrones

The reader Zhixiao Danfeng asked two questions in the comment area, I will answer them first.

Are nobles working for others? And can Jules inherit the title and territory by killing Arthur?

First, in the area of ​​the southern part of Westeros in Game of Thrones that believes in the Seven Gods, nobles should be prefixed with "armed".

"Armed" nobles are their real name.

The social division of these nobles is the division of labor of all violent institutions such as the army, police, and urban management.

What the noble family needs to do is to ensure that the people in the territory will not be violently invaded by any forces other than the lord.

The people in the territory only need to pay taxes on time to get the protection of the lord.

Moreover, Westeros is a fiefdom, and the nobles of the upper level will protect the territories of the lower nobles from being occupied by others, but they can't control those who escape from the territory.

To be precise, they don't have a household registration system (only people who speak Chinese should have a household registration system), but because the cost of moving is too high, it is not circulated.

Combining these two points, it seems that the nobles are in a sense just working.

Similar to the positioning of a sheepdog.

The second question is that if Jules kills Arthur, he will be exiled to the Wall of Despair as a black man.

This is also closely related to the armed nobles.

In order to maintain the family power and reduce the internal friction caused by the infighting among members, the behavior of an heir killing the head of the family to inherit the family will be resisted by the whole continent.

First, it really infringes on the interests of the dukes and earls.

Second, it violates the unspoken rules of the inheritance law.

Third, this kind of infighting will greatly consume the family's strength and give the opponent an opportunity to take advantage of it.

In order to ensure the strength of the family, the nobles can do everything they can. The custom of positioning the second son as a warrior and the culture of the youngest son as a hostage are all to squeeze the value of the family members.

In such an atmosphere, if an heir can inherit by killing the head of the family, then all the heirs will have ideas.

So as long as there is a case, it will be suppressed.

This practice of thousands of years makes the second sons prefer to go out as mercenaries rather than return to their own families to rebel.

The Blackfyre Rebellion of the Targaryen Dynasty is another matter. It was actually a conflict triggered by the feud between the Reach, Stormlands and Dorne.

These two questions have been answered.

Thanks again for the reward and monthly ticket from Chixiao Dianfeng.

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

If order, neutrality, chaos, good, neutrality and evil are divided into nine grids.

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

This is reflected in killing, that is, you can only kill the person who killed you, and blood revenge.

Other people’s lives and deaths are not subject to interference by unrelated people.

Eddard Stark interfered with the death of the deserter, and he was also interfered with.

But the readers of our novels are all Chinese speakers, so this view of good and evil is a bit conflicting.

For the Chinese population, the spectrum of good and evil of the vast majority of people is good and neutral, and swings between good order and good chaos with different events.

There is a flexible spectrum of good and evil.

For example, when you are eager for the great master to make decisions for the common people, it is good order.

But when the kings, princes, generals and ministers are not of the same kind, then goodness is in chaos (this can also be considered the good camp, because it occupies the moral high ground of fighting for itself).

In this culture, the chivalrous and chivalrous bandits who rob the rich to help the poor and rob houses will get the sympathy and understanding of most people.

For example, the 108 heroes of Liangshan are actually 108 villains, but in public opinion, they are not extremely evil.

Even Lu Zhishen, the only hero, has killed several people.

But he has wisdom, and the abbot said that it is not easy for him to kill and set fire, which is not a satire on him, because he really jumped out of the category of heroes in the end.

And it is also common to have a flexible spectrum of good and evil.

Song Jiang acted on behalf of heaven, and ran to Tokyo to give Song Huizong a slap in the face.

Another example is the part where Guan Yu shocked Huaxia. Liang, Jia, and Luhun bandits may have received Guan Yu's seal and became his party. Guan Yu shocked Huaxia, and Cao Gong proposed to move to Xudu to avoid his sharp edge.

This group of bandits actually responded to another separatist force and instantly changed their spectrum to the order camp.

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

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

Forrest Gump.

In the story, Forrest Gump treats whoever treats him well, he treats whoever treats him well; whoever treats him badly, he runs away and stays away from those who treat him badly, instead of fighting back.

Of course, he will beat people, but this is when Jenny is bullied (he thinks), which can be considered blood revenge in the West.

It is just and moral.

Later, Jenny did become his family.

Our blood revenge was abolished as early as the early Western Han Dynasty because it did not conform to the ruling order of Confucianism as the skin and Legalism as the inside.

Because blood revenge gave the family of the beheaded criminal a legal reason for revenge.

And considering that most of the executions were ordered by the emperor, the object of revenge became the supreme ruler.

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

Many people said that I was a bit cruel for not killing the bandits pretending to be Brynden and others, but I think it was normal not to kill them.

They didn't kill the villagers of Riverside Village first, either. This was just a dispute, not the lord's just revenge.

But after Santaga killed someone, the lord, as a family member in a sense (the parent official), could "revenge his blood relatives".

The above is my point of view. If you have any doubts, then you are right.