Explain the Morality of this /tg/.

Why do you keep posting this thread?

>>54735541
I simply wish to know why is it Evil to kill them at Dinner and end the war early, than to fight them in a prolonged war in which much more will die.

>>54735596
>>54735515
You've been told why a dozen times over.

>>54735515
Realistically, people didn't die from battles. Armies were routed and retreated pretty swiftly when men were killed because, surprise, nobody wants to be dead. Most historical deaths during war are not directly related to combat until we see really heavily industrialized militaries, and by then war is pretty much just a ping-pong battle of assassinations anyways. Likewise, killing of men in combat itself was more often than not considered distasteful and nonproductive. Maybe you pursue the routed army and stab a few guys to send a message that you're willing to keep up the fight, but you don't typically chase them down to their camp and light them on fire in their sleep or something. You don't typically need to kill hostages, etc, etc.

To ASSASINATE somebody in the same context is to expressly intend to kill them. It is the final objective, and it involves using methods that deny an attempt to defend themselves.

>>54735515
Because without the tacit understanding that it's acceptable for enemies to meet at dinner and discuss diplomatic measures without one attempting to kill another, peace can never be achieved without total annihilation due to the breakdown in diplomacy.

You don't want to be the man who no one can bargain with. Those men tend to live very short lives.

>>54735515
Diplomacy becomes much harder when there are backstabbers everywhere. If you want your enemies to surrender, try not to give them the impression they'll be dead anyway.

>>54735629

I rather wish I had been here to see those. Fuck it, I'm taking the bait. Damn curiosity.

>>54735515

Because we liked the people he had murdered and all the peasants are literally nameless npc's so who gives a fuck? I mean that's the reason in context of literature. We're emotionally invested in the characters, the battles are just there to explore said characters.

Because murder, conspiracy to murder, and treachery are abhorrent? You can't possibly think that buying murder is a morally acceptable action.

File: The Vagina Ass of Lucifer Niggerbastard.pdf (246KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1x1px

Teehee Maccaroni is the bane of my fucking existence.

Every fucking campaign that my GM runs inevitably at some point involves running into an NPC named "Teehee Maccaroni," who the GM affectionately describes as "an epic level sorcerer who's also a retarded nudist gnome."

Teehee Maccaroni wander the countryside with a unique Rod of Wonders powered by "retard magic" shoved up his anus, and he casts the Rod of Wonders by diddling his penis. He says nothing but his own name in different inflections and the phrase "I like-a the goodberry, gimme gimme the goodberry." The GM thinks it's hilarious to have this character show up during the middle of encounters we're struggling at and start jerking off magic everywhere.

But the worst part is his chant. He wanders around chanting his name, so when he's about to show up the GM will start low;
Tee-hee-hee, Maccaroni Maccaroni
Tee-hee-hee, Maccaroni Maccaroni
And then get louder and louder until he's fucking shouting
TEE HEE HEE, MACCARONI MACCARONI!
TEE HEE HEE, MACCARONI MACCARONI!

And the table loves it! The other guys I play with think this is the best shit! Teehee Maccaroni has been our table's de-facto inside joke, our signature "running gag" for six years now. When that chant starts up, everyone else joins in like a ritual; the whole table is expected to start chanting "TEE HEE HEE, MACCARONI MACCARONI" by the end, and every fucking time I refuse because this is some embarrassing circa-2002 Penguin of Doom shit, it's always the same thing; "There goes user again! No fun allowed around user! Anon's just a big grouch who's getting angry because we're making him touch Teehee Maccaroni's penis again! Why won't you just let us have fun with this character, he's just here for dumb fun, you stick-in-the mud!"

These motherfuckers are all over 25 years old.

Teehee Maccaroni is going to be the death of me.

>>54735629
Those answers were backed nothing more than emotions and feelings.

>>54735749
>emotional responses are invalid
Where did this meme start? We have emotions for a reason.

>>54735714
>>54735719

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.

>>54735748

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.

>>54735515
>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.

>>54735515

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

And when you violate social mores, homosex happens.

File: 1477612227248.jpg (51KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 514x536px

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.

>>54735515

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.

>>54735768
SJW's MUH FEELZ bullshit.

>>54735515
We explained it to you a thousand times already, but fine, anon, 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.

>>54735515
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.

>>54735515
people will die regardless. civility is another matter.

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

>>54735785

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.

>>54735984
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.

>>54735749
What is morality beyond emotions and feelings, anon? Your caring about the matter is simply emotions and feelings, and your caring is valid.

>>54735975
What the fuck are you talking about

>>54736202


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.

>>54735515
But the Freys killed a lot of Robb's army by setting the tents they were in.

>>54736376
On fire.

>>54735515

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

>>54735515

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.

>>54735515
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?

>>54735515
Because diplomacy.

File: 7WKoocp.jpg (110KB, 960x787px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 960x787px

>>54737267
>diplomacy
diplomacy is for the Weak. The Strong takes what is theirs

>>54737290
This is some nigger-tier logic.

>>54737290
Look everyone, it's an outdated and discredited ideology that can't survive in modern times.

Let's point and laugh at him.

>>54735596
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.

>>54737408
Hey, some very successful empires that usually only last a generation or two have benefited from that ideology!

File: Stannis.jpg (71KB, 600x782px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x782px

>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?

>>54735515
You know, maybe Hitler was on to something

>>54737290
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.

>>54735515
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.

>>54737522
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.

>>54737581
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

>>54737581
He'd also recently been told that his brothers had been murdered, right? Guy was not in a good state on any level.

>>54737456
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.

>>54737785
>He killed his brother.
That's not a bad thing.

Joffrey's murder was a mistake.

>>54737805
>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.

>>54737886
It's not as if he did it himself.

>>54737886
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

>>54737950
>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.

>>54737963
Did any character (who actually appears in both) get mangled by the adaptation worse than Stannis? Maybe Ellaria and the Sand Snakes. Maybe Euron.

>>54737963

>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.

>>54738047
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.

>>54738012
The show saved Euron for being the edgy fuck he was in the books.

>>54738012
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.

>>54735515

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

>>54738070
>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.

>>54735714
Or they end up at the top of the heap.

>>54738118
You mean, that daughter of hers that she really fucking hates? Sure, she won't burn her.

>>54738178
Selyse doesn't Shireen in the Books you fucking showfag. She just laments she couldn't give Stannis the Sons he wanted

>>54735515
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.

>>54738194
>Calls me a showfag
>Blames Stannis for burning Shireen
Hm-m-m-m

>>54735515
>>54735596
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

File: ramsay_bolton.jpg (269KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 800x500px

Any Stannisfags left?

>>54736352
>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.

>>54735596
Because killing ten thousand men in battle is more exhilarating. Blood for the blood god.

>>54735515

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.

>>54738792

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?

>>54736208
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.

File: stannis.webm (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

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.

>>54738961
>Ramsay Snow needed 20 good men to burn some supplies when Bronn could impregnate the bitch (the Eyrie) with 10 good men.

>>54736297
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.

>>54739530
Not an argument

>>54735515
BUT FOR THE BLOOD GOD

SKULLS FOR HIS SKULL THRONE

ANYTHING LESS IS PROFLIGACY

YOU'RE PROBABLY ONE OF SLAANESH'S CATAMITES

>>54735515
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.

>>54739685
There was nothing to argue against. I'm just stating facts.

>>54739723
I bet you're a real ubermensch, anon, posting on a mongolian herding forum from your mother's basement.

>>54739735
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.

>>54735515
>than a dozen at dinner.

Pretty sure the army camping outside was slaughter.

>>54739762
You sound a lot like "the weak". Have you considered suicide? I bet the internet will really like your sick manifesto

>>54739805
Sure thing, faggot.

>>54739762
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.

>>54738724

Sometimes you get lucky.

>>54739861
Everybody would beg for mercy -- the question is why is the law of the wild less moral than any other arbitrarily "moral" system.

>>54739882
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.

>>54739882
The practitioners of such philosophies tend to be huge cunts.

File: 1432424096750.jpg (251KB, 500x968px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 500x968px

>>54738646
One God, One Land, One King

>>54739974
More importantly they tend to kind of run themselves into the ground anyway.

>>54735515
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.

>>54739970
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?

>>54740044

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.

>>54740044
So, if you can corrupt those people into immorality? After all, if we're operating on a moral system of "kill the weak," then protecting someone after they're no longer strong would be immoral.

>>54735515
Because murdering people this way sabotages the principles on which noble houses can interact peacefully in the future.

>>54740087
Why do you hate Alexander the Great so much?

>>54737290
Only characters that are Darkseid tier strong can successfully employ that logic.

The scope of work that a single mortal human can achieve by himself is somewhere greater than building your own home and less than raising a barn. Once you employ a single subordinate, you are using diplomacy at its lowest most basic level.

>>54738177
yes they do, but only for a short time.

>>54740004
Stannis the Mannis

>>54735749
>stilted Mr Spock delivery
>middle school Hannibal Lecter
>common as fuck, fluffy as hell
turbo autist detected

>>54735596
>>54735749
Other than the implict collapse of trust brought on by the breaking of treaties and hospitality laws in a sneak attack that undermine the ability to actually prevent wars or end them with negotiations because every conference must be assumed to be a trap.

>>54740273
Can R'hllor at once be the Real God and also Evil?

>>54737290
That's an attitude that will guarantee your defeat.

>>54737522
>>54737581
>>54737668
>>54737669
Regardless of what Robert's ulterior motives were, it was a shit diplomatic move on his part, not only due to automatically cancelling the Frey alliance but because it would have seriously hampered his other bannermens' trust in his future promises as well as the one he had already made but had yet to fulfill his part of.

That the Lannisters, Freys and Boltons then went on to make a diplomatic blunder of their own is another matter entirely.

I want to know why poisoning the king is fine.

>>54740380
It isn't, which is why it's done in secrecy.

>>54740380

It's funny how this act leads to a chain of events that ends up with the complete extinction of house Tyrell in the show and will likely to be the same on the books.

>>54737290
Diplomacy is only for the strong, who have nothing to fear and everything to gain. Only the desperate and weak resort to wanton slaughter, for they don't have the clout to get what they want through better methods.

>>54739762

Because a man alone is a man dead.

Weakness and strength only exist in groups. Continuity, culture, only exist when you are part of a group of people. The man alone dies, and leaves behind carrion and perhaps some pathetic refuse.

The OG fascists understood this much: Strength comes from the bonds between a people, from order and discipline within. Allowing self styled individuals to do as they wish; making a virtue of walking corpses who maraud and weaken those bonds for their own gain, whether by deed or word, by weapon or by coin, that is how a strong society degenerates into a rabble. And rabble are always conquered.

>>54735515

I have a simple flowchart.

ARE THE SOLDIERS CONSCRIPTS?
IF YES: better to kill the nobles
IF NO: meh

>>54740508
Please get a trip so I can filter your stupid ass.

>>54735666
>Likewise, killing of men in combat itself was more often than not considered distasteful and nonproductive.
What is the Battle of Cannae?

>>54739882
>law of the wild becomes a thing
>people band together into small groups for safety
>sometimes a particularly strong guy or group of guys offers to protect some weak chump groups in exchange for some stuff or to get some odd jobs done
>uses that newfound wealth to get bribe other strong dudes into working for him
>orders those dudes to put his son in charge when he dies
>we Monarchy/Feudalism/Warlords now
it's almost like we've tried the Law of the Wild before, and it fell apart once society became a thing.

>>54740462
There's quite a ways before Tyrell would be anywhere near as fucked in the books. It's not impossible they'll just kill Loras' two older brothers out of the blue or whatever, but I'd like to think they wont just have Cersi blow everyone up. From what I vaguely remember their bigger problem is they can't really do anything about all the raiding that's happening in their territory

>>54740595
Right. How do we police it to keep it from falling apart into profligate feudalism?

>>54740462
>MFW they actually sided with the Lannisters.
I never understood why they would join a sinking Ship

>>54740595
More like, we still live in a state of anarchy where the law of the wild prevails. It's just that in most places single gangs have enough power and control that people don't feel like going against them.

>>54740614
You can't. LotW is a stepping stone to forming a society, nothing more. It collapses because power corrupts and no matter how benevolent YOU are (if you were the leader) not everyone has the same values as you do and will royally fuck it in their pursuit for what you have. It's human nature.

>>54740380
Because it was done on HIS turf, not in the poisoner's home.

>>54739882
>>54740595
>>54740614
The inherent problem with anarchist/rules of nature bullshit, is that we have thousands of years of evidence that higher governmental structures have massive competitive advantages over less organized societies, meaning that even in some broad, disorganized structure, the first guy to go full feudalism ends up owning all of his neighbors.

Possibly literally.

>>54740634
It wasn't clear to people that the Lannister's situation was fucked at the time. In fact, they seemed to be winning the war at the time.

>>54740639
Can we police it by being malevolent instead of benevolent? That is, training society to kill anyone who might lean in that direction?

Can we make the all-conquering force of the Legion a reality in a world where the moral fiber and martial elan of the Roman Legionary is separated by eons and oceans?

File: 1496810034231.jpg (33KB, 562x600px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 562x600px

>>54735515
Because civilization, peace, treaties, laws, and everything that allows us to be better than animals is based on trust.

Destroy that trust and people start murdering each other for fear that the other will do so to them in their sleep.

You shortsighted hack

>>54740614
That would require some sort of Brotherhood of Steel like order to just cut it down when it happens, but that doesn't even work in their own fictional universe. I mean you're essentially talking about outright sabotaging civilization, yet somehow maintaining the means to monitor and control civilization, while at the same time hoping this organization doesn't just take it upon themselves to become the new kings. It's basically nonsense

>>54740614
You don't.

If you have people policing it, then it's the police that go feudal and take over everything.

LotW just doesn't work for more than the brief period of time until humans start working with other humans to not die as quickly.

>>54740664
We could try, and history has shown that subjugation and persecution are effective tools of control, but you'll always have that one "idealist" who thinks they can do better, and are better than you. It's a tricky road, especially in our day and age

This thread has kinda shed a light on modern day topics like illegal immigration and the homeless. They're basically a large group of unwanted guests abusing the hospitality rule. I'd love to just kill them all, but it's so damned impractical.

>>54736202
>e Red Wedding violated Guest Rights, which is a HUUUGE fucking deal.

Very nicely put. Harkens back to the era when tg didn't need moderation because even spammed bait threads would turn into thoughtful productive valuable conversations.

To what you said let me add this: Christians believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in the Bible because of, well, sodomy. But in fact in Jewish tradition, the key sin that damned those cities was that they mistreated guests. Lot was spared because he didn't; in fact he offered up his own daughters to the mob to spare the visitors and preserve the sanctity of guest right (eeewwww). Arab traditions were very stringent as well.

>>54736297

He's false flagging is what he's doing.

>>54740708
I have a feeling you would reach also that conclusion in a stat me thread for an anime girl

>>54735515
Kill ten thousand men in battle, and you're an excellent general. Kill a dozen at dinner, and you're a terrible host.

>>54740717
Guest Right was just their final sin.

He'd already proposed wiping them out for the unnatural sex acts and rapey horrible shit.

>>54737290

The quote you're screwing up is "the strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must". And Thudycides was an ardent believer in diplomacy and personal honor. For reasons made plain throughout the thread.

>>54740717
Arab tradition was so stringent that if you managed to consume any amount of bread an salt in another person's home/camp with them, you were safe.

>>54740777
I'm gonna say the rapey shit was higher on the priority list.

File: __yakumo_yukari_.png (3MB, 2887x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2887x1080px

>>54740663
>It wasn't clear to people that the Lannister's situation was fucked at the time.
Anon the Ship was sinking from the get-go in the beginning with Joffrey. It's sinking even Faster under Tommen

>In fact, they seemed to be winning the war at the time.
Winning what at the Time? Robb just BTFO Tywin like a bitch, Jamie was rekt and got captured, Stannis was poised on capturing the Capital. If it weren't for a Deus ex Machina They would have lost right then and there.

>>54739723
>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.
Killing those willing to help you doesn't make you strong, it makes you an idiot that no one will trust and everyone will gang up on to kill because you are an unstable animal that cannot be trusted

>>54740577
>more often than not

And in the long run, it IS non-productive. The only major world power to employ this strategy were the Mongols. Central Asia was so completely de-populated that those places are still dark age tier nations that haven't recovered -- despite abundant natural resources.

High GDP per capita = city state
High total GDP = empire

>>54740577
Notable because even a 10% fatality rate is insanely higher for even modern battles. The objective of battle is to destroy the enemies ability to resist, and the objective of war is to enforce your will on the enemy. It's not strictly necessary to actually kill your enemy to do so. A lot of campaigns would feature months of two armies maneuvering until one gained such an advantage in positioning or numbers or logistics that the other simply disengaged.

>>54740940
Insanely high*

>>54740577

Every single general in history has attempted to recreate Cannae. It's not that easy to do that, specially when Cannae is prime material in military books and everyone knows about it.

>>54740636
This. A prerequisite of becoming a government is having a Monopoly of Violence within your territory.

>>54738892

With the Bolton's, that was exactly his plan. He came out and explained it to Tyrion when telling him to marry sansa. After a winter of nasty Bolton rule, Tyrion could return to the North with a Stark bride and the heir to Ned (her son by Tyrion). Rebuild Winterfell and eliminate the Boltons.

He never says so, but what do you think he was doing putting Lannisters in Riverrun and Harvest Hall? They had Frey connections, to be sure, but even the Freys acknowledged that once Walder finally died the Freys would turn on one another and whoever wasn't in the branch that controlled the Twins would be cast out. Tywin was setting the stage for eventually putting the Lannister faction of Freys in charge.

Btw that was part of the same problem as OP poses. Tywin was so treacherous that his only allies were similar snakes. And they each were eager to undercut one another or turn on themselves with internecine fights. He expected loyalty... but how do you get it when you have none yourself?

Honor and loyalty are surprisingly practical, even when they're justified in irrational-seeming emotional rhetoric. Traditions, traditional values and beliefs are surprisingly practical. It's the people who throw those out to show off how modern and ruthless and rational and virtuous they are with some hot new political theory who usually mastermind the biggest atrocities and come to the worst ends.

>>54735596
The same reason why kings don't massacre messengers and ambassadors sent by other royalty and nobles. You'd set a precedent you cannot be trusted under truce and will break your word and bond as soon as it is beneficial to you. If you cannot provide safe harbor to the guests in your home, it speaks of your character that you will also most likely backstab your allies and not honor any terms of surrender from your enemies.

>>54737454
i don't think you can call an empire that only lasts a generation or two, very successful.

>>54739762

The trashpiles of history are littered with cultures that laughed at meek and sentimental Jewish and Christian values.

>>54740664
Sure, then you get a lil' pesky thing called morality and one lil' guy thinking why do Nan-nan have to die for the village to live and then we'd have a Feudal Monarchy again.

>>54739762
>why is Judeo-Christian morality the default?
Because the Jews and the Christians mostly killed anyone who disputed that their morality was best.

>>54740664
It wouldn't be training, it would be indoctrination. You would need to brainwash the population as children to value honor and victory above comfort and material wealth. This kind of effort would take generations, and how would you go about re-educating the adult population? Mao killed millions but the Cultural Revolution still fell apart.

>>54739882

In the Wild, eventually a group of people cook up abstract systems of honor that allow them to form a high trust society, when then outcompetes and supplants everyone else.

You're in the wild right now, anon. Just because the radical Left and the alt right don't like or understand these traditions doesn't mean they aren't devastatingly effective.

>>54741009

Just how many upright houses are in Westeros beyond the Starks?

>>54741067
The Christian and Jewish values only "succeeded" via subverting cultures of strength. Like Constantine enforcing Christianity in the Roman Empire -- built on pagan strenght.

>>54741087
No, they mostly subverted and converted the faggots among them, like Constantine and Theodosius.

>>54740801
>I'm gonna say the rapey shit was higher on the priority list.

Then you were probably raised in the Christian interpretation of the story, not the Jewish one. If you ask a Torah scholar, violating sacred hospitality was a MUCH bigger deal.

>>54741185
Yeah, that's the thing about cultures of strength. They tend to have a big underclass of "the weak" that are sorta attracted to ideologies that give them a shot in life.

>>54739723
You don't need to kill, matter of fact killing can be quite disadvantageous as it causes others to attack you in turn. Manipulation works pretty well, but it's always good to have genuine friends and allies who will support you for not being a prick.
But it doesn't sound like you would have many friends so it seems you're shit out of luck.

>>54741185

The truth is indeed quite subversive in a fallen world, pagancuck.

>>54741151
A decent number, but they aren't in charge. Plus, tend to people react to like with like; if you use violence they are likely to use violence back, if you use treachery people tend be treacherous, and so on and so forth.
People generally like to follow rules because it keeps everything orderly and neat, but they want to LIVE even more. The issue is it's not really healthy for folks mentally in the long term, and entire shellshocked societies tend to visibly get way more unhealthy over time in a number of ways.

>>54740812
>Anon the Ship was sinking from the get-go
Which was clear to us who read the books, but wasn't obvious to the characters in the stories who naturally have much less information than us.

>Robb just BTFO Tywin
And only had support in the North, and only for indendence from the Iron Throne. The Tyrell's were not interested in the North nor in indepence. They wanted to put an heir on the Iron Throne.

>Jamie was rekt and got captured
Jaime was a member of the Kingsguard and as such had no right to inherit anything. His well-being was of no concern to the Tyrells.

>Stannis was poised on capturing the Capital
Stannis only had Dragonstone. He wasn't even mentioned as serious contender for the throne (other than by law rightfully being the heir, again, given the information we as readers have) until right before his attempted siege.

>>54740128
Alexander the Great failed. He was poisoned and died in his 30s without a declared heir, ultimately his empire didn't survive his own death.

>>54741185

You do realize huge swaths of the Empire, including the patricians, were already Christian, right? Constantine was pretty late to the game. And his dad was nice to Christians too, probably since his wife was a Christian.

>>54741342
Yes. And it was a travesty.

>>54741312
>he was poisoned
Uh... source? He had a hard-living lifestyle and didn't have any conception of "health" and died as a result.

>>54741391
There's plenty of guessing and rumors involved, but anything more detailed than "died of a fever" is something someone is pulling out of their ass

>>54741218
>>54741342
Exactly this. Christianity grew in Rome as a slave religion. The big question is how it spread to citizens -- they had little to gain from converting.

>>54741430
Gaining support from the underclass? Genuine existential terror over their inevitable death? Enjoying the whole mysticism of a mystery cult?

A bunch of reasons.

>>54741430
It's not that complex.
Early Christianity is basically just telling you to do stuff you mostly already did (not kill people, not steal shit, be sorry if you do those things, etc) for getting into an afterlife that was pretty rad.
If you look at a LOT of historical afterlife beliefs, a lot basically just said that the afterlife sucked equally as much as life does, a belief obviously influenced by the often harsh lives people lived back in the days.

Then this one religion comes along that says the afterlife is not only sweet but REALLY easy to get into.

>>54736409
That dramatic pause

>>54741563
Spiritualism aside, what were the real tangible benefits to be had from gaining the support of slaves? It's not as if they could vote. Were slaves allowed to own money? Could slaves support christian businesses and boycott pagan businesses? I'm brainstorming, but I can't think of something better than "fewer rebellions and runaways."

>>54741741
>Could slaves support christian businesses and boycott pagan businesses?

Some could. Not all slavery in Rome was chattel slavery. Many people sold themselves into household slavery either to serve as teachers or pay off debts.

>>54741741
I mean, it didn't have to be slaves specifically. Just the underclass. Which, in a relatively urban society like Rome, has its benefits.

>>54741768
Most slavery wasn't chattel slavery actually. Chattel slavery is kind of expensive and costly in economic terms, requiring a fairly constant replacement of slaves when they died due to horrible conditions you put them in.
It became more common when trans-continental empires massively developed the economies of the nations involved and gave them wealth in amounts that beggard that of the Roman Empire's.

>>54735799
this assumes the soldiers are professional soldiers, be it volunteers are mercenaries. What about conscripts?

>>54741867
You clearly haven't read up on the most common kind of slavery in Rome, mine and quarry slaves.

Household slaves weren't the most common form of slaves in Rome, only the most visible.

>>54740717
Well, arabs are semites, too. Kinda obvious them having stuff in common with the Hebrews at that time.

>>54742030
For the former two it's a job. Better stay alive for the next paycheck.
For the conscript back home are waiting hearth, home and waifu. Better stay alive.

>>54739695
Oi!

Even we slaanesh can enjoy millions of still warm bodies.

>>54740842
Craven

> why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner
Putting place and circumstances aside, the more people are killed, the more honorable it is
Killing 20000 poeple in battle is about 2 times nobler then killing 10000, and 2 times greater an achievement.

Now, in mass combat even restrictions of a honorable single combat can be waived. It is acceptable to do down raids on unprepared enemy, for example, whereas assaulting a rival knight while he sleeps in bed is about as unhonorauble as it gets. Although, giving enemy (especially superior in strength and numbers) an opportunity to bring that all to bear is very noble indeed
>source: reading "the death of Artur" right now

File: 1475568674575.jpg (214KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 600x620px

>>54742799
>mfw this thread has genuine "the weak should fear the strong" guys although y'all probably just shitposting

Daily reminder that anarchism of any kind is not sustainable.
Daily reminder that "survival of the fittest" is not "survival of the strongest".
Daily reminder that civilization, compassion and cooperation did more to make people stronger than all "ubermensh" ideologies combined
Daily reminder that Nietzsche is a cuck

>>54742989
meant to quote >>54739762

>>54742989
It's basically quasi-/pol/, notice how he included his race in there along with neo-pagan jacking off. Nigga ain't about Darwinism, he just wants to feel strong by pretending he belongs to something bigger than himself.

>>54743064
>he just wants to feel strong by pretending he belongs to something bigger than himself.
Which is hella ironic.

>>54735748
>dat pdf

What the everloving fuck did I just read?

And where can I find moar?

>>54741241
Killing a Lord Paramount doesn't set of warning bells

>>54743390
He deserved it. King Joffrey is the true heir to the iron throne

>>54743402
Now that's a rare sentence.

File: GRRM.jpg (31KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 620x413px

>And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.
What did he mean by this?

>>54743424
That he can't remember his own book titles.

File: tg and the redemption of succubi.png (189KB, 1058x297px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1058x297px

>>54735629

>>54737785
The Lannisters would have knifed Stannis in his bed if he'd stayed.

>>54736462
Pretty much this. Wiping out significant numbers of the leaders of a society tends not to make it more stable.

At best, the Red Wedding bought more time for the Lannisters to concentrate power, but in practice it just made the inevitable collapse all the bloodier - because once you've broken major societal taboos, it becomes much easier for everyone else to justify to themselves the breaking of similar taboos.

>>54737290
A ridiculously short-sighted outlook.

The Strong cannot count on being Strong forever, or even the Strongest around. Moreover, even if they are lucky enough to be the Strongest individually, they cannot count on being Stronger than an alliance of their foes - the sort of alliance which their actions would inevitably inspire if they acted as you suggest.

Diplomacy works great for the Strong. Negotiating from a position of strength, making such minor concessions as their strength and power allows them to afford whilst driving their main agenda through, allows them to impose their will without the sort of harsh deeds which would turn people against them. All this plus it costs only the tiniest fraction of what full-on war would cost.

Those who are both Strong *and wise* know that if they use diplomacy correctly they not only can get what they want out of their competitors, but they can actually make their competitors feel *grateful* to them. And that is how the Strong become even Stronger, rather than being alone and besieged in a world that hates and fears them.

>>54743549
>A Game of Thrones
>A Clash of Kings
>A Storm of Swords
>A Feast for Crows
All refer to the war of five kings in one way or another. The only title that breaks it is "A Dance with Dragons", but purely because Aegon and Dany don't fight in it.

>>54739685
>Stefan Molyneux meme quote
/pol/ plz leave

>>54739723
"It's OK for me to be personally selfish because it's for the collective good of the species."

If you really want to pass on your genes you want to a) find someone to have sex with you and b) hope that in the event that death takes you unexpectedly (as it can do to anyone, no matter how strong) the people left behind will nurture and raise your child to the point where they themselves can reproduce.

Being a "kill the weak and foolish and grab everything for yourself" dickhole is going to make all of the above remarkably less likely. Driving people away isolates you and makes you weaker; we are social animals and cannot achieve our full personal potential without others.

Nobility and honour are literally just social morals. Violation of them even for a greater good risks a deterioration of the bonds of value that hold such society together.

In this particular example, it poisoned any future Stark/Lannister cooperation and led to the assassination of the Freys in a similar setting, throwing the Riverlands into another period of chaos and disorder. This instability also meant a bunch of religious fanatics of the red god roam and raid freely pretending to act as an authority figure.

Maybe a single pitched battle would have been better in the long run, or maybe not. But if you're going to be a cunning asshole, you best make sure the results end up justifying the means, and this is clearly not one of those cases.

>>54743745
>This instability also meant a bunch of religious fanatics of the red god roam and raid freely pretending to act as an authority figure.
Red God is the true god. Embrace Rh'llor, heathen.

>>54735515
How is this related to traditional games, you faggot?

>>54741741
>Were slaves allowed to own money? Could slaves support christian businesses and boycott pagan businesses?
Yes, yes and yes.
Slavery in Rome was not chains and mines meme or black working on cotton plantations.
Legal positon of slave varied by how he become one and by what conditions but could be similar to free people that were alieni iuris in ancient roman law
Aside from labor slaves there were many other slaves with legal rights that tended important things like medicine administration and trade.

By the way a best way to be a merchant was to own a slave that would do a job for you as sea travel is risky, and you want such slave to feel well treated and loyal as he might run away with ship and shipment.

>>54743795
>Slavery in Rome was not chains and mines
That was literally the most common form of slavery, its not a meme

The idea that it was tea and biscuits and in door work is the fucking meme. The reason slaves rarely fled their masters was because the vast majority of them had 'I am a slave' tattooed on their forehead and it was a criminal offence to harbour a runaway slave. They were literally not considered people by the vast majority of Romans.

The slaves that 'had it good' were a very slim minority, and most Roman slaves lived an awful, drudging existence.

>>54740664
Pretty much by definition if you have a group strong enough to enforce your will through such methods then the LotW has already gone far away. Congrats, you are now the government, this is why anarchism isn't a thing.

>>54738177
Very risky gamble where if you either win or the war now lasts even longer as peace talks are no longer a thing, and even if you do win eventually when your decedents lose, it won't be a surrender but a slaughter, as you set the precedent for it.

>>54741185
If your culture is vulnerable to that sort of subversion then by definition it isn't strong, it's weak and vulnerable.

The thing about Social Darwinism as an ideology is that it tends to only value certain types of strength, which isn't how actual Darwinism works. In actual Darwinism, how your species survives doesn't matter; physical force is only one strategy, and stealth, social organisation, and other methodologies are equally valid. You don't get to cry and whine that other cultures are "cheating" just because they defeated your idealised might-makes-right never-never-land.

>>54743902
In short Darwins "fit" is about fitting into a given environment. Nothing to do with strength.

>>54743843
Pretty much. The best thing a slave could hope for was another hannibal at the gates so they would be allowed into the legions or at least the auxilia or the fleet.

>>54743920
>>54743902
Spoken like a Craven, trying to justify its own cowardice while berating those who are stronger than it.

Shoot the dictator and prevent the war? But the dictator is merely the tip of the whole festering boil of social pus from which dictators emerge; shoot one, and there’ll be another one along in a minute. Shoot him too? Why not shoot everyone and invade Poland? In fifty years’, thirty years’, ten years’ time the world will be very nearly back on its old course. History always has a great weight of inertia.

>>54741741
A slave could. If his owner allowed it. His owner was also allowed to kill him. So there's that.

>>54743935
Or run off and join up with the enemy.

>>54743843
>The reason slaves rarely fled their masters
I should correct myself and say that runaway slaves were enough of a problem that you could make a solid living as a professional slave catcher. If slavery 'wasn't that bad' slave hunters wouldn't be necessary.

>>54743941
If "Cravens" are so cowardly and weak, doesn't that make your idealistic pagan utopia they overthrew even weaker than them?

>>54743941
>S-strength is only what I use guys! If someone uses another means to achieve objective success then it's cheating!

Spoken like a true bitch, anything that doesn't justify you is clearly evil and must be destroyed to sate your ego.

>>54743941
Times like this, I wonder 'is this how this person actually speaks, or is he desperate to sound powerful on the internet'?

Face it, there are different advantages an individual (or society) can exploit to their benefit. And according Darwinist thought, they aren't wrong for exploiting them.

The common rat is stronger than a species of Rhinoceros that went extinct despite being considered stronger.

>>54743996
Not an argument, you craven.

>>54738177
Congratulations, you are now ruling a pile of corpses. Do with that what you will.

>>54744199
Definitiely a case of being a friendless loser irl.

>>54743961
That also worked. The germanic auxilia tribes were good for that.

>>54744199

Craven hasn't been used as a noun in the longest time. It's used as an adjective these days, you craven idiot.

>>54743941
You go and get killed showing your power. I hide and life to shag your wife. I'll tell my children what an idiot you were.

>>54742989
Well, you're completely right there but although I've only given it a cursory flick-through I thought Nietzsche was against all this nihilistic solipsistic bullshit? The point of the Ubermensch thing was to pick yourself a goal rather than sit down and whine about the unfairness of the universe, doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it or precludes making that goal something based around creating a high-trust society and improving quality of life. Hell, you'll probably need to work with other people and develop at least some kind of trust if you pick goals that you can't achieve by yourself.

He was wierdly deterministic with his "strong and weak will" thing, elitist, went on rather long tirades against any form of government he didn't like and was generally fairly unpleasant, but that particular concept doesn't really justify being some anarchist social darwinist fuckwit at all.

>>54742989
Is that wrong?

>>54744528
People who don't understand or didn't actually read Nietzsche are the ones most likely to use his writings as an excuse.
It's like that kind of American fundamentalist Protestant who can't even quote the Bible properly and takes certain passages wildly out of context because in reality he's never read the whole thing and actually just wants to have a famous book backing his name pre-established beliefs and prejudices without actually needing to do the work of actually reading shit.

>>54742989
You're mistaking anomism for anarchism.
Anarchism is about the absence of a higher order. Communal order is fine.
Anomism is free for all.

>>54735807
It's Macaroni, so obviously it's pasta.

>>54741608
Plus the Churches were centers of stability in an Empire that was lacking that

>>54745397
Depends on the where and the when you are talking about right now.
Early Christianity kind of barely looked like the modern kind at all, and there were conflicts and arguments over which version was "right", with shit like Arianist Christians and junk like that changing a lot of the context of the faith itself in a church sense that probably most individuals at the time (being both largely illiterate and uninterested in learning due to other life priorities) didn't care about.

I was mostly speaking from a "this is the kind of thing that appeals to your everyday person" standpoint.
Like going onto TV and politicians talking about taxes or immigrants or other stuff that might not actually be a major factor in people's lives but are easy for them to understand (or at least they're able to think they understand it) rather then more complex high-end issues and shit like that that goes way above the head of the average person, you know?

Christianity appealed to a lot of people because at it's core it was simple, easy to grasp, pleasing to hear, and a lot were already doing it anyway.

>>54745277
What "higher order" is there which is not merely the extension of the community and communal order?

>>54745277
Anarchism doesn't last long friend, thats what he meant by unsustainable. But whatever, it's just a political ideas, looks great in theory but in practice is really annoying.

>>54735785

It's almost like people weren't morons just because they lived hundreds of years ago and the systems of behavior they established existed for a reason

>>54742989
Historically, anarchism has tended to be very hostile to social Darwinist bullshit and drawn on ideas of horizontally-organized societies operating on principles of mutual aid.
Which, in practice, would most likely be very reliant on honour systems.

>>54741741
As far as I knew the main reason was his fucked in the head wife that turned Christian. And Constantin just chose the easy way of declaring it official religion than to have arguments every night.

>>54746868
His mother was a also a Christian so it's something he'd dealt with since childhood.

>>54735785
And yet this thread will continue to pop up

>>54741608
Plus you also have to understand most religions at the time meant that honoring your gods meant making sacrifices dedicating your glory to them.

For the wealthy who could afford to sacrifice animals of the highest quality and led armies to battle to gain glory, this was easy to accomplish but for the average slave or poorer citizen that was a huge roadblock into a potentially sweet life and afterlife.

So when the words of Jesus come along saying it doesn't matter how much money you make to get into heaven, this was obviously a much more appealing idea for the masses..

File: 1315427641764.png (133KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 480x640px

>>54743424
>>54743549
>>54743697
The SERIES title, you dumbasses. A Song of Ice and Fire.

>>54749254
And

>>54735515
Because the ten thousand men are commoners, and of no great import. Killing nobility over dinner is a Dick Move.

>>54735714
>>54735719
THIS

>>54735666
I'm a history student, i start my Ph.D in september and man what the fuck you say ? Deed you ever openned a history book ? I have so much exemple to denied your argument than i don't know where to start. Just read some fucking book.

>>54735515
It's simply the definition of "noble" nobility is a concept of ideals, killing someone in the back is concidered like cowadirce, cowadirce is opposing to courage. Courage is a noble tray not cowardice. Honesty is a noble tray etc etc.

Freys just don't kill the king and some high lord of the north, what could have been enough to end the war. They murdred a lot of people too.
Measure is also a noble tray.

>>54746949
because it's not an argument

>>54743390
Pycelle killed Jon Arryn. Presumably because Littlefinger told him about the incest and let him know that Arryn also knew about it and would make it public.

File: 1501866830243.png (55KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x400px

>>54743567
Until the heat death of the universe, then.

Was walder Frey justified in his killing of Robb Stark

>>54738724
Didn't they have real agriculture though?

>>54755446
No. He broke almost every rule he possibly could.

>>54738012
The brother of Oberyn, the other Martell dude. Nigga was supposed to be a power player like Varys or Littlefinger but NOPE gotta kill him since killing characters = paying less actors

>>54743941
If pagans are so great, where are they now?

>>54755701
everywhere

>>54736208
Anon if you were here I would poke you with the noblebright boner I got from reading that.

>>54755701
They go by "Protestant" now.

Heretics go by many names, brother. We must be prepared to combat them at all times.

>>54743424
Oh shit, Gurm backed the Mannis? I gotta save this one to show my show-only friends when sperging out about how they assassinated his character literally and metaphorically in the show.

>>54738071
Well, he is an edgy fuck, but I find that the fact he represents an angle on villainy that wasn't strongly present so far gives him value as a character. He's all the sadism of Ramsay with the brains of Roose and weird magic shit to back it up. As the books progress the fantastic starts to become more and more relevant (not so much in the show), and Euron is a quite good frontman for it.

>>54739882
Because the law of the wild is shittier for everyone involved than actual civilized society, you abject genius. Including those at the top of the shit heap.

>>54743843
>That was literally the most common form of slavery, its not a meme

The farming probably wasn't too bad, maybe even idyllic at the nice end of things, but the Salt Mines and Rowing was work that killed you in a few years. It's bonkers that people think the Romans practiced some sort of enlightened slavery.

>>54740634
Because they're short sighted, focused on PR and looking pretty and Olenna isn't remotely as smart as she thinks she is.

>>54738892
Baron Harkonnen go home, there are no slave boys here.

>>54740577
The Punic Wars are exceptional in western history.

>>54756218
And Cannae was exceptional ever for the punic wars.

>>54755991
And they're puppets to Littlefinger, as pretty much everyone else.

>tfw you will never play in a campaign run by GURM and he will never end up warging your character irreversibly into a young pregnant highborn maiden or something

>that awkward moment where the party has to sit through another hour length description of someone drinking breast milk

>>54755988
Probably because the slaves we learn about in history books are the exceptions who worked as servants within the households, some of whom were eventually freed and made advisors.

>>54755300
The difference was that everyone but a select few thought Jon arryn died of natural causes

>>54752508
Firstly, you should take basic grade-level English before bragging about something that's Not True™.

Secondly, link some sources from those 'fucking book' you study so hard, if you'd please, since I sincerely doubt you've even read anything more complicated than Robert Munsch or Dr. Seuss.

>>54755549
His first born son died for Robb. Robb even promised to marry a Frey girl and he broke that too. Walder Frey bdid nothing wrong

>>54757982
He prevented his sworn liegelords from crossing a bridge to rescue his other sworn liegelords.

>>54743390
The only one who was told that the Lannisters was responsible was Ned, and it was a lie at that.

>>54757982
>Walder Frey bdid nothing wrong
He absolutely did. Granted, Robb did lots of things wrong first, but the proper response would have been to simply announce that "because Robb Stark broke his promise to House Frey, we are now loyal to Joffrey, the one true king in the Seven Kingdoms."

Doing so would not only have saved the reputation of the involved houses, but would also have put a real dent in the Starks'.

>>54744199
>Not an argument
Is this one person spouting this in every thread, or some wider phenomenon I just haven't had the misfortune of encountering?

File: 70e[1].jpg (28KB, 567x565px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 567x565px

>>54759769
Not an argument

>>54759769
You're forgetting that you're on the internet. Most of the people you're talking to here are literally children.

>>54759788
>>54759808
Meme then, got it.

>>54735515
Because it's rude to play in front of your food, you barbaric retard.
Didn't your mother ever teach you manners?

File: Fig19_small.jpg (138KB, 750x1148px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 750x1148px

>>54755988
The Romans didn't use slaves for rowing. Galley slaves weren't really a thing until the 16th century. They became a thing for two reasons: First better construction techniques allowed for higher soldier to sailor ratios, allowing ships to rely more on their marine compliments for fighting and less on their rowers. Secondly the advent of guns and cannon made hand to hand fighting less critical to wining naval engagements, and thus not as important that the rowers be freemen who can be trusted to fight.

>>54743673
Craven

>>54761817
Faggot.

Look at you. You can't even punctuate your ad hominem.

>>54761817
I still fuck your wife.

>>54735984
>The Seven Kingdoms are a wartorn wreck, the Lannisters are living on a borrowed time
Well, Tywin's children, at least. The rest of the Lannisters in ASOIAF, being a pretty big house, are more or less okay.

Honestly, with Cersei remaining Tywin's lawful heiress, and her children being technically of Baratheon dynasty, I wouldn't be surprised if some cousin-level Lannister, like Devan, deposes Cersei so that she and her Baratheon kids don't inherit Casterly Rock.

>>54740462
>will likely to be the same on the books
No, there's too many guys in House Tyrell in the books, one of which never leaves Highgarden.

>>54743795
>>54743843
>>54755988
It depends on time period.

Late Roman Empire had "slaves with huts" who were closer to Medieval peasants. Household servants never had it too bad.

Farming was usually done by free men, because slaves had little incentive to care about the quality of their work, which is why "slaves with huts" appeared in the first place: giving them basic property to motivate the working force.

>>54757982
Breaking a fucking betrothal does not excuse wholesome murder. Walder would do nothing wrong if he just protested the breach of the contract, retreated to his castle and closed the Twins passage. Him actively plotting to kill everyone for a perceived slight (after getting an, arguably, better deal, since being Edmure's direct vassal he has more incentive to cozy up with him rather than with Robb) was all wrong.

>>54735515
If you kill people at dinner, you stop getting invited to feasts.
It's a trick that only works once. By the time Tywin died he was further from unification than when he started and he knew it.
Blowing up the UN wouldn't make somebody king of the earth.

>>54759769
>>54759832

It's a meme based on some faggot who would scream "not an argument" and cover his ears whenever his Glorious Leader Trump was questioned in any way.

/pol/ and T_D forced the meme for like 4 months straight and it caught on with underage and summer kiddies.

>>54763968
No?
Like. No.
You're referring to some guy, Molynux or something? He rather offhand said "not an argument" when referring to logical fallacies and appeals to emotion in argument, and how those things are. Well. Not an argument. It became a meme after the fact sure but using it correctly you're merely calling out illogical non arguments as such.

>>54735515
Gotta get dat XP nawmsayin?

>>54763968
>It's a meme based on some faggot who would scream "not an argument" and cover his ears whenever his Glorious Leader Trump was questioned in any way.

Are you an idiot? Or do you just play one on /tg/?

>>54763314
Wholesale murder, anon. Wholesome murder is when you kill someone for not using a coaster.

>>54764461
Or doing them like the Brewster Sisters from Arsenic and Old Lace.

>>54740335
Oh shit, an actual answer.

>>54735515
Because murdering one guy won't prevent or end a war, but it will certainly hinder future peace efforts.

Also, there is nothing good about ending a conflict on unjust terms.

>>54755538
They did, yeah.

So can someone explain to me how Preston James is able to find all these massive plot holes ASoIaF and somehow come to the conclusion that they are all intentional clues left by GRRM?

I mean, at some point he would have to at least suspect that Martin isn't the planning type, nor the type who goes back to read through his older books to make sure that references to them are correct, right?

Examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgJb_wh-K0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nITGu00RAy0

File: wBVYz3S[1].jpg (86KB, 1277x824px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1277x824px

>>54735515
>"Anon, you're fucking stupid. You see, if you weren't a moron you'd realize....."
>"Uhm....ahhh....."
>I have no response to this
>I now have to reconsider taking the moralfag option in Sunrider when asked to kill a dozen diplomats and six hundred children to potentially save the lives of millions
>Why the fuck would the correct answer involve killing children? Why?!

>>54768697
Read this thread carefully, there is a very good response to that within 15 posts or so.

>>54752508
Sorry for my english, is not my mother tongue, and i don't know the autor you sarcastly mentioned before you talk about them.

I don't say "that's not true" the maner of your argumentation turned to be "that's the true", plus you say i tell th'at's not true, considering you tell the truth.

In history there is no binary way like that is the truth or that is lies. Argumentation is about fact.

I think, for what i know, your agumentation is valuable for war in the late XVIIe and the XVIIIe XIXe century. "War is only an extension of politics by other means" Clausewitz. And politcs dont want to kill people that cost money and "you need tree thing to win a war money, money, and even money." Trivulce. Save people, you save money, save money you save the war, you win the war you save your politics. That's the spirit and i agree with your argument.

But i dont agree completely. For exemple one i got in mind. Median wars, Peloponnesian Wars Gaulish wars, Roman civil wars, Charlemagne in saxe, Hundred Years' War the war of the roses, wars of religion (Thirty Years' mostly), the seven years' war. French revolutionnary wars. Etc etc i don't have them all in mind.
But i study i lot of exemple in theses wars they don't fit with most of your argumentation. Otherwise i see some exemple who coroborate your ideas of course they existe but less.
There is a difference and what we seek and what we had in fact, for rulers and man in batllefield. War happened for differente reason. And i see i lot of things like we can simplify by "we are going to kill them"

>>54768697

What if they're drow children

>>54735515
Didn't we have this thread just a couple of weeks ago?

>>54757440
>>54770123
wrong link sorry, i'm tired tonight. And sorry for my english, I did not re-read.

>>54766358
Watching the first one there's some iffy logic. Tyrion slightly misquoted in a way that doesn't really mean much. The important thing is it shows Joffery found humor or possibly his father's approval in the idea of sending someone to kill Bran. The thief probably wasn't given specific instructions and picked his own method of sneaking in. The expensive dagger was the payment. Joffery using the dagger as payment makes a lot of sense if Robert doesn't actually give a shit about the dagger since despite being rich as fuck Joffery probably doesn't really carry petty cash. The guy making the video beats you over the head with repetition on the difference between the lines "Send a dog to kill a dog" vs "Send a dog to kill a wolf", but it doesn't invalidate the relationship between the characters Robert, Joffery, and what they thought of Bran.
Basically that was a waste of time

>>54768697
But that isn't the correct answer.

>>54770706
>Tyrion slightly misquoted in a way that doesn't really mean much
I agree.

>The important thing is it shows Joffery found humor or possibly his father's approval in the idea of sending someone to kill Bran.
But the quote does not imply that.

>The thief probably wasn't given specific instructions and picked his own method of sneaking in.
But why show such dedication to an employer who had already payed him, was long gone, and would be unable to find him ever again even if he found out that he bailed on the mission?

>The expensive dagger was the payment.
They found a sack of silver coins among the catspaw's belongings, heavily implying that that was the payment. Not the dagger. And if the dagger was the payment, why use it as the murder weapon?

>>54771149
>But the quote does not imply that.
Others do. The line that Robert says and everything you hear about the two of them (like Robert smacking the fuck out of Joff after cutting up some cat) indicates Joffery has a chip on his shoulder and wants to impress his dad so he doesn't think he's a fuck up.
>But why show such dedication to an employer who had already payed him, was long gone, and would be unable to find him ever again even if he found out that he bailed on the mission?
Really Joffery finding someone to kill a lord for him so quickly is the only "plot hole" I ever found with the whole situation. The circumstances around that would likely be the real nature of any conspiracy. Hiding out the way he did might have been as much for the catspaw's own benefit in his own mind though. I imagine most the important people leaving made getting where he wanted easier
>They found a sack of silver coins among the catspaw's belongings, heavily implying that that was the payment. Not the dagger. And if the dagger was the payment, why use it as the murder weapon?
There's no reason it couldn't be both as a payment, and there's no reason to not use the dagger as a weapon if he doesn't plan on leaving witnesses

The idea that someone went along with the King's trip north already planning to kill a Stark (presumably Cat, but that's kind of strange since the only person who would be a likely suspect calling the shots would be Littlefinger. Not to mention it was assumed most of them would be headed south soon) isn't impossible, but the video doesn't really reveal anything and was still a waste of time

>>54771355
>but the video doesn't really reveal anything
In part two he starts talking about how he thinks either Littlefinger or Mance Rayder did it, using the same kind of flimsy logic where he interprets GRRM's notoriously bad sense for details and scale as subtle hints.

>>54738071
Book Euron is a legendary sailor who took on the waters around Valyria and won.

Show Euron is a dumb cunt.

>>54755988
>working in cinnabar mines

>>54743697
>The only title that breaks it is "A Dance with Dragons"
It doesn't, though. The book titles refer to "the civil wars", not the War of the Five Kings specifically. The war in Essos is one of those civil wars, a bloody "dance" involving the mother of "dragons".

>>54735515
>>54735596
The reason why there are rules and societal mores against murdering people under a banner of peace should be obvious to you--but of course it isn't, because you're retarded. Let me spell it out.

War is an extension of politics. Wars start because political interests do not align, and end when political interests are either compromised or adjusted forcibly to align. The act of adjustment either requires total extermination or dialogue. There is no middle ground. Either one side must completely annihilate the other, or both sides must be willing to discuss the terms of peace.

For this reason, in civilized societies, rules are set in place to ensure that the dialogue can be pursued without fear of immediate betrayal, because the alternative would be an end to dialogue and a war that lasts indefinitely.

When you betray these laws, you signal to others that you cannot be trusted, and should simply be killed out of hand if they ever gain power over you. The fact that you have defeated one enemy is irrelevant, the next enemy you face will simply grind against you until either you fall, and he kills you, or you destroy him utterly.

From a moral standpoint, FAR more people stand to die from the complete abandonment of these social laws than stand to die in any individual battle or even war, because the problem you create by shattering faith in the safety of negotiation is so much larger than you, or indeed any one lord.

>>54746949
Because it's bait. I have seen this EXACT thread with that EXACT thread image already. OP did it again because he knows he will get replies.

>>54771667
Book Euron is still an edgy fuck aboard a ship that have a crew of seamen butchered by his hand.

Book Euron is edgy af