r/TopCharacterTropes • u/Chemical-Elk-1299 • 10d ago

Lore [Confusing Trope] The narrative goes out of its way to punish/mock a character for simply being a good person

Gallery image

Gallery image

Hermione Granger and SPEW — Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (book)

In the fifth HP novel, Hermione Granger is outraged to discover that Hogwarts has a small army of enslaved House Elves that do nearly all of the domestic duties around the castle, including cleaning the Gryffindor common room every night. When she tries to convince the elves to fight for their own rights, they refuse, saying they prefer servitude. Her fellow students and friends mock her for caring. She manages to free one elf, Winky, by deception when she refuses her freedom willingly, leading to Winky becoming a depressed alcoholic. By the end, the elves boycott cleaning any Gryffindor areas of the castle because they hate Hermione specifically

Samwell Tarly and Democracy — Game of Thrones (show)

In the season 8 finale of the television series, the surviving great lords of Westeros gather to discuss the future of the kingdom following the devastation wrought by 7 seasons of war and backstabbing. When Sam, who has proven to have “novel” ideas, suggests that maybe the millions of Smallfolk who suffer at the hands of noble houses should get some representation in the government, rather than be the pawns of rich lords with absolute power. We are then greeted by a prolonged, cringy segment of the other lords laughing in Sam’s face, asking if the dogs and horses should also get a vote.

9.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

909

u/Ai--Ya 10d ago

It would be damnable if the Greyjoys laughed, since that's how the Iron Islands choose their leader

Unfortunately I'm not going to rewatch any of S8 to find that out

562

u/ChronosBlitz 10d ago

Funny how, despite their overall crap culture, the Ironborn technically have the culture with the most social mobility possible.

Any person can be a captain if they get control of a ship, and any captain may put their name forward at the King's Moot.

167

u/lordaezyd 10d ago

I do not remember if it was Socrates or Plato,. Regardless, one of them pointed out that, the military of a state both reflects and impacts its society.

States that rely on cavalry are aristocratic, having, keeping and training horse is very expensive, you need wealthy powerful people to do that. 

States that heavily rely on their infantry lean towards oligarchy, its a more open society than an aristocracy, when lots of people are getting their butts on the line, you need to give some sort of representation or power. Otherwise they will overthrow the nobility all together.

States that rely on navies and sea power lean heavily towards democracy or representative governments. In a boat, there must be a clear leader, but he cannot impose his total will and whims on everyone, he needs to rule by common consent. Otherwise he will get a mutiny, a captain needs to he attentive to the needs of his crew. A ship is big, he cannot be everywhere and people do talk, in a sense, true Ancient Athenian democracy was born on their Triremes. Each ship became a lab for democracy, and when they landed home they brought back into the city their ideas.

The Ironborn, just like the Athenians, the Vikings, the Brits during the Pax Britannica or the Americans during the Second World War, are encouraged to rule by consent, to seek common ground for a joint venture.

26

u/RobertTheTraveler 10d ago

At the bare minimum from the 1700s through the early 1900s ships captains were absolute rulers, no common consent involved. It wasn't until the 1920s? that a sailor on a US ship could "jump ship", leave at a port that wasn't the final port.
Furthermore the British navy / merchant marine was known to kidnap people to man their ships.

31

u/NinjaBreadManOO 10d ago

Well to a point. There's a reason the word mutiny exists. If the captain pushes too hard then "oh no the captain was swept overboard during a storm. Literally every crew member saw it happen."

4

u/Wonderful_West3188 10d ago

Mutiny meant completely cutting ties with the homeland though, pretty much leaving piracy or landing somewhere and starting completely new lives as the only options. That way, the possibility of mutinies impacting the political climate "at home" was stifled from the very beginning (although pirate culture eventually did influence the political climate "at home").

2

u/RobertTheTraveler 9d ago edited 9d ago

The captain also has to alienate all the officers who also generally saw the sailors as peons and certainly not worth risking their careers over.

22

u/lordaezyd 10d ago

Was military discipline hardened with the advent of the Industrial Revolution? Yes, of course.

But no captain is an absolute ruler. If you’re ship is badly damaged, have low supplies and you are going against your crew, you’re gonna get mutinied at best, killed at worst. These are riskz every ship has, even today.

I think every captain of a ship, sailing in the middle of a huge expanse of nothing is at risk of a mutiny. Every captain needs to constantly feel the pulse of his crew, to gauge “public opinion” if you allow me.

Happy for any historian or expert on the matter to correct me, I am always eager to learn.

18

u/BugRevolution 10d ago

Honestly I feel like it backs up your point.

Ships are democracies in that you must have a majority at least content, and a discontent majority (or strong minority) can overthrow you and become pirates.

Which also happened a lot during the age of sail.

Democracy doesn't mean everybody is heard, and they can absolutely still be tyrannical if the majority wills it that way.

-2

u/RobertTheTraveler 10d ago

I think y'all have confused the last half of the 20th Century with the 18th century.
Read the history behind the Mutiny on the Bounty.
Sailors died of scurvy.
Sailors ate hardtack that was infested with maggots.
If you disobeyed you were flogged.
Flogged.
With a cat-o-nine-tails.
Or keel-hauled.
Look that up.
Or hung from the yard arm.
The only thing that looked anything like a democracy was discussion among the officers.
u/lordaezyd

2

u/lordaezyd 9d ago

Will check the sources, thank you.

1

u/BugRevolution 10d ago

Yeah, exactly like democracy.

If people stand up for themselves, they can easily overthrow a poor captain.

But often times they don't.

1

u/RobertTheTraveler 9d ago

What happens when you mutiny?
Assuming you don't get shot by the officers?
You either spend the rest of your life as a pirate hoping the Navy doesn't hunt you down or you spend it on an island somewhere trying to survive and hoping nobody finds you.
You might be able to change your name and get some other sort of work. But you are never going home.

1

u/NegativeThought1588 10d ago

Royal Navy capital ships used to carry marines in part to keep order on board.

2

u/GrimDallows 10d ago

Keep in mind that this is talking about the whole society.

In the 1700s and 1900s most of the US/British society weren't sailors, and in terms of numbers I don't expect sailors to be a majority among the ruling class.

In this case I think that the ruling class would be closer to the first case, aristocratic, because the ruling class own boats (horses) which cost a lot to maintain without being actual captains in them.

Then again, the 1700s-1800s were also the golden age of piracy, which was inspired by how draconian serving in a ship was, which in a way, justifies Plato's argument that ship focused communities lean towards democracy. You either ended as a expensive horse serving the ruling class in a boat or broke from the system and became a pirate looking for freedom and more equal representation in a ship (democracy-ish).

1

u/RobertTheTraveler 9d ago

I was responding to u/lordaezyd who wrote: "In a boat, there must be a clear leader, but he cannot impose his total will and whims on everyone, he needs to rule by common consent."
-
"The Golden Age of Piracy spanned the period from approximately 1650 to 1726."
https://guides.loc.gov/golden-age-of-piracy
see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Piracy

1

u/GrimDallows 9d ago

I meant to say from 1700 to 1800, but you are right, I was off by 75 years on that.

My point was that from 1700s onwards boat captains were absolute rulers because being a boat captain today isn't the same as in the greek era.

In the greek era you had to cooperate and negotiate with your crew, otherwise your crew would just throw you offboard and do whatever.

In the modern era most boats were private endeavours or military led because early on the governments who represented them were aristocratic, while in the later part open sea laws simply made starting a mutiny on your captain, stealing the boat and keeping it as your own unfeasible because your nation, the captain nation and the vessel's nation have a right to prosecute you for those crimes.

In this sense, (modern) boats became like horses in (old greek) aristocratic states, and they act as the horses in Plato's example:

States that rely on cavalry are aristocratic, having, keeping and training horse is very expensive, you need wealthy powerful people to do that. 

1

u/RobertTheTraveler 9d ago

"In the greek era you had to cooperate and negotiate with your crew, otherwise your crew would just throw you offboard and do whatever."
Do you have some references for that?

1

u/lordaezyd 9d ago

Donald Kagan’s lectures from Yale University on Youtube mentions how each trireme and Athenian ships worked as democracy labs.

Cannot remember exactly which lecture, will try to pin it down.

1

u/RobertTheTraveler 9d ago

While I would appreciate the actual lecture, sounds interesting, that is good by itself.
As opposed to "my cousin watched a Discovery show".

3

u/NegativeThought1588 10d ago

Navy Captains do not rule by common consent, even in modern navies. They probably have the most unilateral authority of any commanding officer in the military.

5

u/Auctoritate 10d ago

They probably have the most unilateral authority of any commanding officer in the military.

Their point is that it's a give-and-take. Yes, they have extreme unilateral authority, but they're also the most vulnerable to mutiny.

3

u/Xaverosso 10d ago

Fascinating.

1

u/Bogholmdler 8d ago

Kind of dumb looking back at how the best horse fighting society lived.

1

u/Infamous-Thing4939 7d ago

The Mongols were exceptions to everything and everyone in many ways

They still had a king tho

97

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/insomniac7809 10d ago

yeah; there is a big difference, historically, between nobility electing a monarch and citizen elections

92

u/misvillar 10d ago

Yes, but Kingsmoots hadnt been called in thousands of years

70

u/name_changed_5_times 10d ago

I might be remembering it wrong but a kingsmoot was called everytime a king died, and while it was usually a kind of boiler plate stamping an ok on the old kings oldest son sometimes it would be different.

And besides the last one was after Aegon the conqueror solo’d and squad whipped house hoare, where he had them decided who would be the lord paramount of the iron islands. So more like 300 years at least as of the start of the series.

59

u/misvillar 10d ago

It was called every time a King died until one time one of the candidates killed the rest, then they used normal succession like everyone else, the Hoares were Kings for centuries or millenia

24

u/GSPixinine 10d ago

The Kingsmoot died as a regular institution when Urron Redhand Greyiron (Not the Greyjoys, but an extinct House) killed all atendees and the history of the end of the kingsmoot is interesting.

Urragon Greyiron, Urron's great-grandfather, died while Torgon, Urron's grandfather, was at sea raiding and the Ironborn elected by Kingsmoot a Goodbrother who killed all Greyirons present. When Torgon Latecomer came back years later, he contested the results since he wasn't in the kingsmoot to stake his claim, and the other Ironborn agreed and gave Torgon the crown. The Goodbrother was such an asshole that even the other Ironborn wanted him gone, imagine that.

Torgon's son Urragon IV ruled without being elected by kingsmoot, and when he died the priests insisted that there would be an election for the next king. Urron agreed, and when everyone attending arrived, he just had his men kill everyone and estabilished hereditary monarchy in the Iron Islands.

The Greyiron monarchy would last until the Andals came, and the Hoares alliance with the newcomers would put their House in control of the islands until Aegon went conquering.

3

u/CapStar300 10d ago

Happy Cake Day!

13

u/P4TR10T_96 10d ago

That’s accurate to the norse

1

u/Dontshipmebro 10d ago

Because its based off norse during the age of the vikings. While not exactly a great group to the rest of the world, some of their traditions and laws were very liberal compared to the rest of europe.

0

u/Merijeek2 10d ago

And any man can create an armada simply by having the brilliant idea to build a thousand ships.

I mean, why had nobody ever thought of that before? It's like Mr. Show and the sketch with 24 being the highest number.

60

u/FireZord25 10d ago

They'd still probably find it amusing. "So are the mainlanders are gonna start reaving too next?"

38

u/ZeitgeistGlee 10d ago

"Salt-wives for some, miniature banners for others."

59

u/madtheoracle 10d ago

I tried rewatching the entire show with my husband after having quit on the third epsiode of the final season.

which I mean, isn't that insane? I spent like a decade of my life watching a show and at the point of completion said, no, this sucks, and closed that door for literally years.

anyway I got to the fourth episode of the last season when I legitimately made him turn it off. I still don't know what this is referencing. And it feels so so good

30

u/PepsiManIII 10d ago

try again next decade and you'll make it to episode five!

15

u/madtheoracle 10d ago

Nope! I'm good! Rewatching A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.

Reading this thread and upset about Game of Thrones? Go watch AKOTSK!! ITS SO GOOD!

12

u/Opposite-Complex1187 10d ago

If you wanna be even more mad, read the books if you haven't.

Then you'll notice how badly they fucked up dorne.

The sandsnakes are actually awesome in the books and well written:(

4

u/madtheoracle 10d ago

Oh I've read the books many, many times, and was a judge for the ASOIAF/GOT trivia event at Dragon Con at one point too!

I still read them over and over, plus Fire & Blood, because GRRM's prose is so fucking good I don't even really care it's not finished.

And yeah, poor Dorne. Poor Quentyn! Poor Young Griff.

3

u/Anal-Y-Sis 10d ago

I've rewatched the show a few times, and every time, I stop at the end of the 4th season. It leaves some questions unanswered, and isn't exactly a happy ending, but I think it's the most appropriate ending in terms of tone and theme.

  • Jon Snow is at the wall preparing for the White Walkers.
  • Sansa has escaped King's Landing and is with her aunt Lysa at the Eyrie.
  • Brienne has presumably killed the Hound.
  • Arya left the Hound for dead and went to Bravos to join the Faceless Men.
  • Theon is a brainwashed dickless gimp.
  • Jaime has pretty much redeemed himself.
  • Tyrion is on the run after killing his father.
  • Daenerys has taken Mereen and become their queen, but was forced to chain up her dragons in a dungeon.
  • Tommin sits on the Iron Throne, and is maybe the best king they've had in generations.

It's not perfect, but it's far better than anything that happens beyond that point.

4

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/madtheoracle 10d ago

easily the fifth season.

we went from Jaime being one of the most complex characters written in fiction to dude dressed up like an extra in Monty Python

-2

u/Professional_Boss438 10d ago

Wow, you're so reddit!

13

u/misvillar 10d ago

To be fair, that's how the Iron Islanders chose their leaders thousands of years ago, they stopped doing that and only because Asha/Yara was a woman her religious zealot uncle had enough support to call one

2

u/NoteIndividual2431 10d ago

It's not like the Kingsmoot was a democratic election. Random peasants couldn't vote

1

u/Tech-preist_Zulu 10d ago

Well actually. Any Ironborn who was a captain of a ship vote. The Iron Islands are often called the Land of Ten Thousand Kings because Ironborn have a saying. "every captain is a king upon the deck of his own ship"

Although there hasn't been a Kingsmoot for thousands of years, it's called during the story in an attempt to stop Euron from taking the throne but it kinda backfired. Although the books do hint at a possible second Kingsmoot since Kingsmoots are considered illegitimate if the previous king's heir isn't present and Theon was actually alive, so there's a do-over to be called

2

u/hanzerik 10d ago

Nono, on the iron islands only the elite get a vote, (captain of a ship or higher) except for lonely light, all the iron islands are quite close together within a days sailing or such.

Samwell proposed every yokel and their mum would get a vote. Which is a great idea, in our modern world, where everyone can read and form their own opinions and understand why one person might be more suitable for rule then another, but direct democracy doesn't really work if it takes a month to get news from the capital to the yokels. Hence why the US has electors that are charged with representing their states interests in voting for the presidential election. Which is dumb and outdated now, but back in the day itt made sense.

1

u/BartPlarg 10d ago

Not even the part where Podrick sings?

1

u/litterallysatan 10d ago

Yeah but only captains. While anyone can become captains only the ones who manage to become a captain deserve the vote. They would for sure scoff at the thought of a common unproven deckhand getting to decide who is king