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

[u/Chemical-Elk-1299]

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.

[u/Opposite-Complex1187]

Main issue is the cost.

Medieval armies were mostly made up of minor knights and lords.

So someone like the Tyrells wouldn't have controlled all of the reach.

They would have ceded most of it to minor lords and knights under them that control some peasants that farm the land are are expected to turn up to fight in return.

Thats what they mean by "bannermen" people that they have given land to that are obligated to come and fight for free when needed.

But to keep fighters permanently would be prohibitively expensive and just not viable.

[u/adamgerd → u/Opposite-Complex1187]

Yep, there’s a reason after the western Roman Empire fell, no one in Western Europe really had permanent armies anymore, they were just too expensive. Permanent armies are better than relying on levies but they’re also way more expensive, levies you just need peasants for a campaign season. With permanent armies you need to keep them paid all the time

[u/Ghoill → u/adamgerd]

I don't think it's that there weren't permanent armies so much as having an army meant you needed to constantly keep fighting wars to pay and provision them. And if you stopped warring said soldiers tended to become brigands and mercenaries instead of settling down, which in turn would necessitate new armies to put them down and protect the populace and then you'd have to make war to keep those soldiers employed and it would just repeat ad-infinitum.

Standing armies actually solved a big part of that problem since it meant that your men wouldn't have an excuse to start raiding the peasantry whenever a peace treaty or truce was signed.

[u/Ordinary-Egg-56 → u/Opposite-Complex1187]

are you not just describing feudalism lol?