7 ms·

I think the argument about the taxes is that, being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king, like it is being good with a sword doesn't ma

I think the argument about the taxes is that, being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king, like it is being good with a sword doesn't make you a good monarch. For example, letting Grima leave edoras because 'enough blood has been spilled' is really cool, but dubious and questionable. Though I don't know much about ME and maybe in that world, the challenges present in the real world don't exist there.

Svip 2y ago
> For example, letting Grima leave edoras because 'enough blood has been spilled' is really cool, but dubious and questionable. My read has always been that Théoden was still unsure about what to do with Grima after what has been revealed. He is clearly angry at him, but it is also difficult for him to let him go, after he had has been his closest council for so long. When they meet Saruman and Grima at Isengard, Théoden even tries to plead with Grima again. And it doesn't make sense that Théoden is trying to lure Grima, because if he is trying to be cunning, he would well know that Grima would never bother, instead, it reads as Théoden still holding out hope. So yes, it is questionable to send Grima away. And Tolkien isn't exactly subtle about it.
- veddox 2y ago
  I would rather take it at face value, as a perhaps surprising but nevertheless fitting display of magnanimity and mercy. Theoden has been restored to his right mind and character. The whole thrust of the his character plot (in the books) is that he ends his reign as noble as any of his forbears; freed from the influence of the lies of Saruman, he becomes an exemplary king. And one kingly virtue that Tolkien presents again and again is that of magnanimity to defeated foes: Bilbo doesn't kill Gollum (which Gandalf explicitly praises), the Rohirrim don't kill the Dunlendings, Gandalf doesn't kill Saruman. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."
  - Attrecomet 2y ago
    This magnanimity is also something prized in Earth-medieval kingship, too. Many a revolt against a king ended with the king pardoning the vassals that rose up -- only a king very secure in his throne could depose or even execute rebellious vassals. Of course, it's important that it be a common member of the nobility for this to work consistently. Against commoners, brutality was far less politically costly. And heretics (read: Kathars), who risk the Wrath of God coming over the whole community, are even less worthy of protection.
- TacticalCoder 2y ago
  > When they meet Saruman and Grima at Isengard, Théoden even tries to plead with Grima again. I've only read the book twice and it was a long time ago I last read it but... The whole Saruman/Grima/Theoden thing is way different in the book. In the book by the time Saruman arrives at Saruman's tower, Saruman had escaped (I think by tricking one of the ent, smooth talking it). Saruman then goes to attack the shire. It's Grima who kills Saruman, but in the Shire. I don't think Theoden tries to plead with Grima? That's a Peter Jackson / LoTR-the-movie invention no!? I don't remember enough of the book but the whole "Theoden pleads with Grima / Saruman slaps Grima / Grima stabs Saruman in front of Theoden" is definitely not happening like that in the book. It's maybe even the biggest difference between the book and the movie (it kinda changes the whole timeline).
  - Svip 2y ago
    I am mistaken. Théoden does not plead with Grima in the book. But Théoden is less eager to throw out Grima, when the truth has been revealed at Edoras compared to the movie. I must have confused the scene in the films for happening in the book, even though I had just read the book, though notably, Théoden continues to refer to him as "Grima" while everyone else calls him "Wormtongue". Regardless, I was talking about the events at Orthanc in the third book, in the second volume, chapter The Voice of Saruman, not the events much later in the Shire. Edit: It's not the scene in the movie I confused it with, it's that Théoden does remark that he hopes Grima can come back after the incident, but he does not in fact plead directly with Grima.
veddox 2y ago
Here's the tax policy quote in context: https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-aragorns-tax-policy/ https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-ar... > being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king I disagree with Martin here. Of course, not every good person also makes a good king, and not every good (i.e. politically effective) king was a good (i.e. morally upright) person. But the thing to realise is that the political power of feudal kings was much more limited than we often assume, and was based to a large part on the continued loyalty and goodwill of their vassals. In other words, a king's power rests on the relationships he has; it is both personal and relational. This means, of course, that a king who is perceived by his vassals as being a bad person is unlikely to keep their support and allegiance for long. He might be able to cow individual vassals by force, but the more his relationships degrade, the more precarious his position will be. (For example, King John's scandalous behaviour and personal conflicts with his barons were one of the main causes for the Baron's Revolt and the Magna Carta.) With that in mind, it is little surprise that medieval handbooks for rulers heavily emphasise a good character, loyal relationships, and morally upstanding behaviour as key to being a successful aristocrat. Tolkien understands this, and so his depiction of kings and aristocrats focusses strongly on the relational ties between them: the fealty and oaths they have sworn, the ancient friendships and marriages that connect them, the personal admiration and sympathy they have for each other. Put differently, medieval aristocrats would readily recognise Aragorn, Theoden, Eomer and Imrahil as model princes. (For a more detailed discussion of medieval aristocratic values, see here: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/27/a-trip-through-dhuoda-of-uzes-carolingian-values/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/27/a-trip-through-dhuoda-of-uzes-.... For a discussion of personal kingship - based on Crusader Kings III - see here: https://acoup.blog/2022/09/16/collections-teaching-paradox-crusader-kings-iii-part-i-making-it-personal/ https://acoup.blog/2022/09/16/collections-teaching-paradox-c...)
- justanotherjoe 2y ago
  It's not an attack of LotR realism I think. But more a meta analysis. The story does end with aragorn's coronation. Millitary general getting popular after winning a war is nothing if not realistic. Heck, i think it's consistent at least in LotR, that Aragorn must be a good king. A world where it's literally the music of a good god. You literally can't miss by just doing the wholesome thing, as no good deed will go unrewarded.
smogcutter 2y ago
> being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king Tolkien would disagree. So strongly in fact that he wrote an entire fantasy series about it!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I don't think that is true for Tolkien, fantasy, or life. If someone is a king, being a good person is synonymous with being a good king. Same with being a good loyal knight, ect. There is no need to separate the individual and social role. You have a moral archetype of for each social role, and judge the morality of the people in those roles against it.
- mikrl 2y ago
  The leader who took Russia from being a grand-principality centred on Moscow to a continent spanning empire was Ivan the Terrible. You don’t get an epithet like that by being a nice fella.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont think that refutes the point I was making. Was Ivan a moral ruler? Can his morality as a ruler be separated from Ivan's morality a person? The point Im trying to make is that that making dual and parallel judgments is a choice, and I think many people dont hold this distinction. I think the more common view is that how a king rules is a huge factor in their moral standing as a human.
    - parthianshotgun 2y ago
      So do you think then that power doesn't corrupt?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Seems irrelevant. If someone is corrupted and does amoral things, the result is still an amoral person. Sauron is not moral but corrupted. They were corrupted, and thus became amoral.
        parthianshotgun 2y ago
        I feel that it's a fairly notable distinction. See the Manson trials. An individual exerting will to 'corrupt' someone helpless is markedly different than someone, through mostly their own free will, doing something terrible. Abstractly then, the thing doing the corrupting need not be a will, but can be systems too. And you might make the case that nearly everything is this way, to which I'd say..yes. Social roles and conditions can corrupt or twist our moral precepts. You wouldn't steal from someone outright, but put it behind a spreadsheet and slap some tech jargon and suddenly the prospect is tempting.

Svip 2y ago

> For example, letting Grima leave edoras because 'enough blood has been spilled' is really cool, but dubious and questionable. My read has always been that Théoden was still unsure about what to do with Grima after what has been revealed. He is clearly angry at him, but it is also difficult for him to let him go, after he had has been his closest council for so long. When they meet Saruman and Grima at Isengard, Théoden even tries to plead with Grima again. And it doesn't make sense that Théoden is trying to lure Grima, because if he is trying to be cunning, he would well know that Grima would never bother, instead, it reads as Théoden still holding out hope. So yes, it is questionable to send Grima away. And Tolkien isn't exactly subtle about it.

veddox 2y ago
I would rather take it at face value, as a perhaps surprising but nevertheless fitting display of magnanimity and mercy. Theoden has been restored to his right mind and character. The whole thrust of the his character plot (in the books) is that he ends his reign as noble as any of his forbears; freed from the influence of the lies of Saruman, he becomes an exemplary king. And one kingly virtue that Tolkien presents again and again is that of magnanimity to defeated foes: Bilbo doesn't kill Gollum (which Gandalf explicitly praises), the Rohirrim don't kill the Dunlendings, Gandalf doesn't kill Saruman. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."
- Attrecomet 2y ago
  This magnanimity is also something prized in Earth-medieval kingship, too. Many a revolt against a king ended with the king pardoning the vassals that rose up -- only a king very secure in his throne could depose or even execute rebellious vassals. Of course, it's important that it be a common member of the nobility for this to work consistently. Against commoners, brutality was far less politically costly. And heretics (read: Kathars), who risk the Wrath of God coming over the whole community, are even less worthy of protection.
TacticalCoder 2y ago
> When they meet Saruman and Grima at Isengard, Théoden even tries to plead with Grima again. I've only read the book twice and it was a long time ago I last read it but... The whole Saruman/Grima/Theoden thing is way different in the book. In the book by the time Saruman arrives at Saruman's tower, Saruman had escaped (I think by tricking one of the ent, smooth talking it). Saruman then goes to attack the shire. It's Grima who kills Saruman, but in the Shire. I don't think Theoden tries to plead with Grima? That's a Peter Jackson / LoTR-the-movie invention no!? I don't remember enough of the book but the whole "Theoden pleads with Grima / Saruman slaps Grima / Grima stabs Saruman in front of Theoden" is definitely not happening like that in the book. It's maybe even the biggest difference between the book and the movie (it kinda changes the whole timeline).
- Svip 2y ago
  I am mistaken. Théoden does not plead with Grima in the book. But Théoden is less eager to throw out Grima, when the truth has been revealed at Edoras compared to the movie. I must have confused the scene in the films for happening in the book, even though I had just read the book, though notably, Théoden continues to refer to him as "Grima" while everyone else calls him "Wormtongue". Regardless, I was talking about the events at Orthanc in the third book, in the second volume, chapter The Voice of Saruman, not the events much later in the Shire. Edit: It's not the scene in the movie I confused it with, it's that Théoden does remark that he hopes Grima can come back after the incident, but he does not in fact plead directly with Grima.

veddox 2y ago

Here's the tax policy quote in context: https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-aragorns-tax-policy/ https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-ar... > being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king I disagree with Martin here. Of course, not every good person also makes a good king, and not every good (i.e. politically effective) king was a good (i.e. morally upright) person. But the thing to realise is that the political power of feudal kings was much more limited than we often assume, and was based to a large part on the continued loyalty and goodwill of their vassals. In other words, a king's power rests on the relationships he has; it is both personal and relational. This means, of course, that a king who is perceived by his vassals as being a bad person is unlikely to keep their support and allegiance for long. He might be able to cow individual vassals by force, but the more his relationships degrade, the more precarious his position will be. (For example, King John's scandalous behaviour and personal conflicts with his barons were one of the main causes for the Baron's Revolt and the Magna Carta.) With that in mind, it is little surprise that medieval handbooks for rulers heavily emphasise a good character, loyal relationships, and morally upstanding behaviour as key to being a successful aristocrat. Tolkien understands this, and so his depiction of kings and aristocrats focusses strongly on the relational ties between them: the fealty and oaths they have sworn, the ancient friendships and marriages that connect them, the personal admiration and sympathy they have for each other. Put differently, medieval aristocrats would readily recognise Aragorn, Theoden, Eomer and Imrahil as model princes. (For a more detailed discussion of medieval aristocratic values, see here: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/27/a-trip-through-dhuoda-of-uzes-carolingian-values/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/27/a-trip-through-dhuoda-of-uzes-.... For a discussion of personal kingship - based on Crusader Kings III - see here: https://acoup.blog/2022/09/16/collections-teaching-paradox-crusader-kings-iii-part-i-making-it-personal/ https://acoup.blog/2022/09/16/collections-teaching-paradox-c...)

justanotherjoe 2y ago
It's not an attack of LotR realism I think. But more a meta analysis. The story does end with aragorn's coronation. Millitary general getting popular after winning a war is nothing if not realistic. Heck, i think it's consistent at least in LotR, that Aragorn must be a good king. A world where it's literally the music of a good god. You literally can't miss by just doing the wholesome thing, as no good deed will go unrewarded.

smogcutter 2y ago

> being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king Tolkien would disagree. So strongly in fact that he wrote an entire fantasy series about it!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I don't think that is true for Tolkien, fantasy, or life. If someone is a king, being a good person is synonymous with being a good king. Same with being a good loyal knight, ect. There is no need to separate the individual and social role. You have a moral archetype of for each social role, and judge the morality of the people in those roles against it.

mikrl 2y ago
The leader who took Russia from being a grand-principality centred on Moscow to a continent spanning empire was Ivan the Terrible. You don’t get an epithet like that by being a nice fella.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think that refutes the point I was making. Was Ivan a moral ruler? Can his morality as a ruler be separated from Ivan's morality a person? The point Im trying to make is that that making dual and parallel judgments is a choice, and I think many people dont hold this distinction. I think the more common view is that how a king rules is a huge factor in their moral standing as a human.
  - parthianshotgun 2y ago
    So do you think then that power doesn't corrupt?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Seems irrelevant. If someone is corrupted and does amoral things, the result is still an amoral person. Sauron is not moral but corrupted. They were corrupted, and thus became amoral.
      - parthianshotgun 2y ago
        I feel that it's a fairly notable distinction. See the Manson trials. An individual exerting will to 'corrupt' someone helpless is markedly different than someone, through mostly their own free will, doing something terrible. Abstractly then, the thing doing the corrupting need not be a will, but can be systems too. And you might make the case that nearly everything is this way, to which I'd say..yes. Social roles and conditions can corrupt or twist our moral precepts. You wouldn't steal from someone outright, but put it behind a spreadsheet and slap some tech jargon and suddenly the prospect is tempting.