Bad Worldbuilding of Westeros

[Lord Sovereign]

As others have said, even beyond the simple muck ups of medieval worldbuilding, the slaver societies and nomadic hordes are also where Martin falls flat on his face.

One example of this is the Dothraki lack the heavy cavalry contingent that all horse nomad armies had. In the case of the Mongols it is often forgotten that after the Horse Archers had picked the enemy apart, the Heavy Lancers would charge home to deliver the killer blow.

As for the slavers, they are apparently even more awful and incompetent in the books, when of course many of history’s greatest empires were slave owning societies. Just because Rome had slaves didn’t make its legions any less effective.

 

[evilchumlee]

1. You're not doing that. You're repeating "it's different because it's different", without illustrating why it would supposedly be plausible. In fact, people in the point-by-point discussion have explained why quite a lot of your assumptions are faulty. But you repeat the same line of "it's different because it's different" again, phrased slightly differently, each time.

2. Even if you were showing how the differences could have realistically come about... that's your fanon, and no defence of the work itself. If I have to make shit up for things to make sense, then the author left gaps that are very large indeed. And that's bad world-building.

I get where you're coming from. I just disagree with the base of it.

Martin does not give the reasons for every possible difference between his world and the real world. No. That really shouldn't be expected.

People apparently take issue with that, so i've taken to pondering HOW those differences came to be without having the actual information.

I'm then told "yeah but you can't go point by point", so then I try to give a more broad, "the same set of circumstances didn't happen in that world" and then i'm told... there needs to be... seemingly point by point reasons why.

efrending him against this charge. It's not like he's going to jail, or has to return his income from the books, if we admit that his world-building is shit.

I'm defending him because this a forum where we talk about these things and I don't agree that the world building is shit... I think the world building is incredible in his work... it just doesn't match up to what some expect to see, and it does take the usual (to me completely acceptable) artistic liberties with some things. It's really not a big deal at all. It's just... an interesting discussion?

Sure if you want to argue that the agricultural infrastrure of Westeros was not well thought out... sure. Cool. What relevance does that have to the story? Do you really want to read a book that takes a deep dive into medieval farming and logistics? I don't.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Yes,that is major problems.Medieval rulers,for all their vices,still belived in their religion,whatsever that religion was.
When in GRRM world it simply do not matter.
It is true for modern leaders in western world,but impossible for any medieval world.

On the contrary, history clearly demonstrates that many medieval rulers paid only lip service to the established state religion that they supposedly followed. King Henri IV of France, for example, "converted" to Catholicism for purely political reasons and openly joked about it, declaring that, "Paris is well worth [attending] a Mass."

 

[Skallagrim]

I get where you're coming from. I just disagree with the base of it.

Martin does not give the reasons for every possible difference between his world and the real world. No. That really shouldn't be expected.

People apparently take issue with that, so i've taken to pondering HOW those differences came to be without having the actual information.

I think you still don't get what the actual criticism is, because your response is not a reaction to that criticism, but to a misrepresentation of it.

1. Nobody says Martin has to explain everything and write dozens of books of lore. The things he does show have to make sense in relation to each other. Basically, what he's doing is the sociological equivalent of giving us a Mediaeval culture that has cars. But it has no gas, no oil, no refineries, no other advanced engineering. Just... cars. Without context or explanation. And I'm not exaggerating. That's really how unrealistic some of his major assumptions are. Can you see how "Yeah, but they just have cars because it's not our world!" would be a bit of a senseless way to excuse that? The problem isn't that it's different-- but that's different in a way that makes no sense.


2. You making up your own fanon is fine, but I stress again that a fan theory doesn't excuse a lack of logic in the work itself. It's like this example here:

(In other words: the fact that someone can come up with an explanation for something outside of a work doesn't mean that the lack of an explanation isn't a fault of the work. Again, this doesn't mean that a work has to explain everything in an exhaustive manner. It does mean that a work has to make sense on its own, without relying on outside sources to "make sense of it".)

I'm then told "yeah but you can't go point by point", so then I try to give a more broad, "the same set of circumstances didn't happen in that world" and then i'm told... there needs to be... seemingly point by point reasons why.

That's a false dichotomy. You act as if the only options are A) meaningless generalities or B) focus on isolated details devoid of context.

My whole point has been that you need to view everything as a whole, to see if the fictional world makes sense. Not simplistic excuses like "it's like this because it's like this, deal with it" and not cherry-picked justifications like "This could make sense if I invent this explanation myself, and that could make sense if I make up that explanation".

Rather, the big picture. That's thinking along the lines of "how is this world different from what we see in the real world, and what would the results of those differences be?"

Asking that kind of question is the sign of good world-building. It's also the bane of stuff like Martin's Planetos, because he didn't ask those questions.

I'm defending him because this a forum where we talk about these things and I don't agree that the world building is shit... I think the world building is incredible in his work... it just doesn't match up to what some expect to see, and it does take the usual (to me completely acceptable) artistic liberties with some things. It's really not a big deal at all. It's just... an interesting discussion?

Sure if you want to argue that the agricultural infrastrure of Westeros was not well thought out... sure. Cool. What relevance does that have to the story? Do you really want to read a book that takes a deep dive into medieval farming and logistics? I don't.

Generally speaking, I think you have lower standards for what you accept in fiction than several others here. As evidence of this, I cite your positive remarks about two of the three SW sequels, and about some truly terrible Marvel dreck. Now, to be clear, if you enjoy a thing, then enjoy it.

Claiming that it's good because you personally like it, however, is a rather weak take.

In this case we are talking about world-building. Your response to this is: "So what if if [a crucial, basic thing about how a society functions] is not well thought out? What's the relevance to the story?"

I conclude that you have no real clue what world-building is. You're talking about plot here. Now, I think Martin's ability to plot is also handicapped, but for the first few books, he was doing fine with the plotting, at least. But that doesn't mean the world-building is good! The example you cite is precisely evidence of bad world-building. "But the plot is good!" is a nonsense reply. You can have greatly engaging stories in very badly-built worlds! (Two words: Harry Potter.)

This thread critiques world-building. You have a very vocal opinion on it, but you don't seem to even really know what it is.

 

[evilchumlee]

This thread critiques world-building. You have a very vocal opinion on it, but you don't seem to even really know what it is.

I'll say fair points on most of that. Message received.

I think the world building here is done well, I may have different standards. I'm much more concerned about internal consistency in the world, which Martin does... reasonably well. I'm concerned about how believable the world with, assuming requisite suspension of disbelief. I can look at this world and see many pathways to get there that don't need to hit the real world beats. If you disagree, that's ok.

 

[ATP]

Humans in Westeros/GoT-verse are pretty explicitly not that similar to IRL humans.
For starters GRRM has said their genetics are passed on way differently, traits, especially mental traits, are passed on way more often.
Also inbreeding seems to just...Not be a thing, regardless of generations.

Still feudal society - and in ALL feudal societies rulers at least tried to be honorable.

The Targaryen's were supposed to have purple eyes...

Obviously, GRRM is a complete and total hack because i'm looking at people right now and I don't see anyone with purple eyes. What an idiot.

And DRAGONS?! Um, hello George, you hack. Show me any historical record of dragons. You can't? What an idiot, trying to tell me DRAGONS are a thing. OBVIOUSLY, he's completely out of touch with the world.

So? still medieval society.Which mean leaders who belive in God/gods,and at least try to act honourable.
When GRRM created world,when medieval society is ruled by dudes who act as if they were modern people.
Which is stupid.People in medieval times could not act in modern way,just like we could not act in medieval ways.

It is not matter of eyes and dragons,but how we think.

 

[ATP]

On the contrary, history clearly demonstrates that many medieval rulers paid only lip service to the established state religion that they supposedly followed. King Henri IV of France, for example, "converted" to Catholicism for purely political reasons and openly joked about it, declaring that, "Paris is well worth [attending] a Mass."

Medieval rulers.Dude was protestant - they do not existed in medieval times yet.

 

[Aldarion]

There is alot of point by point but that's the nature of it. I'm going to stop replying to all of that just because it's largely pointless.

My point is, it DOES make sense in it's own right, but you can't try to dwell on "alternate history" because it's NOT... it's a completely and totally different world with an entirely different historical tradition that in absolutely no way even comes close to resembling our own.

Yes, Westeros is... not a 100% accurate medival European society. Because it's... not a medieval European society. That's just the closest thing to our history that we can compare it to.

I still fail to understand how you can't have a formerly-powerful church whose power had been eroded by a millenia-long dynasty of kings, which still has a modicum of power from simply existing as the generally dominant religion of the land, even if most people aren't particularly devout. There's nothing that can't work about that. It's not how it happened in our history, which makes exact sense since it's not our history.

The "problem" is that Martin has not published volumes of history so that we can trace every single minor event through historical changes to lead to where they end up, like we can with real history. No author is going to say "Hmm, well my fantasy society uses a calendar, so I have to go back and explain how these people discovered and created the concept of a calendar." That's idiotic. It's also idiotic to assume a world not ours developed a calendar in the same exact manner for the same exact reasons as we did.

Now i'm not sitting here saying that every single detail makes 100% sense. It doesn't. It never will in fiction. Such fiction would probably be incredibly boring as a matter of fact. Martin's world is... close enough, and makes just enough sense to function for the story. Sure, should they be wearing plate armor? No probably not. But some of the minutiae here seems like some being a bit overly dense and refusing to accept that things don't have to progress exactly as they did in history in a different world.

It is not a completely and totally different world with entirely different historical tradition, because Martin based it on real world, took historical traditions from real world, and in fact explicitly stated that he wanted to provide a more "realistic" fantasy than Tolkien or other typical fantasy.

As I said: I feel perfectly justified in holding Martin to his own damn standards.

Now as to other points...

Yes, you can have a formerly-powerful church whose political power had been eroded by a millenia-long dynasty of kings. What you cannot have, at least not until modernism, is a church whose moral power had been eroded by said dynasty of kings. Premodern world was religious to the extent that people in today's postmodernist bullshit society have a very difficult time understanding. Hell, we have a difficult time understanding how religious our own great-grandparents were, and medieval people were even more so. I gave you the example of the Crusades.

Problem with Martin is not that he has

not published volumes of history so that we can trace every single minor event through historical changes to lead to where they end up

After all, Tolkien has not done so either (though he did come close). Neither has Turtledove. Yet we still can make sense of his world, because it was built in depth and is internally consistent.

Martin does not worldbuild at all. He simply took the morals and mentality of the modern-day world, built a medieval Potemkin facade in front of it, and that was it. And then he gets praised for "realism" by people who are quite frankly either too uninformed to know that medieval world was different from today's world, or too stupid to realize that it is possible for a society to be in any way different from what it is today.

Martin's world is a Potemkin's village of worldbuilding. Well, Westeros is - it makes sense on the surface, but falls apart the moment you look a little deeper. Essos doesn't make sense even on a surface level, but that isn't the topic here so...

I'll say fair points on most of that. Message received.

I think the world building here is done well, I may have different standards. I'm much more concerned about internal consistency in the world, which Martin does... reasonably well. I'm concerned about how believable the world with, assuming requisite suspension of disbelief. I can look at this world and see many pathways to get there that don't need to hit the real world beats. If you disagree, that's ok.

Except... he doesn't. He doesn't really follow his own assumptions to their logical conclusions.

I don't know how a society going through 10-year-winters would look like, but chances are it would not be feudal. Most likely, it would be limited to coastal enclaves.

Feudalism is a system based on personal honor. Senior gives junior the land because he expects junior to come when called. It is a system based on honor, on keeping one's word. In that sort of a system, you simply do not get the treacherous backstabbing behavior that you get in Westeros.

And those are just two of many mistakes he makes.

To make Martin's worldbuilding believeable requires suspension of disbelief on par with Teletubbies.

 

[evilchumlee]

It is not a completely and totally different world with entirely different historical tradition, because Martin based it on real world, took historical traditions from real world, and in fact explicitly stated that he wanted to provide a more "realistic" fantasy than Tolkien or other typical fantasy.

As I said: I feel perfectly justified in holding Martin to his own damn standards.

I think that he hit his goal... it IS more realistic than Tolkien or other typical fantasy.

The point is that world is completely and totally different. Martin was inspired by the real world and based his world upon being inspired from traditions from the real world, but quite literally nothing from our world is there.

Please show me where Martin shows where the world diverged, or where the Roman Empire was located, or where the Franks founded their Kingdom, or where Jesus Christ was born. Where in the timeline does Rome convert to Christianity?

This is not our world. It's inspired by our world. Overall it's really nothing like our world outside of the most surface level aesthetics. It's an incredibly narrow view to look at something that kind of sort, sort of resembles a generic medieval society and think "the exact same things must have happened to create this and there is literally no other way that it could ever happen other than with the exact circumstances in which they happened in actual history."

EDIT -

Ok let me rephrase, because I want to understand. Let's just take something... I know it's a sin to go point by point... but let's start easy. Let's go with religion.

WHY is it absolutely impossible to have a vaguely medieval society that is not dominated by religion? What about not having a church being a dominant force causes the medieval society to collapse, and what else would take its place in the wake?

 

[Aldarion]

I think that he hit his goal... it IS more realistic than Tolkien or other typical fantasy.

The point is that world is completely and totally different. Martin was inspired by the real world and based his world upon being inspired from traditions from the real world, but quite literally nothing from our world is there.

Please show me where Martin shows where the world diverged, or where the Roman Empire was located, or where the Franks founded their Kingdom, or where Jesus Christ was born. Where in the timeline does Rome convert to Christianity?

This is not our world. It's inspired by our world. Overall it's really nothing like our world outside of the most surface level aesthetics. It's an incredibly narrow view to look at something that kind of sort, sort of resembles a generic medieval society and think "the exact same things must have happened to create this and there is literally no other way that it could ever happen other than with the exact circumstances in which they happened in actual history."

No, it is not.

If you drop Gondor in real-life Earth, it can actually work.

None of Martin's polities can.

And you are basically saying "it is not real so fuck logic". That is your entire argument.

But here is the thing: things happen for a reason. If you want to build a believable world - as Martin has claimed he wants - then you have to understand the cause and consequence. If you want to change things from how they historically were, then you have to understand why things historically were that way.

Martin clearly fails here.

Nothing from our world is there? What then do you call kings, queens, lords, nobles and knights? Martin has made it clear that Westeros is a feudal society - are you claiming that feudalism has never existed in this world? That Martin has come up with the system first?

And you clearly have no clue about Martin's world in the first place. Roman Empire in Martin's world? That is Valyria. Franks are the Andals, with Reach being France. And while there is no Jesus, there is Christianity - the Faith of the Seven. And they convert the entirety of Westeros.

Yes, it is true that Martin's world is "really nothing like our world outside of the most surface level aesthetics" - but for reasons very different from what you claim. Martin's world is nothing like our world outside of the most surface level aesthetics because Martin's world doesn't have anything beyond surface level aesthetics to begin with. It is a Potemkin's village, a hoard of meaningless details that seem realistic on the surface but have nothing supporting them.

EDIT:

Ok let me rephrase, because I want to understand. Let's just take something... I know it's a sin to go point by point... but let's start easy. Let's go with religion.

WHY is it absolutely impossible to have a vaguely medieval society that is not dominated by religion? What about not having a church being a dominant force causes the medieval society to collapse, and what else would take its place in the wake?

I already explained that.

Humans need belief. Even when we tried to get rid of traditional faiths, we just replaced them with secular religions.

Both Communism and Progressivism are secular religions based on creating Heaven on Earth.

So while I am not a psychologist to explain why, fact is that humans need belief into something greater than the reality. And premodern world simply did not have the conditions for appearance of, say, Karl Marx to provide a replacement for religion.

So religions it was. They don't need to have a god, precisely - Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Jainism do not, IIRC - but some sort of somewhat organized belief system is absolutely necessary. And the more complex the society is, more complex the belief system becomes - meaning that with medieval society, you can't exactly get away with simply dropping shamans into it.

 

[evilchumlee]

And you are basically saying "it is not real so fuck logic". That is your entire argument.

But here is the thing: things happen for a reason. If you want to build a believable world - as Martin has claimed he wants - then you have to understand the cause and consequence. If you want to change things from how they historically were, then you have to understand why things historically were that way.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying exactly what you are... i'm saying these things happen for a reason. They just didn't happen for the same reason.

And you clearly have no clue about Martin's world in the first place. Roman Empire in Martin's world? That is Valyria. Franks are the Andals, with Reach being France. And while there is no Jesus, there is Christianity - the Faith of the Seven. And they convert the entirety of Westeros.

You missed the point of that. Of all of it, I think.

No, Valyria is not the Roman Empire. Valyria is somewhat kind of similar to and inspired by the Roman Empire but objectively NOT the Roman Empire. The Andals are some what kind of similar to and inspired by the Franks but objectively NOT the Franks...

None of this is the same history of Earth, therefore it is absolutely nonsensical to suggest that things will develop exactly as they did and things will happen for the same exact reasons under the same exact circumstances as they did in Earth's history.

EXACTLY why alot of the things happened can only be left to speculation as we do not have the entire historical record of Planetos to draw upon.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Yes, it is true that Martin's world is "really nothing like our world outside of the most surface level aesthetics" - but for reasons very different from what you claim. Martin's world is nothing like our world outside of the most surface level aesthetics because Martin's world doesn't have anything beyond surface level aesthetics to begin with. It is a Potemkin's village, a hoard of meaningless details that seem realistic on the surface but have nothing supporting them.

True, but it's worth pointing out that the near totality of fictional worlds exist only as surface level aesthetics. Published writers who engage in full-fledged, detailed worldbuilding basically consist of J.R.R. Tolkien and *only* J.R.R Tolkien; everything else is pretty much "flavor bits over vaguely defined generic tropes". At best, you get retconned-in worldbuilding a la Star Wars and Star Trek.

 

[Aldarion]

True, but it's worth pointing out that the near totality of fictional worlds exist only as surface level aesthetics. Published writers who engage in full-fledged, detailed worldbuilding basically consist of J.R.R. Tolkien and *only* J.R.R Tolkien; everything else is pretty much "flavor bits over vaguely defined generic tropes". At best, you get retconned-in worldbuilding a la Star Wars and Star Trek.

Doesn't Turtledove also do deep worldbuilding? And some worlds end up surprisingly realistic despite explicitly being surface-level-aesthetics-only (e.g. Warhammer 40k's Imperium - feudalism is an excellent model for an interstellar empire with no reliable means of communication).

And while I am aware that replicating Tolkien's worldbuilding is a tall order, fact is that most authors also never claimed that they want to create a world "more realistic" than Tolkien's, or had that claimed about them.

Martin did at least the second thing, and I believe both. So he gets the special treatment.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying exactly what you are... i'm saying these things happen for a reason. They just didn't happen for the same reason.

Let me remind you what you specifically said:

I don't think either of these things are really issues. This is not medieval Europe. It's an alien world that shares similarities with medieval Europe.

There's really no reason why the church HAS to be the foundation of education and record keeping in such a society. In Westeros it seems like religion is nowhere near as important to society as it was in medieval Europe. Especially so given that it seems the powers of the Faith were significantly reduced by the ruling Targaryens.

Something like moon tea is just... something medieval Europe didn't have. It's convenient sure but there's nothing particularly problematic about it. I mean even in the real world, Silphium may have worked somewhat similarly.

My point is that if you want to change things from how they were historically, you have to first understand why things were the way they historically were, and then you can go and provide a realistic reason and/or context to justify the change. And you also have to consider all the secondary and tertiary changes that would happen because of this one change.

Martin does absolutely none of that. He changes things without understanding why they were the way they were, and as a result, ends up with society that falls apart the moment you look at how it is supposed to work.

I have already explained you why religious organizations were always concerned with education and record keeping, remember?

In reality, it doesn't matter if it is the ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, medieval Byzantium or Europe, or China... religion always gave power and influence that was unmatched outside perhaps royalty itself. And most of the time, kings were priests, precisely because of the influence of religion.

You won't really find any society where kings were philosophers. Sure, there were "philosopher kings", but even then their authority was largely based on religious justifications, not philosophical ones.

In short: academic institution could only exist as a consequence of its establishment by a) the state or b) the Church. If Citadel and its Maesters were established by Targaryens to help unify Westeros, or else by the Church of the Seven to do the same, then I wouldn't have much issue with it. But in either case, they wouldn't be anywhere as influential as in the story.

Moon tea is another example of bad worldbuilding. Not in terms of its existence - again, it is fantasy - but in how it really doesn't change anything in the world. Reliable birth control is a big thing.

You missed the point of that. Of all of it, I think.

No, Valyria is not the Roman Empire. Valyria is somewhat kind of similar to and inspired by the Roman Empire but objectively NOT the Roman Empire. The Andals are some what kind of similar to and inspired by the Franks but objectively NOT the Franks...

None of this is the same history of Earth, therefore it is absolutely nonsensical to suggest that things will develop exactly as they did and things will happen for the same exact reasons under the same exact circumstances as they did in Earth's history.

EXACTLY why alot of the things happened can only be left to speculation as we do not have the entire historical record of Planetos to draw upon.

And I never said that it should have developed exactly as Earth, so you can stop with that particular strawman.

What I said from the beginning is that world has to have internal consistency. Things happen for a reason, and you cannot have consequence without a cause. And since Martin's world is so similar to our own, that means that using real-world history is in fact a good way to check for how good his worldbuilding is - but not the only way. Just look at some implications of Martin's worldbuilding... e.g. how combination of size of Westeros and feudal system means the Iron Throne should be basically worthless - yet for some reason everybody desires it. Why? In fact, Seven Kingdoms should have fallen apart into, well, seven kingdoms - or nine kingdoms, rather - the moment Targaryens were deposed. Yet that didn't happen. Why?

Also, considering that Martin specifically set out to create a realistic fantasy world, realism is very much an issue.

 

[Skallagrim]

the moment Targaryens were deposed

Rather: the moment the dragons had degenerated too much to be a military game-changer. As soon as they become too small and weak to ride into battle, and/or to burn significant numbers of enemy men in mere moments, people are going to notice...

And then it's just a matter of time before a number of successful secessions occur-- because you can't keep a continent together with Mediaeval means, unless you have magical superweapons (such as dragons) at your avail.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Still feudal society - and in ALL feudal societies rulers at least tried to be honorable.

They aren't feudal as 'we' know it though. Similar but not identical.

 

[ATP]

I think that he hit his goal... it IS more realistic than Tolkien or other typical fantasy.

The point is that world is completely and totally different. Martin was inspired by the real world and based his world upon being inspired from traditions from the real world, but quite literally nothing from our world is there.

Please show me where Martin shows where the world diverged, or where the Roman Empire was located, or where the Franks founded their Kingdom, or where Jesus Christ was born. Where in the timeline does Rome convert to Christianity?

This is not our world. It's inspired by our world. Overall it's really nothing like our world outside of the most surface level aesthetics. It's an incredibly narrow view to look at something that kind of sort, sort of resembles a generic medieval society and think "the exact same things must have happened to create this and there is literally no other way that it could ever happen other than with the exact circumstances in which they happened in actual history."

EDIT -

Ok let me rephrase, because I want to understand. Let's just take something... I know it's a sin to go point by point... but let's start easy. Let's go with religion.

WHY is it absolutely impossible to have a vaguely medieval society that is not dominated by religion? What about not having a church being a dominant force causes the medieval society to collapse, and what else would take its place in the wake?

No,it is parody of our world.Westeros is parody of Europe,Faith is parody of Catholic Church,ironborn are parody of vikings,dothraki of mongos,and if he wrote more about Yi-Ti and Leng,i could safely bet,that they would be parodies of China and Japan,too.

And that is problem with GRRM - he made parody,named it as realistic,and everybody is happy with that.
I have nothing against parodies,but not when they pretend to be real.

Maybe becouse he is leftist? soviets made parodies of society,and insist that it is real,too.Not mention lgbt or green madness now.

They aren't feudal as 'we' know it though. Similar but not identical.

All feudal societies are made on honour.You simply could not have backstabbing rulers there,becouse either they or society would die.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

All feudal societies are made on honour.You simply could not have backstabbing rulers there,becouse either they or society would die.

Good thing it's a fiction then. Heheh. Although most backstabbers in Westeros end up getting their just desserts.

 

[Aldarion]

Good thing it's a fiction then. Heheh. Although most backstabbers in Westeros end up getting their just desserts.

Thing is that Martin is actually trying to make a point that treachery and evil are self-defeating... which is exactly the reason why they were not common in Middle Ages.

So yeah. Guy doesn't even consider the implications of his own intentions.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Although most backstabbers in Westeros end up getting their just desserts.

And so do loyal people.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

And so do loyal people.

The loyal people might die, but their families triumph.

...Sort of.