The Franks are good because they are Christian and the Saracens are bad because they're not. It's almost that simple. There is some nuance because the Saracens can be admired despite their wicked ways, for courage and knightliness and good looks and religious learning. It's as if they're just labeled wrong, and in a different world or a different story they would be fighting on the same side or sharing an extra large order of cheesy fries.
As it is, the assigning of good and evil is so black and white that the Franks and the Saracens can only exist in the same world if one has conquered the other.
Questions About Good v. Evil
- Is there a pattern to which Saracens are all-bad and which have some good qualities?
- What are the Emir's reasons for fighting Charlemagne?
- Why is the poet so anxious to label things good or evil?
- According to the poem, who is more evil: Marsile or Ganelon?
Chew on This
The fact that some Saracens are given admirable, knightly qualities demonstrates that the poet's labeling of good v. evil is completely arbitrary.
Because Ganelon is a Christian, his betrayal is more wicked than any Saracen's.