Jump to content

How unreasonable was Rickard Karstark?


The Dragons Hand

Recommended Posts

As a quick reminder

Rickard was the father of Eddard and Torrhen Karstark, who died defending Robb Stark against Jaime Lannister in the Whispering wood. Once Jaime was captured Karstark demanded his head as "A man has a right to vengeance." After Jaime is set free by Catelyn, Rickard kills Willem Lannister and Tion Frey in retribution, claiming that Catelyn as much as him was responsible for their deaths.

Perhaps I'm just cold in this way but that doesn't seem like a logical way to go about things with plenty of time between each event, no matter the fury felt. Rickard may have thought that Robb would simply forgive him since he believed Robb lacked the nerve to execute him, even so, he risked death for the ability to murder some random guards and two Lannister squires? (Even if they are the chikdren of Tywin's siblings and the next best thing to Jaime.) He even points out "Squires die in every battle." and yet his sons dying was such an extraordinary event in his eyes that it demanded blood? The deaths of some pre-teens and his own subsequent beheading because he was frustrated about Jaime's escape?

Oftentimes I've heard it said that the Slaver's Bay holds the most one-dimensional characters in ASOIAF, yet not one holds a candle to Rickard Karstarks self-destructive, selfish and misplaced vendetta in my eyes.

At any rate, I'm curious what you all think. Is there something I'm missing, is it as simple as a mad desire for vengeance and I simply don't get that manly desire? Or is Rickard as I perceive him?

(I apologize for any typos, while English is my first language, typing is not my strong suit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rickard was ridiculousy irrational, but his irrationality was understandable.

 

Not only had he lost two of his sons, but another was captured fighting a war for a guy who was ruining the war effort with bad political choices. Rickard probably crossed the despair event horizon believing that his sons' sacriifces would end up being for nothing and he was probably right.

 

But it's like Cregan Stark said, killing a man in combat is one thing, but foul murder is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole messy biz is just one big tragedy. I don't have a perspective of any true righteousness in this story. On the one hand Richard's grief clouded his judgement in thinking vengeance was his to take. His sons died fairly (if one can even look at waring as fair) in battle. The Lannister boys did not deserve to die for his grief.

On the other hand, I question Robb's decision to take the punishment to the extreme of beheading him. He did forgive his mother (rightly so) so perhaps he should have been more forgiving of a key northern lord who lost 2 sons fighting for Robb and Riverrun.

Again, I don't have any strong arguments on the value of anyone's actions in this story-line. It was just one big unnecessary tragedy IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rickard was being ridiculous but really half the people who had a position of power were being ridiculous. robbs repeated bad choices caused the downfall of his house, cat let jaime go on her own accord, rickard killed people (and got himself killed in the process) because he felt it was vengeance, edmure defied orders and so on. people hate the boltons and freys for the red wedding but they seemed to be the only smart ones of the bunch imo. breaking guest right is a horrible offense in westeros but it also meant that their houses wouldnt be potentially wiped out of existence because of other peoples poor decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there was a lot of reason in his actions. I also understand why Cat did what she did, but let's face it, would she survive freeing Jaime, if she wasn't Robb's mother? Let's say Glover or Bolton freed Jaime, would they survive this? I think you know the answer.

 

edit: some grammar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing the Lannister boys was totally unreasonable. Jaime was not a murderer (not to his kids at least). Rickard's kids died in battle, like soldiers, protecting their liege. They were doing what they were supposed to.

 

I can see why Rickard was the way he was, being blinded by grief. But he was owed nothing from Robb. Jaime didn't murder his children, and didn't deserve to die because they did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing the Lannister boys was totally unreasonable. Jaime was not a murderer (not to his kids at least). Rickard's kids died in battle, like soldiers, protecting their liege. They were doing what they were supposed to.

 

I can see why Rickard was the way he was, being blinded by grief. But he was owed nothing from Robb. Jaime didn't murder his children, and didn't deserve to die because they did. 

 

He killed two innocent children and several of Robbs men (Tully men but he was the King)If he did nothing he would look weak and the Riverlords would think he values northmen more then them.

 

QFT.

 

Torrhen and Eddard volunteered to be in Robb's guard. Their deaths were valiant, but not murder. Willem and Tion's deaths were cold-blooded murder, as were the other men who's only "crime" was standing between a man and his vengeance. Rickard's plight has sympathy to it, yes, but no justification whatsoever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's your opinion, Stineheart.

 

That's the fact of the matter. Hostages in war aren't taken just to be killed. They are tools. For as much as people want to criticize Cat and say releasing Jaime was a bad move, Karstark's idiotic notion of 'justice' would have been much worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a hard time distinguishing facts from opinions.

 

You have a hard time being told that you're wrong, which is a shame because it seems that you often are. 

 

Fact: Torrhen and Eddard volunteered to be in Robb's guard.

Fact: They were not "murdered" by Jaime. It was a battle. The possibility of death was known to them.

Fact: Karstark killing Jaime would serve no purpose to the war effort and would only satiate his own hunger for vengeance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a hard time being told that you're wrong, which is a shame because it seems that you often are. 
 
Fact: Torrhen and Eddard volunteered to be in Robb's guard.
Fact: They were not "murdered" by Jaime. It was a battle. The possibility of death was known to them.
Fact: Karstark killing Jaime would serve no purpose to the war effort and would only satiate his own hunger for vengeance.


I'm almost always on point. And you know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...