Robb's killing of Rickard Karstark

[Chocolate_dream]

You mean why didn't he personally behead his mother?

Nobody is following a king that executes his mother. Plus, she was his mother. And she didn't murder anyone.

He destroyed morale by letting his mother get off scott free for releasing one of their biggest enemies. Then he turned around and executed one of his most loyal men for retaliating against his stupid decision.

He didn't have to behead her, but he could have imprisoned her for COMMITTING A CRIME and he should have allowed justice for his own men.

[Father of Hosts]

He destroyed morale by letting his mother get off scott free for releasing one of their biggest enemies. Then he turned around and executed one of his most loyal men for retaliating against his stupid decision.

He didn't have to behead her, but he could have imprisoned her for COMMITTING A CRIME and he should have allowed justice for his own men.

She was for the most part, confined to chambers. Would imprisoning his mother have improved morale? I don't think it would.

Executed Karstark for retaliating against what decision? His decision not to murder children? It was Jaime who killed Karstark's sons, in battle, not 11 and 12 year old squires.

[The Manhood-Eating Goat]

A lot of suggestions that there were too many for Robb to kill personally or that the leader of a crime deserves specific attention from the lord.

All may be valid, but neither idea was ever suggested by Ned or Robb and both are in fact in contradiction to what both men said about the man who condemns a person to death carrying out the killing.

[Father of Hosts]

A lot of suggestions that there were too many for Robb to kill personally or that the leader of a crime deserves specific attention from the lord.

All may be valid, but neither idea was ever suggested by Ned or Robb and both are in fact in contradiction to what both men said about the man who condemns a person to death carrying out the killing.

I guess if we ever get another situation or a flashback and the Ned personally attends to the mass execution of several men, you would have your answer. Seeing as there is no precedent, save Robb's, there is no way to accurately judge if Robb is indeed following the Ned's code.

For me, the important part is that Robb did indeed take part in the execution. He could have just as easily hung Rickard.

[~DarkHorse~]

People always say Robb lost the North but no one seems to remember he is a child, and unlike Joffrey he actually rules. Plus I don't think Robb ever wanted to be king. And the Northmen are all pretty damned wild and crazy. People are too hard on him, he made mistakes, but did what he thought was right.

:agree: Robb gets too much crap from people. :bang:

[Howling Mad]

So at best we can read that while Robb wants to follow his father's ideals, he failed to understand them?

Kings are busy men and beheading everyone you sentence to death takes time. Delegating some tasks are essential, lighten up.

ETA - if you are going to refuse to except logical answers to your question stop wasting our time asking questions.

[sertravisredbeard]

I think he might have decided to hang the other eight because beheading nine people would be sloppy and kind of sadistic. Beheading Lord Karstark was symbolic. Hanging his men was just punishing regular criminals, even if they were just following orders. Beheading one after another would have been way too gory for Robb.

[sertravisredbeard]

Plus Karstark was kind of a tool for being so personally pissed off about his sons dying in battle. That's what people do in battle. They die. He shouldn't have been that surprised and offended at the outcome.

[Chocolate_dream]

She was for the most part, confined to chambers. Would imprisoning his mother have improved morale? I don't think it would.

Executed Karstark for retaliating against what decision? His decision not to murder children? It was Jaime who killed Karstark's sons, in battle, not 11 and 12 year old squires.

Exactly. She got off with a slap on the wrist for releasing an enemy. An enemy that will come back and kill them.

Enemy children are still enemies. He should have killed them to provide some of justice for his people instead he stupidly kills his OWN PEOPLE. You think it's right he killed one of his most loyal men for killing Lannisters?

[SerJeremiahLouistark]

The only bannermen pissed about Catelyn were the Karstarks, all the others just chalked it up to a "mothers madness".

[Father of Hosts]

Exactly. She got off with a slap on the wrist for releasing an enemy. An enemy that will come back and kill them.

Enemy children are still enemies. He should have killed them to provide some of justice for his people instead he stupidly kills his OWN PEOPLE. You think it's right he killed one of his most loyal men for killing Lannisters?

Prisoners. Child prisoners. The Lannisters aren't even murdering prisoners and you think Robb should do it? What did those two Lannister children do that was so evil besides be born Lannisters? They weren't killed, they were murdered.

No one in the North is following Robb if he kills Cat. No one. The wife of Eddard Stark, the man they went to war to free. No one is more accursed than the kinslayer in the eyes of gods and men.

Yeah, I do think it was right to kill Rickard. Murderers get the death penalty in the North.

[Ser Edmure Tully]

Exactly. She got off with a slap on the wrist for releasing an enemy. An enemy that will come back and kill them.

Enemy children are still enemies. He should have killed them to provide some of justice for his people instead he stupidly kills his OWN PEOPLE. You think it's right he killed one of his most loyal men for killing Lannisters?

If Karstark was one of his most loyal men, he wouldnt have contravened Robb's orders, killed children and been charged with treason.

As soon as his two son's die, Karstark's sole aim becomes bloody vengeance at the expense of a lot of other things. He clearly doesnt consider his son Harrion or his daughter Alys when he makes these decisions, only his own need to feel better.

His own need to feel better which is achieved by murdering children, who had nothing to do with his son's death. He'd also already personally killed Ser Stafford Lannister, so if it was proxy revenge he wanted, hadnt he already achieved his aim? Not to mention the Riverrun guards he killed for merely following their King's commands.

Not only did he murder children and valuable hostages, that his King said were not to be harmed, he attacked and killed men who were following the King's orders. This is called treason, and the penalty for treason is death.

Rickard Kar-douche should have focused on the children he had left. Not the one's he lost.

[Light a wight tonight]

Karstark was killed not merely for killing the child hostages but for defying Robbs order not to, and leading a group of men who killed the guards set to protect the hostages. Treason, if you will. An "Edmure, fetch me a block" type of situation. The men-at-arms were common criminals.

[Kienn]

Robb should personally behead every enemy combatant. His army should just be capturing them all for him to execute later...

[Chocolate_dream]

If Karstark was one of his most loyal men, he wouldnt have contravened Robb's orders, killed children and been charged with treason.

As soon as his two son's die, Karstark's sole aim becomes bloody vengeance at the expense of a lot of other things. He clearly doesnt consider his son Harrion or his daughter Alys when he makes these decisions, only his own need to feel better.

His own need to feel better which is achieved by murdering children, who had nothing to do with his son's death. He'd also already personally killed Ser Stafford Lannister, so if it was proxy revenge he wanted, hadnt he already achieved his aim? Not to mention the Riverrun guards he killed for merely following their King's commands.

Not only did he murder children and valuable hostages, that his King said were not to be harmed, he attacked and killed men who were following the King's orders. This is called treason, and the penalty for treason is death.

Rickard Kar-douche should have focused on the children he had left. Not the one's he lost.

It's not considered murder because they're at war with the Lannisters. Killing enemies during war is not considered "murder".

Do you think it's right that a king should choose his honor vs providing justice for his people? I think not. His main priority should be his people, not himself.

Robb also murdered Karstark to make himself feel better. He didn't do it because it was the best thing for his people, he only did it because it made him feel good for doing it.

[Chocolate_dream]

Karstark was killed not merely for killing the child hostages but for defying Robbs order not to, and leading a group of men who killed the guards set to protect the hostages. Treason, if you will. An "Edmure, fetch me a block" type of situation. The men-at-arms were common criminals.

They commited treason because he acted unfairly.

[Direwolf of the Starks]

If he personally beheaded everyone who was part of it all at once, he most likely would go all Rhaegaree and start cutting himself. Plus I believe there was an interaction between Robb and Jeyne afterward and he baisically said it bummed him out and Jeyne asked him why he did it personally.

[IRON BANK]

He didnt lose all three sons to Jaime, he lost two.

Harrion Karstark was captured by the Lannisters. The fact that Rickard would murder two Lannister hostages when his remaining son is still captive is rather mind-boggling for me.

Rickard was a selfish man, I feel for him losing his sons, but this should have made him understand the value other people placed on their children as well.

He was a murderer, and worse, a child murderer. He deserved to die.

To the OP I dont think it's practical for the Lord to perform summary mass executions.

Exactly: well put people seem to always side against Rob automaticly, but this act was done to keep the other lords in line, If you look at the Timeline of events at this point the Bolton, Frey plans were already in motion regardless.

[NorthRemembers]

As some others have said, I don't think the idea that he must kill every single one himself, if there is a group. Just the leader, or a few, etc.

[Ser Edmure Tully]

It's not considered murder because they're at war with the Lannisters. Killing enemies during war is not considered "murder".

Do you think it's right that a king should choose his honor vs providing justice for his people? I think not. His main priority should be his people, not himself.

Robb also murdered Karstark to make himself feel better. He didn't do it because it was the best thing for his people, he only did it because it made him feel good for doing it.

Killing P.O.Ws is murder. They have surrendered, they are defenceless, hell, they were even naked. They had nothing but their lives and Rickard Karstark took that from them, in a situation where he had all the power, and they had none whatsoever.

Two defenceless, naked children.

That is murder, and that is morally reprehensible and there is no getting around that.

But this isn't even the main issue with him killing them. It's morally wrong, sure, but how many people do morally wrong things in ASOIAF? Plenty.

The issue is, that Karstark took Robb as his King and pledged to obey his commands. He violated them, and killed Robb's allies who attempted to stop him from violating them.

If Robb allows Karstark to contravene his orders this way, he loses all credibility with the Northern Lords, who assume that they too can defy their KIng's commands. This leads to a lack of order.

Robb killing Rickard Karstark is not to make himself feel better, it is to maintain order amongst the other Lords, and to reaffirm the fact that he is the King, you obey his commands, this is system. The situation with Catelyn was different, she was his mother, honestly what would you have done to her if your mother did the same? What could you do?

To your point about "providing justice for his people".

Justice punishes the people who committed wrongs. Rickard Karstark was not after justice, he wanted vengeance, and worse, he wanted vengeance against people who hadnt done him any wrong whatsoever. If he just wanted to kill Lannister-affiliated people then he could have waited until the next battle.

Also your point about justice does not take into account that Eddard and Torrhen Karstark died on the field of battle like all Northmen want to, while Willem Lannister and Tion Frey were butchered while they were naked, asleep and in a dungeon. The punishment does not fit the crime, and is dealt to someone outside the issue. Its wrong.

Also, if killing people in war isnt murder, as you say, then what justice is Rickard Karstark after? His sons died in a war. By your own reason there was no crime. If there is no crime, where is the need for justice?

Basically, Karstark was a kook.

ETA: I should add, that I think sending him to the Wall would have been a better option politically, although I don't blame Robb for killing him. I probably would have too.