Varysblackfyre321

Is Ned Stark really that honorble?

115 posts in this topic

On 18.02.2018 at 4:38 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Victorian who beat a whore to death? 

 

A whore? WTF?

Even if Victarion's wife was a prostitute, what's giving him a right to beat her to death?

Is being a whore somehow makes a woman less human? Less deserving to live?

This is an argument I've heard from men before: "Tyrion is totes justified in killing Shae, because is humilated him and she was a whore!"

Blatant misogyny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MarkPierre said:

Even if Victarion's wife was a prostitute, what's giving him a right to beat her to death?

The highly praised Ironborn sense of honor :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

See you keep saying that Vic is honourable within his culture because what the Ironborn see as honourable is different to the rest of the world. But here's the issue; you are comparing what the Ironborn see as honourable to what the rest of the world thinks of as honourable. Its a moot point. But if you have to compare them, then there's no question which culture is inherintly more honourable. With that in mind, to me at least, Ned ends up leagues ahead of Vic in terms of honour.

"What the rest of the world thinks" I'm sorry what? You think the rest of the world has this one culture and share the same exact  views for what is and isn't honorble? Seriously? The cities of slavers bay have the same exact views of what is honorble to that of the northern province of the 7 kingdoms? How about the Dothraki? You honestly think Victorien being the big angry brute he is wouldn't fit right in and be seen as an honorable man?  You think what he's done would cause the masters of slavers bay to react with horror? Or would they simply say "meh" and go about whipping their slaves? You think a lot of the wildling tribes and hill men wouldn't say the Ironborn's ways are honorable?  Due to their own ways being similar? How about the Dothroki? They are also a raider society? They don't see anything wrong with looting corpses or killing and brutalizing  the innocent people they conquer. 

11 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Roose also doesn't ever act against his culture/society. He left a highborn lady; who was his prisoner; at the castle he'd been holding, it was Walder Frey who broke guest right and Roose never swore to Robb as King if you want to get nitpicky with it (as you've shown you're willing to do with your repeated Oberyn argument). So according to your own logic, since Roose has not gone against his cultures standards he must be considered more honourable as Ned.

He left a highborn lady in the hands of a merchenary company to raped and murdered  by them-due to Briene's rank she'd be entitled to the same protections guaranteed to any highborn POW. Quite simply put Roose for all intents and purposes  should have confined her to quarters befitting her station and to where her safety is secured-letting degenerates like the Brave companions have free reign with her is a gross violation of social etiquette and Roose dishonored himself by doing this as any lord would dishonor themselves by not attending to their highborn captives general wellbeing. 

Roose aided a rebellion against the crown, betrayed the man he'd allighned with and was complicit in the worst violation of guest rights in the recorded history of Westeros-he is not honoruble.

Victorian no matter how you think (rightfully) is a bad person is not dishonorable. He respects the old way, through his actions, he is fearless in battle, loyal to the king his people choose and deathly loyal to those he swore himself onto and he keeps his word; he does his duties to his people in the way they say is right. For these reasons he is honorble. If you disagree please explain why each point isn't proof of him being honorble(given his culture). He honors god, his king and people's customs and his duties to them-how does that not make him honorble? What would in your mind make him honorble based on his culture?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

As for Oberyn, we have no idea the circumstances behind Anders accepting Quentyn being warder there. He may have hated his father, or Doran might have made an offer too good to resist. Hell, maybe Anders just didn't want to take it out on Quentyn.  What we do know is that the nickname 'The Red Viper', given specifically for his use of poison, was given to him after that fight. Since we know he has both the knowledge and the will to poison his blades (from the Gregor fight) along with the fact that George specifically mentions the rumours that poison killed Lord Yronwood, it's pretty obvious that we as readers are meant to understand that Oberyn did poison Yronwood.

We know he learned how to actually use poison at the citadel-way after his duel with lord Yronwood. There are a ton of rumours surrounding Oberyn-a lot them have clearly embellished the truth to make it more entertaining to listen to-if Oberyn did poison Lord Yronwood, it's doubtful a 16 year old boy who'd have no hands on teaching on how to this-would be able to craft a poison that would perfectly mimic the symptoms of a superficial cut that had been treated badly or not at all.

Simply put we don't know if he did poison Lord Yrwood or not (given Yrnwoods never called for his life likely even they truly doubted Oberyn had poisoned the blades that killed their patriarch-come the Dornish forgive a slimeball thing like this? The blood feud would likelylast for generations), or if did and is simply taking inspiration from this tale about him to come up with a way that insures Justice upon the man who'd brutally murdered members of his family. The people of Dorne will believe what Oberyn did justice-he was a proud son of Dorn who'd lost his life trying to avenge the slights that had been wrought on it-they will see it as honorble.

9 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Anyway, we're straying from the point. Is Ned really that honourable? Answer: Yes, quite frankly. The fact that his reputation still holds up five books later among pretty much every other character (Jorah, Stannis, Barristan, Robert, Littlefinger, some of the Tyrell's at some point I think, Yohn Royce, possibly some of the other Lords Declarent, nearly every northerner we ever meet, Tyrion, Jaime, possibly even Cersei at one point if I'm not mistaken) with only one character every openly questioning it (Joffrey, and we all know how reliable a character he is) pretty much speaks for itself.

A person' actions speak for his or herself.  What we know a person  did matters more than what is said of them-Ned was honorble-he was a perfectly competent at his job as lord paramount and overall a really nice guy. He was just not extremely so in my mind given his actions his actions in AGOT.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Euron, the sparrow, Oberyn I don't find them particularly good people-I'm talking in regards to their honor.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me repeat once more honor=/moral or good by necessarily any of ourmodern standards.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Obviously and that's why your point doesn't make sense. You could as well compare the honor of a maori warrior with that of a Tibetan monk…

It's why your points against the guy being dishonorable are absurd: "he mocked a guy who was raped by his crew"  "He made some human sacrifices out of innocent people" This in no ways shows him as dishonorblr given where he is from(the Ironborn). In terms of what his culture is, his society, this is commendable behavior.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MarkPierre said:

A whore? WTF?

Even if Victarion's wife was a prostitute, what's giving him a right to beat her to death?

Is being a whore somehow makes a woman less human? Less deserving to live?

This is an argument I've heard from men before: "Tyrion is totes justified in killing Shae, because is humilated him and she was a whore!"

Blatant misogyny.

What do you think a culture like the one of the iron islands demands of its warriors? You think anyone would count it not as a cowardly act to not seek to punish this woman who dared allowed Victorian's own kin to lay with her? You don't think they'd brand her a whore? 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She is the wife who'd opened her legs to her husband's own brother. The woman is going to be viewed as a whore. Which is as low as woman could get in this society- which I pointed out as massively unfair given guys can sleep around with tons of women and get praise for it-please stop  pretending as though me saying the Ironborn(hell most of 7 kingdoms in general with the exception of Dorne), would see her as a whore for having done what she'd done is somehow me victim-blaming.  You want to pretend every culture treats women who commits adultery fairly, that they are never looked down upon and labeled whores-fine but I find that disgusting.

Just stop.  The framework we have for discussing Ned Stark's reputation for honour is the Westerosi system of oaths and fealty, loyalty and honesty and the attendant notions of chauvinism and chivalry...and the idea that men, who hold all the power, protect women.  That is what is Ned is judged on and it is people who hold to those notions who judge him to be a paragon of honour and to be a notable exemplar of these ideals.

You seem to be adding a completely different framework for assessing honour and though that may interest you it is utterly ridiculous to take a completely different society's notion of honour and try and compare who is "more honourable".  The Dothraki leave crippled children for feral dogs to devour, the Great and Grand Masters of Slaver's Bay murder any brutliase any number of slave children, the cannibal tribes of the ice-river no doubt live up to their name, and the Ironborn who follow the old way practice rape, pillage and reaving for fun.  None of these alien societies and value systems are germane to the discussion and arguing that the Meerenese Masters who crucified and disembowelled 163 children, or the Dothraki who sacked the Lhazarene village and raped and pillaged, or the husband who beat his wife to death with his fists are honourable in their own society and thus as honourable if not more honourable than Ned is meaningless.

Separately but particularly troubling is your repeated insistance that a wife who was unfaithful is tantamount to a whore and will be viewed and treated as such, which apparently means that she becomes subhuman and is deserving of brutal punishment even murder.  I am well aware that there are societies in our world in which the punishment for adultery or infidelity is death, usually by public stoning or some other horrific method but - and this is the really important part for you - Westeros does not suffer from this horror.  It is based on medieval Europe where a husband is allowed or expected to chastise his wife for disobedience but murder is murder and is a crime.  Do you understand that murdering your wife in a fit of rage is a crime in Westeros and not a a badge of honour?

"treats women who commits adultery fairly" =/= beating that woman to death.  What is hard to get here?

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You understand people have used/still use that term to describe women who just sleep around(particularly when married), a lot right?  You understand I'm just trying convey to you what the men a highly patriarchal  society will see a woman who'd do this as yes? The word "whore"  is not just used for literal prositutes and I think you know that.

Yes, I am well aware of the ugly double standard by which a man who sleeps around is seen as a "stud" or a "casnova" but a woman who sleeps around is seen as a  "slapper" or a "tart".  What I find really ugly is you throwing the term "whore" around so freely as if you agree.  I am going to use caps to try and make it clear for you:

SHE WAS HIS WIFE, GET IT? HIS WIFE AND YET YOU REPEATEDLY LABEL HER A WHORE.  NO ONE IN STORY DOES, NOT EVEN VICTARION, BUT YOU KEEP DOING IT.  AND YOU PROTEST ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF VICTIM-BLAMING BEING UNFAIR TO YOU?? STOP WITH THIS MISOGYNISTIC SHIT.

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The iron born glorify, rape, robbing the corpses of their enemies, murder, and going out to find more women to rape. The only appropriate course of action that would be seen by them is what  Victorien had done.

And the Dothraki and the Ice River Cannibals and the child-murdering Grand Masters of Slavers' Bay are the most honourable people in story :thumbsdown:.  If you just started this thread to point out that different cultures have different values do you honestly think it was an intelligent or original thought to share with us?  Why bother telling us water is wet?  Why head up a thread "Was Ned Stark really that honourable?" to tell us that wife-murdering is okay in another society's fucked-up system so Ned is not really all that honourable despite how he is universally regarded in story?  What is your point, do you even have one?

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There are rumors also that he'd crippled the Tyrells heir-it wasn't so.  The only confirmed case of him actually using poison was against Gregore. Lord Yronwood very well could have died from an infection-given the Yronwoods did not seek his life and even took him as a ward likely they arrived at the conclusion

What?  That he crippled Wyllas Tyrell in a joust is fact and completely indisputable.  What is debatable is whether he intended to do so: the Tyrells clearly think he intended to (based on their longstanding enmity) while he is clear to Tyrion that he intended him no harm.  The Tyrells remember this infamous joust but he has no Westeros-wide reputation or moniker because of it....but he does have a Westeros-wide reputation for poisoning his blade in a duel and a moniker "The Red Viper" because of it.  Again his reputation is a fact and indisputable.  It may suit your argument to pretend that he is unjustly accused and that his moniker is falsely earned but then we get to see him poison his spear in his duel against Gregor so actually we know that the dishonourable thing he is renowned for is true and your argument is totally undermined.

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

"Betrayl"? He never swore himself to either Cersi or Margary-he makes perfectly clear he(like everyone should be), a servent to the gods first and foremost. "Kidnapped"? he found out Cersi had committed a litany of crimes against them; adultery, treason,matricude, regicide. Thus he arrested her. Prior to that he'd arrested Margery due to suspicions surrounding her of committing adultery.  Neither ultimately will win him any love for the sinners in power who will try to stop his holy mission but he will not buckle-for he is loyal to the gods. They have sinned thus they will have to pay-regardles of one's station one cannot be expected to sin and get away with it

Yes, betrayal and kidnap. He has no authority whatsoever to arrest two Queens, one the Regent, strip them of all their clothing, and keep them prisoners in the Great Sept with armed guards preventing any interference with his plan to use them as hostages and bargaining chips to lever concessions from the Crown on his naked power grab.

Again, the only framework you seem to acknowlege is the personal world view and ambitions of the individual.  According to that inner compass people can do whatever they want, kidnap someone to gain power or beat their wife to death.  It's a meaningless way of looking at "honour": that is a concept that has to have a meaning that is commonly understood and believed in and measurable.

And I have to say your idea that a religious ideologue is honourable is one that troubles me.  ISIS and the Taliban would agree with the High Septon but it's not a point of view that benefits the people and it should not matter to you whether or not the zealots think it will make society better to force it into the straightjacket of their beliefs.  If you are offended by the ISIS / Taliban comparison try Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale.  That's what you should be seeing in the High Septon not "honour".

17 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because great men have never sired cowardly and treacherous sons. Jon was also a squire for the LC. Therefore to not buy his story of halfhand forcing Jon to murder him is ludicrous-the idea he'd join the wildlings to save his own life absurd and recognize the wildlings would be doomed to fail even if they got past the wall(which they would be and Jon knows would as well), and he'd take his bets with siding with the watch-lunacy.

Yes Aemon and Noyle inclined to believe the boy they've grown fond of-they like Jon. Allister would be biased against him but that doesn't mean he's doing this purely out of hatred for the guy-very possible that he simply doesn't buy Jon's story.

You have lost me.  It seems you are determined to whitewash Alliser Thorne and I think you overlook the obvious point that Thorne turns on Jon when Jon stands up to him and stands up for Sam: "That was a grievous error, Lord Snow", and quickly falls in with Janos Slynt.  Even when Jon is elected Lord Commander Thorne can't hide his personal enmity and keeps calling him bastard to his face.  He is uiversally despised by the boys he trains and is seen clearly for what he is by Tyrion who mocks him for it.  He would have had Jon killed if Aemon had not intervened and whatever he may believe (or whatever pretext he may seize on to have him executed) he ignores the fact that Jon brought warning of the Thenns attack and held The Wall after Noye's death and plots to have him killed by the Wildlings instead.  This isn't honour, it's sly, vindictive and cruel and an attempt to kill someone he has a grudge against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Did no one get my joke about the Spanish Inquisition?

I did and I enjoyed it :thumbsup:

18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It's not a point against his honor. He acts accordingly to what his society says is honorble-he honors the gods, he is fearless in battle, dutiful to the king, his people choose regardless of his feelings towards him and loyal to those he's sworn to. Whatever fault the man has(and there are many m), he is honorble given his society-he's so far has acted with perfect accordance to how the Ironborn say their men should act and done what is supposed to be(in their view) honorble. Roose violated guest rights(the biggest crime supposedlbly again. He's given a highborn lady(Briene)  to be raped and murdered by foreign savages, as well as betray the king he'd sworn for another he'd openly help rebel against.

Honestly, what are you trying to tell us?  The Grand Masters of Meereen who crucified the 163 slave children and the Great Masters of Astapor who regularly castrate thousands of slave children and kill thousands of new born babies in completing their training are acting in accordance with their cultrure and society's notions.  Does this make them honourable in the eyes of their compatriots?  Probably.  That tells us the society and it's notions of honour are severly twisted and that we should reject those values not witter on about how they are honourable in their own context.  That is an obvious and worthless point and we are supposed to be able to distinguish between horrific (Ironborn, Dothraki, Slaver's Bay, Cannibal tribes) and flawed but still superior value systems (Westeros, Free Cities) while still being able to critique the latter.  Equating them all is mind-numbing and giving a free pass for murder is hihgly objectionable.  From a Wsterosi pov and, dare I say it, from our own, Ned is honourable.  If you prefer the notions of honour that Vic adheres to, well, that's on you, but they are not held to by Westerosi society or the readership in general.

18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We know Oberyn used poison against Gregor. That is confirmed. It is highly likely that he also poisoned Lord Yronwood. He got the nickname 'The Red Viper' for a reason. Sure, it's possible that Yronwood died of a festered injury, but you're really clutching at straws there. Besides, even if Oberyn didn't posion Yronwood (he did), he still poisoned his weapon against Gregor. No matter how noble and just the cause that's still not honourabl

I have fully admitted there is one confirmed case of him having used poisoned weapons-against his sister's murderer. For Yronwood all there really is a rumor he used a poison blade-given the Yrwoods did not seek his life it's doubtful Doran did.

You surely understand that the guy is known as the Red Viper because he is widely believed to have used poison in a duel and that this is incompatible with the notion of honour in Westeros including Dorne.  Whether you argue that is all a misunderstanding or not is utterly irrelevant as we see him poisoning his weapon in his duel with Gregor so we know for a fact that he does use a poisoned weapon in a duel.  Shifting your argument to one that Gregor is a bad guy and so, the end justifying the means, Oberyn is okay to poison the weapon therefore is not only pointless but shows you misunderstand the notion of honour in Westeors because the duel is supopsed to fought on even terms in the eyes of the Gods and Oberyn violates this.  Indeed your argument that in this case the end justify the means actually violates the whole notion of honour which is that you adhere to a code of conduct and system of oaths whatever the consequences.  When Jaime breaks his oath to Aerys whether or not it is to save a city from destruction or to remove a madman he abandons his honour, when Oberyn poisons his blade in a duel he adandons his honour.  It's that unbelievably straightforward....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

"What the rest of the world thinks" I'm sorry what? You think the rest of the world has this one culture and share the same exact  views for what is and isn't honorble? Seriously? The cities of slavers bay have the same exact views of what is honorble to that of the northern province of the 7 kingdoms? How about the Dothraki? You honestly think Victorien being the big angry brute he is wouldn't fit right in and be seen as an honorable man?  You think what he's done would cause the masters of slavers bay to react with horror? Or would they simply say "meh" and go about whipping their slaves? You think a lot of the wildling tribes and hill men wouldn't say the Ironborn's ways are honorable?  Due to their own ways being similar? How about the Dothroki? They are also a raider society? They don't see anything wrong with looting corpses or killing and brutalizing  the innocent people they conquer.

"Rest of the world" was just me mis-speaking. The rest of Feudal Westeros. That better? No how about you adress the actual point I made.

No one else in Westeros would ever view Vic as honourable. Hell, I'm not even sure the Ironborn consider themselves honourable in all honesty. Honour seems like something they'd scoff at but I don't have proof for that so I'm not going to argue it. But the point is you're comparing a man from one culture (where he is practically universally regarded as honourable) to a man from a completely different one and judging their relative honour. It doesn't work. Regardless, we as readers know that the Ironborn way of life is fucked up and most definitely not honourable; by our own standards or the rest of Westeros. So, if you insist on comparing them, then Ned still comes out leagues ahead of Vic.

13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He left a highborn lady in the hands of a merchenary company to raped and murdered  by them-due to Briene's rank she'd be entitled to the same protections guaranteed to any highborn POW. Quite simply put Roose for all intents and purposes  should have confined her to quarters befitting her station and to where her safety is secured-letting degenerates like the Brave companions have free reign with her is a gross violation of social etiquette and Roose dishonored himself by doing this as any lord would dishonor themselves by not attending to their highborn captives general wellbeing. 

Roose aided a rebellion against the crown, betrayed the man he'd allighned with and was complicit in the worst violation of guest rights in the recorded history of Westeros-he is not honoruble.

Victorian no matter how you think (rightfully) is a bad person is not dishonorable. He respects the old way, through his actions, he is fearless in battle, loyal to the king his people choose and deathly loyal to those he swore himself onto and he keeps his word; he does his duties to his people in the way they say is right. For these reasons he is honorble. If you disagree please explain why each point isn't proof of him being honorble(given his culture). He honors god, his king and people's customs and his duties to them-how does that not make him honorble? What would in your mind make him honorble based on his culture?

To be clear: my point about Roose is not a serious point.

As for Vic, I've admitted numerous times that he is pretty much the living embodiment of the Ironborn. Within his culture he may, may, be regarded as honourable. But by the same logic, so is Roose, because he himself technically never broke any traditions, oaths or customs. We as readers, however, know he is not honourable in the slightest and the same applies to Vic.

13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We know he learned how to actually use poison at the citadel-way after his duel with lord Yronwood. There are a ton of rumours surrounding Oberyn-a lot them have clearly embellished the truth to make it more entertaining to listen to-if Oberyn did poison Lord Yronwood, it's doubtful a 16 year old boy who'd have no hands on teaching on how to this-would be able to craft a poison that would perfectly mimic the symptoms of a superficial cut that had been treated badly or not at all.

Simply put we don't know if he did poison Lord Yrwood or not (given Yrnwoods never called for his life likely even they truly doubted Oberyn had poisoned the blades that killed their patriarch-come the Dornish forgive a slimeball thing like this? The blood feud would likelylast for generations), or if did and is simply taking inspiration from this tale about him to come up with a way that insures Justice upon the man who'd brutally murdered members of his family. The people of Dorne will believe what Oberyn did justice-he was a proud son of Dorn who'd lost his life trying to avenge the slights that had been wrought on it-they will see it as honorble.

Oh of course, my apologies. I forgot that there was no way Oberyn could have known how to use poisons before he went to the Citadel. It's not like he couldn't have had an affinity for them; that would just be stupid. Almost as stupid as a fifteen year old Jaime holding his own against the smiling knight, or fifteen year old Robb outsmarting Tywin and Jaime. No, no chance sixteen year old Oberyn could have had a decent understanding of at least one type of poison just from his own research and his trip to Oldtown was intending to expand his knowledge rather than begin it.

Oberyn's reputation for using poison is continent wide specifically for that duel. We know he's absolutely willing to use that tactic. Why is it so hard to believe that he's done it before.

13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A person' actions speak for his or herself.  What we know a person  did matters more than what is said of them-Ned was honorble-he was a perfectly competent at his job as lord paramount and overall a really nice guy. He was just not extremely so in my mind given his actions his actions in AGOT.

We've seen inside the head of a lot of other characters and seen the actions of a lot more. Very few ever come close to Ned in terms of honour and the fact that his reputation reflects this years after his death and after a Lannister victory that should have sullied his name speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Rest of the world" was just me mis-speaking. The rest of Feudal Westeros. That better? No how about you adress the actual point I made.

No one else in Westeros would ever view Vic as honourable. Hell, I'm not even sure the Ironborn consider themselves honourable in all honesty. Honour seems like something they'd scoff at but I don't have proof for that so I'm not going to argue it. But the point is you're comparing a man from one culture (where he is practically universally regarded as honourable) to a man from a completely different one and judging their relative honour. It doesn't work. Regardless, we as readers know that the Ironborn way of life is fucked up and most definitely not honourable; by our own standards or the rest of Westeros. So, if you insist on comparing them, then Ned still comes out leagues ahead of Vic.

What is considered honorble throughout history is often what we(modern people), considered fucked up. The Ironborn view on what exactly it is no less valid by virtue of being less conforming what modern audicence will think as right. What is honoruble is entirely reliant upon what group thinks it is ; no one is really wrong since honor is just a set of rules for members of a society have to act. Dornish couples who have open relationships, even marriages or women who sleep around in general aren't seen as seen as dishonoring themselves-any where else in the 7 kingdoms they most certainly would be. Their ways are no less or honorble  because of that however. Ned is honorble given his culture; Victorien is honoruble given his.

 

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:
15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

To be clear: my point about Roose is not a serious point.

As for Vic, I've admitted numerous times that he is pretty much the living embodiment of the Ironborn. Within his culture he may, may, be regarded as honourable. But by the same logic, so is Roose, because he himself technically never broke any traditions, oaths or customs. We as readers, however, know he is not honourable in the slightest and the same applies to Vic.

Yes Roose did break customs(through allowing a highborn POW to be abused by a bunch of foreign savages), aid in treason(a serious crime in his society), and help others commit more serious crimes against gods and men(RW); tell me what you think Victorien would need to do to be considered honorble given his culture? Why are the reasons laid out for why Victorien are invalid other than "this may apply to Roose(it wont)." Tell me how do you think Eddard Stark got his reputation if not showing honour to his cultures traditions, showing the gods reverence doing his duty as lord paramount the way his society says is and to his kin and seen carrying out the king's will when ordered to the best of his ability? 

Just being a nice guy? Please don't just don't point to the fact say he's honoruble.

3 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Oh of course, my apologies. I forgot that there was no way Oberyn could have known how to use poisons before he went to the Citadel. It's not like he couldn't have had an affinity for them; that would just be stupid. Almost as stupid as a fifteen year old Jaime holding his own against the smiling knight, or fifteen year old Robb outsmarting Tywin and Jaime. No, no chance sixteen year old Oberyn could have had a decent understanding of at least one type of poison just from his own research and his trip to Oldtown was intending to expand his knowledge rather than begin it.

I freely admitted Oberyn could have used poison in his battle with Yrwood; I'm simply pointing out we don't really know anything besides rumors to say he did or does-rumor surrounding(like all rumours) him tend to embellish the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

ust stop.  The framework we have for discussing Ned Stark's reputation for honour is the Westerosi system of oaths and fealty, loyalty and honesty and the attendant notions of chauvinism and chivalry...and the idea that men, who hold all the power, protect women.  That is what is Ned is judged on and it is people who hold to those notions who judge him to be a paragon of honour and to be a notable exemplar of these ideals.

 I said and have tried judge Ned on; his culture. I had tried to make this perfectly clear I wanted discuss the idea of measuring Ned's honor in specificly regards to his culture -not our modern nor the Ironborn or that of another society. And honesty and loyalty and oath keeping  yes but chivalry isn't a northern thing-that's a particularly andal construct-I mean it wasn't until  Jaerys Targyen did the north(mostly), stop practicing first night. 

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

You seem to be adding a completely different framework for assessing honour and though that may interest you it is utterly ridiculous to take a completely different society's notion of honour and try and compare who is "more honourable".  The Dothraki leave crippled children for feral dogs to devour, the Great and Grand Masters of Slaver's Bay murder any brutliase any number of slave children, the cannibal tribes of the ice-river no doubt live up to their name, and the Ironborn who follow the old way practice rape, pillage and reaving for fun.  None of these alien societies and value systems are germane to the discussion and arguing that the Meerenese Masters who crucified and disembowelled 163 children, or the Dothraki who sacked the Lhazarene village and raped and pillaged, or the husband who beat his wife to death with his fists are honourable in their own society and thus as honourable if not more honourable than Ned is meaningless.

First I contended I could a lot of non-lord characters list  whose actions show them have greater or just about equal the amount of honor to Ned.  Victorien given his society is certainly there and it's ridiculous to get offended at saying so. The point wasn't in regards to  who'd honoruble strictly within the context of what  Ned's culture says-but who have we seen conform to the same level of their society view on honor to that of the level conforms to his.

Separately but particularly troubling is your repeated insistance that a wife who was unfaithful is tantamount to a whore and will be viewed and treated as such, which apparently means that she becomes subhuman and is deserving of brutal punishment even murder.  I am well aware that there are societies in our world in which the punishment for adultery or infidelity is death, usually by public stoning or some other horrific method but - and this is the really important part for you - Westeros does not suffer from this horror.  It is based on medieval Europe where a husband is allowed or expected to chastise his wife for disobedience but murder is murder and is a crime.  Do you understand that murdering your wife in a fit of rage is a crime in Westeros and not a a badge of honor in westeroes 

 

I find it perplexing you list out how the ironborn reve and rape for fun and then go on pretend as their culture is not so distinctly different from that of the rest of the kingdoms which how they'd view a situation like this-legally murder in general is crime-I never argued he'd garner approval in Dorne(the most socially progressive kingdom in terms of things like sex and gender) or the South by large, or even the north. I make perfectly clear in regards to his culture what he did is socially acceptable. Illegal based on the laws of the iron throne certainly and rightly so cheating shouldn't be a death sentence even if the woman had laid with her husband's kin. But in terms of Pyke to the people who still regularly commit human sacrifices(which even the North stopped well and long ago), is not going to see a problem with Victorien having killed his salt wife(an inerior wife to that of rock wives) in result of finding her to have allowed her husband's brother to have sex with her.  I find it troubling you can't discern when  I'm saying  she'd be viewed as whore  not that I personally think she is one-I really cannot bring myself to care how many people someone sleeps with; married, unmarried, I really don't care-but by design a heavily patriarchal society will, women who do the same thing as men in terms of sex will be mocked, called and yes called whores. And for medeval Europe it can depend where exactly you're at for what punishment should come for adultery; In the Nordic regions to which Martin tried to base the Iron born, it was not all together unheard of the punishment to be execution.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Yes, I am well aware of the ugly double standard by which a man who sleeps around is seen as a "stud" or a "casnova" but a woman who sleeps around is seen as a  "slapper" or a "tart".  What I find really ugly is you throwing the term "whore" around so freely as if you agree.  I am going to use caps to try and make it clear for you:

SHE WAS HIS WIFE, GET IT? HIS WIFE AND YET YOU REPEATEDLY LABEL HER A WHORE.  NO ONE IN STORY DOES, NOT EVEN VICTARION, BUT YOU KEEP DOING IT.  AND YOU PROTEST ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF VICTIM-BLAMING BEING UNFAIR TO YOU?? STOP WITH THIS MISOGYNISTIC SHIT.

I DONT AGREE WITH THE NOTION OF WOMEN BEING WHORES FOR ENGAGING IN THE SAME SEXUAL PRACTICES MEN OFTEN PRAISE MEN FOR DOING! ME SAYING THE IRONBORN WOULD SEE HER AS A WHORE IS NOT ME SAYING SHE IS ONE! WHICH AGAIN SHE WOULD BE VIEWED AS ONE JUST LIKE LOT OF PEOPLE OF KINGSLANDING VIEWED CERSI AS A WHORE AND CALLED HER A WHORE FOR WHEN SHE DID HER WALK OF ATONEMENT  I DONT SEE HOW ME REPEATEDLY SAYING THIS WOEFULLY UNFAIR FOR WOMEN TO BRANDED AS SUCH FOR DOING WHAT GUYS CAN DO FREELY AND GARNER PRAISE FOR IS NOT PROPERLY CONVEYING I DONT THINK SUCH NOTIONS ARE RIGHT. I FIND IT WEIRD YOURE SO OBTUSE WITH THE IDEA OF SOMEONE THINKING A WOMAN WHO CHEATED ON HER HUSBAND WITH HIS BROTHER  IN A HIGHLY A FICTIONAL  PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY BEING WOULD BE CALLED A WHORE AS IF THAT DOESNT HAPPEN PLENTY ENOUGH IN REAL LIFE AND IN MUCH MORE MODERN SOCIETIES STOP PRETENDING AS THOUGH SAYING WHAT'D BE THE ACTUAL FEELINGS OF SUCH A SOCIETY IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING THOSE FEELINGS ARE RIGHT STOP AND ACTING OFFENDED WE GET IT YOU'RE SUCH  A GOOD PERSON 

Hopefully we got that squared away now. Seriously there is a clear distinct difference between saying "this society is so sexist(which the 7 kingdoms generally are -hell in the south people still give praise to a man who'd locked up his own sisters for the sole crime of him wanting to fuck them),that they label women who cheat on their husbands and/or sleep around whores yet don't say the same for guys" to "women who cheat on their husband and/or Sleep around a lot are whores it's not the same for guys." And there is a clear distinction difference between saying "I believe in this society people would react to x this way" to "this society should react to x this way" And the main reason no one we see having had called her a whore is probably because only 3 people even knew about it Euron,Balon, Victorian and if anyone besides them knew about it doubtful anyone would bring it up in earshot to Victorien. 

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

And the Dothraki and the Ice River Cannibals and the child-murdering Grand Masters of Slavers' Bay are the most honourable people in story :thumbsdown:.  If you just started this thread to point out that different cultures have different values do you honestly think it was an intelligent or original thought to share with us?  Why bother telling us water is wet?  Why head up a thread "Was Ned Stark really that honourable?" to tell us that wife-murdering is okay in another society's fucked-up system so Ned is not really all that honourable despite how he is universally regarded in story?  What is your point, do you ev

Why did you take offense at me saying Victorien was honorble specificly in regards to his culture and bring up an action by him that didn't contradict my statement as if that act would be seen universally as dishonorable in the first place? Why must I tell you water is a liquid and explain using the fact an Victorian beating his salt wife to death is not really that much of an inditement on his honor? I had made perfectly clear we should and have only judged Ned's honor on his society viewing of what it is-I never use any other metric to measure him.  I did not judge him for any other culture says what is honorable or not; I specifically spoke in regards to what his cultural standards.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:
On February 20, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

What?  That he crippled Wyllas Tyrell in a joust is fact and completely indisputable.  What is debatable is whether he intended to do so: the Tyrells clearly think he intended to (based on their longstanding enmity) while he is clear to Tyrion that he intended him no harm.  The Tyrells remember this infamous joust but he has no Westeros-wide reputation or moniker because of it....but he does have a Westeros-wide reputation for poisoning his blade in a duel and a moniker "The Red Viper" because of it.  Again his reputation is a fact and indisputable.  It may suit your argument to pretend that he is unjustly accused and that his moniker is falsely earned but then we get to see him poison his spear in his duel against Gregor so actually we know that the dishonourable thing he is renowned for is true and your argument is totally undermined.

Sorry forgot the word intentional: he didn't intentionally cripple the Tyrells' heir. People say he did and that there's some running blood feud even though Wylis has written to him saying "it's fine" and doubtless explained the incident to his family to cool tensions; Tyrion in his first meeting with Oberyn regurgitated that myth having just assumed it to be so. Still a lot of people gossiped that he did; they're wrong among many of the tales surrounding the Dornish the truth is often embellished to make the speaker more interesting; from the # of children he's had to the amount of women he's bedded to the fights he was in. He having got a nickname out of the rumors that followed the incident isn't really a point for it; people exaggerate when they gossip, they manufacture details with nothing but suspicion and some details stick out to people and get accepted as common knowledge regardless of its validity.

He could have poisoned; or Lord Yrwood could have simply died of wound that was unproperly cared for. I simply think the latter is more likely given the Yrwoods did not seek retaliation and the skill he'd need to actually make the exact poison he'd need apply to his blade. And besides Gregor, Yrnwoods we don't actually hear of any other people he'd have poisoned-it's certianly reasonable the man has taken inspiration from his tale and for his battle with Gregor knowledge of poison to good use.

hifting your argument to one that Gregor is a bad guy and so, the end justifying the means, Oberyn is okay to poison the weapon therefore is not only pointless but shows you misunderstand the notion of honour in Westeors because the duel is supopsed to fought on even terms in the eyes of the Gods and Oberyn violates this.  Indeed your argument that in this case the end justify the means actually violates the whole notion of honour which is that you adhere to a code of conduct and system of oaths whatever the consequences.  When Jaime breaks his oath to Aerys whether or not it is to save a city from destruction or to remove a madman he abandons his honour, when Oberyn poisons his blade in a duel he adandons his honour.  It's that unbelievably straightforward....

Technically not necessarily. They alone fought to see if Tyrion was guilty-unless someone intervenes whatever happens after the duel it seems immaterial to whether or not the gods are offended. The terms were even if the poison seemed take a while certainly after the duel to take affect. Though yes, no other kingdom of Westeroes besides Dorne will see Oberyn's conduct anything but perfect, and view the use of it as a gross violation of honor. 

But honorble men can do this dishonorable things ; Barristan abandoned Viserys and Daenarys for the man who'd displaced them though by all rights, Jeor let Jon's desertion attempt to go unpunished ect ect.

 

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Yes, betrayal and kidnap. He has no authority whatsoever to arrest two Queens, one the Regent, strip them of all their clothing, and keep them prisoners in the Great Sept with armed guards preventing any interference with his plan to use them as hostages and bargaining chips to lever concessions from the Crown on his naked power grab.

The faith militant was established to insure people  follow the will of the gods; whether they be kings or peasants no one  may be allowed to violate their laws; to which Cersi and Margary look to have done.

He did not betray Cersi who'd granted him his position, much less Margery(who Cersi gave her approval  to the arrest of Margery), who'd given him nothing and expected nothing-for he had never swore to them he'd be their servent. The crown is supposed to serve the faith-not the other way around. He makes very clear he serves the 7 first and foremost and he will be no mortals pawn. He is the high septon so it was in his authority as the speaker of the gods to arrest Cersi for litany of very serious crimes against the 7 and Margary for adultary and treason-they will get a trial in order to see what is to be done with them. Their laws are not to be mocked without reprisal.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

nd I have to say your idea that a religious ideologue is honourable is one that troubles me.  ISIS and the Taliban would agree with the High Septon but it's not a point of view that benefits the people and it should not matter to you whether or not the zealots think it will make society better to force it into the straightjacket of their beliefs.  If you are offended by the ISIS / Taliban comparison try Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale.  That's what you should be seeing in the High Septon not "honour".

It's weird how you one moment berate the idea of Oberyn having honor after having offended the gods through poisoning his blades in his trial by combat  match against Gregor yet balk at the idea of the HS having any honor because you think being a religious zealot(which he is) means one must be devoid of it, yetFor his context, yes he very has shown he is. You may not like him, you don't like him-you don't care for what he stands for and feel no one shouldperfectly reasonble-that does not make him dishonorable nor actions. I will not keep saying with what I said in my OP but honor=/morality. Me listing the High sparrow as someone whose pretty honorable is not me saying he's a moral or good person.  What is honorble in a society can often time(as I've stated before) is mosterous. If you take my saying he's honorable(given his culture,his society) as saying he's good or I approve of his ways I'm sorry but I have no idea what else I could possibly say here-simply put if you're going to argue he's not honorable or me listing him as such is wrong  please do not point to the fact he's a religious zealot as proof-quite simply put it isn't.

20 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

onestly, what are you trying to tell us?  The Grand Masters of Meereen who crucified the 163 slave children and the Great Masters of Astapor who regularly castrate thousands of slave children and kill thousands of new born babies in completing their training are acting in accordance with their cultrure and society's notions.  Does this make them honourable in the eyes of their compatriots?  Probably.  That tells us the society and it's notions of honour are severly twisted and that we should reject those values not witter on about how they are honourable in their own context.  That is an obvious and worthless point and we are supposed to be able to distinguish between horrific (Ironborn, Dothraki, Slaver's Bay, Cannibal tribes) and flawed but still superior value systems (Westeros, Free Cities) while still being able to critique the latter.  Equating them all is mind-numbing and giving a free pass for murder is hihgly objectionable.  From a Wsterosi pov and, dare I say it, from our own, Ned is honourable.  If you prefer the notions of honour that Vic adheres to, well, that's on you, but they are not held to by Westerosi society or the readership in general.

I'm saying if you are trying argue he's bereft of honor do it fairly; judge him according to what his society, his very culture says what is honorable instead of what falls in line with your modern sensibilities of moral and immoral. Ned is not honorble based on many of the values our society values; we do not have kings or respect the idea of what family your from automatically gives you a high position in government . Ned is honorable in his society and generally an ok guy but the culture he adopts his views from we've judged to have many sick ideas of what is and isn't right morally or honorble all together. Cite me where I say I agree the Ironborn on what is and isn't honoruble. I didn't. That was never my point. You disagreed with me calling Victorien honorable all together; the reasons you give would certainly be sufficient in other kingdoms, other cultures but not really for the Iron islands.

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

You have lost me.  It seems you are determined to whitewash Alliser Thorne and I think you overlook the obvious point that Thorne turns on Jon when Jon stands up to him and stands up for Sam: "That was a grievous error, Lord Snow", and quickly falls in with Janos Slynt.  Even when Jon is elected Lord Commander Thorne can't hide his personal enmity and keeps calling him bastard to his face.  He is uiversally despised by the boys he trains and is seen clearly for what he is by Tyrion who mocks him for it.  He would have had Jon killed if Aemon had not intervened and whatever he may believe (or whatever pretext he may seize on to have him executed) he ignores the fact that Jon brought warning of the Thenns attack and held The Wall after Noye's death and plots to have him killed by the Wildlings instead.  This isn't honour, it's sly, vindictive and cruel and an attempt to kill someone he has a grudge against.

You contended since he's a son of Eddard Stark and having been the old bears squire is proof of it not being feasible for anyone to not believe Jon's story-the fact he is a nobleman's bastard and the old bear took on this boy should  not count in his favor on this-great men have sired treacherous and cowardly sons and great men have taken treacherous and cowardly boys to be their squire. Yes Allister has been rather sour at Jon in particular after Jon tried to use his popularity with the new recruits to excuse Sam from the basic training everyone is supposed to do by virtue on having grown to feel pity for the boy. For the fact he treats everyone he trains regardless if they are a nobleman's trueborn son, a nobleman's bastard(Jon), or just a bastard off some peasant girl, like shit I find him oddly honorble. It's fair. He's despised certainly-thing is he's despised by everyone he's trained for he  treats each like trash(which honestly given what he's trying to prepare them for isn't really much a big deal in regards to traing them for a life in the watchin my opinion) no matter their blood. Jon was likely going to be groomed to be the old bear's succesore(to which he was), yet Allister treated him no better. For all Allister knows Jon did kill Half-hand not for any "spy mission", but merely to save his own life. Anyone  whose ever been taught basic history regarding the north would know the wildlings will fail even if they get past the wall-hell even Jon tells Ygritte straight up Mance too will fail; they'd literally at the first encounter with a well garnished displined  army break and Jon would be found and hanged. Jon recognizing this could have decided his chances of survival would be much better if he switched back over to the watch. If Allister  believes Jon to have been a traitor the only thing befitting a traitor is death(his opinion yes likely Noyle and Aemon being biased due to the feelings of Jon in general), what he had done could be justified-it was an important mission that needed to be done and if he believes Jon is guilty the bastard gets his just deserts.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2018 at 9:20 PM, Damsel in Distress said:

I like Catelyn but she was a liability to Ned.  Sansa is another liability that Ned could have done without. 

I feel like Ned would have been safe if he had managed to escape back to the north.  The Lannisters won't have any luck invading through Moat Cailin.  Well, unless Roose attacks Moat Cailin from the North side and opens the way.

 

On 2/13/2018 at 9:59 PM, Frey Kings said:

Ned died because he got littlefingered 

The finger is mightier than a sword.  The right finger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now