(No spoilers) Poor Lannister kids

[Dove]

I didn't feel any special sympathy.

Thousands of kids have been slaughtered in the Riverlands during the year of the war between the Lannisters and the North. The Mountain wandered aimlessly through villages and the country-side. Killing innocent civilians, innocent kids, burning down houses and destroying anyone and anything that came in his path.

Nobody here ever made a thread how sad it was that so many innocent lowborn children died.

But now 2 highborn brats get killed, with a reason, and we all weep and cry and sob.

"with a reason"

pfffhahahaha

Like someone said, don't be that guy. The one who's contrary just for the sake of being contrary.

People feel terrible for the hostage boys because their deaths were brutal and explicitly shown in a scene. Highborn or lowborn people would be going "Oh, shit, those poor kids :bawl:" In fact, just look at any thread that discusses the fate of Pia or Kyra or the little boy from the inn or any of the countless lowborn victims. A victim is a victim.

[Pinkie Baelish]

I didn't feel any special sympathy.

Thousands of kids have been slaughtered in the Riverlands during the year of the war between the Lannisters and the North. The Mountain wandered aimlessly through villages and the country-side. Killing innocent civilians, innocent kids, burning down houses and destroying anyone and anything that came in his path.

Alfie Allen said it best in an interview, when he said "They deserve it, peasant boys." :P

[Buckwheat]

True. But also, nobody ever said that they do feel for all the lowborn victims. For me, that is almost the same thing.

Yes, it's a weird argument, because the books and tv-show are fiction. I'm not sure how to think about people not caring about some non-existing victims. But at the same time, they do care about other non-existing victims.

Ever since I started to read the books, I realized that there is this issue that I am unclear about. Most of the POV characters are high-born. I am a democrat (not in the USA-sense of the word). I am not a monarchist. (We got a new Usurper in my country yesterday). I think all people are equal. I loathe any form of aristocracy. I always root for the underdogs (like most other people do). But in this book, many of the underdogs are not really underdogs. Like little Rickon. Like these 2 Lannister kids. Even Jon Snow, Sam Tarly and Tyrion Lannister are not truly underdogs. They are still highborn, had a proper education, can read, have special priviliges. And even in the worst of times, their outlooks are a lot better than that of the common folk. The real underdogs are the nameless victims of the war. The lowborn.

(Edit: I tried to search for threads on these forums discussing lowborn casualties. Search is disabled. I've been reading these forums for over a year. I can't remember seeing any thread ever discussing the common folks).

I am not sure which threads you read, but I can assure you there are many posts in General ASOIAF that express that the lowborn people suffer the worst and we feel for them.

I understand and appreciate your political views, but they are not relevant to this discussion. Yes, the books and the show deal with the highborn because GRRM decided so as probably their lives seemed more interesting to describe to him. That does not mean we do not appreciate what the lowborns went through. I have not seen anybody ever complaining about Meribald's speech, and it is one of the more commented passages from the books.

[Akal Colzet]

I didn't feel disturbed. It was over quick, they weren't tortured like some others. The scene with the infant in Kings Landing evoked more of a response from me. As for innocen't, they are squires, they are helpless prisoners but not innocent as they are for all practical purposes soldiers just like Podrick Payne.

[Mulled Wino]

True. But also, nobody ever said that they do feel for all the lowborn victims. For me, that is almost the same thing.

Yes, it's a weird argument, because the books and tv-show are fiction. I'm not sure how to think about people not caring about some non-existing victims. But at the same time, they do care about other non-existing victims.

Ever since I started to read the books, I realized that there is this issue that I am unclear about. Most of the POV characters are high-born. I am a democrat (not in the USA-sense of the word). I am not a monarchist. (We got a new Usurper in my country yesterday). I think all people are equal. I loathe any form of aristocracy. I always root for the underdogs (like most other people do). But in this book, many of the underdogs are not really underdogs. Like little Rickon. Like these 2 Lannister kids. Even Jon Snow, Sam Tarly and Tyrion Lannister are not truly underdogs. They are still highborn, had a proper education, can read, have special priviliges. And even in the worst of times, their outlooks are a lot better than that of the common folk. The real underdogs are the nameless victims of the war. The lowborn.

(Edit: I tried to search for threads on these forums discussing lowborn casualties. Search is disabled. I've been reading these forums for over a year. I can't remember seeing any thread ever discussing the common folks).

You're reading the wrong books my friend.

[ChromeWeasel]

You're reading the wrong books my friend.

Martin actually goes out of his way to show Gryz's point of view. The brotherhood without banners for one example; the Wildlings for another. And there's a growing arc with the Faith Militant, which is likely to be a commoner vs nobility theme. If you aren't noticing this, then you are missing a great deal of the framework of this story. The nobility oppresses people. The commoners hate it, but don't have a lot of opportunity to revolt.

There IS a small tradeoff that you should also notice. On a more subtle note is the fact that all the nobility are forced to marry and breed for political reasons. Marrying for love is not a realistic goal for the nobility. You are told who to marry, and then you must have children. This is done for politics. Stannis, Renly, Robert, Robb, Ed, Catlyn, Sansa, etc... all have arc involving the political reality that marriage for nobility is not about your choices. Robb pays the ultimate price for choosing love/lust over politics.

[Versiroth]

I .... dislike.... the Lannisters. Well, except for Tyrion. He's cool. :)

[Mother of Mini Dragons]

I was always glad when Robb killed Lord Karstark and even moreso after watching it. I know killing him is a bad strategic move, but goodness that man deserved to die.

[A Man Has Said]

I have to say that for once the TV show did a better job than the books of showing a character's (Robb's) motivation. Reading the books I thought it stupid to have killed Karstark. Watching him kill those kids makes Robb's decision look a lot more like hard justice. It was hard for Robb, not just as a matter of expediency (losing Karstark's support and troops) but also due to the fact that the sons he was avenging died protecting Robb in battle.

War sucks. There are no winners, just one side doesn't lose quite as badly.

[ChromeWeasel]

I was always glad when Robb killed Lord Karstark and even moreso after watching it. I know killing him is a bad strategic move, but goodness that man deserved to die.

I can see the argument that Karstark needed to die, but it's a very close call. The Lannisters were squires, and adults by most accounts in Westeros terms. I believe that they had taken up arms again the Starks as uniformed soldiers. They are the enemies of the Starks.

And the Lannisters had just finished committing a whole skew of atrocities as they pillaged the riverlands. The Mountain's men were raping and murdering women and children as part of the Lannister strategy. Karstark also lost his own son's to the Lannisters while they were defending Robb against Jamie. I believe that in the books Robb would have been slain by Jamie if not for the Torrent and Eddard saving Robb. (feel free to check that out, I remember reading that Robb was dead if not for the efforts of his bannermen and I thought it was the Karstarks).

At any rate, Karstark executed the Lannisters relatively humanely. They weren't tortured or abused. He shouldn't have done it, but it's very understandable that he did so. Especially in terms of the times, since they were squires, and therefore adult armed uniformed combatants in Westerosi society.

[Imp Riker]

I thought this scene was the most horrifying one on the show yet. We didn't actually "see" it in the books, we were told after the fact. Seeing it happen though, seeing the look on that kid's face when he was killed, it was heart breaking. They were only in two scenes, but once again they did a bang up job with the child actor casting (I'm assuming of course that these actors are 14, maybe 15 tops).

A somewhat comedic take on the scene.

That's the greatest thing I have ever seen. Thank you. :bowdown:

['96Buck]

I can see the argument that Karstark needed to die, but it's a very close call. The Lannisters were squires, and adults by most accounts in Westeros terms. I believe that they had taken up arms again the Starks as uniformed soldiers. They are the enemies of the Starks.

And the Lannisters had just finished committing a whole skew of atrocities as they pillaged the riverlands. The Mountain's men were raping and murdering women and children as part of the Lannister strategy. Karstark also lost his own son's to the Lannisters while they were defending Robb against Jamie. I believe that in the books Robb would have been slain by Jamie if not for the Torrent and Eddard saving Robb. (feel free to check that out, I remember reading that Robb was dead if not for the efforts of his bannermen and I thought it was the Karstarks).

At any rate, Karstark executed the Lannisters relatively humanely. They weren't tortured or abused. He shouldn't have done it, but it's very understandable that he did so. Especially in terms of the times, since they were squires, and therefore adult armed uniformed combatants in Westerosi society.

They were enemy combatants...which makes them POWs. Noble sons under the protection of the king are not "in bounds" to be stabbed in their beds in Westerosi society.

What's more bizarre, IMO, is that Karstark is so crazed for vengeance after the "murder" of his sons on the battlefield (in the book) or while on guard duty (show). Neither instance was murder, and he does their memories a disservice to call it such. Especially as a Northman, it's unbecoming of him to not recognize that men in battle fall.

[Mother of Mini Dragons]

I can see the argument that Karstark needed to die, but it's a very close call. The Lannisters were squires, and adults by most accounts in Westeros terms. I believe that they had taken up arms again the Starks as uniformed soldiers. They are the enemies of the Starks.

And the Lannisters had just finished committing a whole skew of atrocities as they pillaged the riverlands. The Mountain's men were raping and murdering women and children as part of the Lannister strategy. Karstark also lost his own son's to the Lannisters while they were defending Robb against Jamie. I believe that in the books Robb would have been slain by Jamie if not for the Torrent and Eddard saving Robb. (feel free to check that out, I remember reading that Robb was dead if not for the efforts of his bannermen and I thought it was the Karstarks).

At any rate, Karstark executed the Lannisters relatively humanely. They weren't tortured or abused. He shouldn't have done it, but it's very understandable that he did so. Especially in terms of the times, since they were squires, and therefore adult armed uniformed combatants in Westerosi society.

Yes, they were squires but in that moment, they were prisoners who were unarmed and while the Lannister armies were engaged in atrocities, those boys were locked up and not active participants. And it's not like the Lannisters were the only ones committing ugly acts during the war, if you go by that theory then any prisoner of war should be free killing fodder.

I don't think it's understandable that Lord Karstark did it, in the context of the books at all. His sons died fighting in the books, that's a risk of war and they died defending their king. You can't get a much more honorable death than that one. I never understood his reasoning in the books. He was clearly allowing his grief to take over and ruin his ability to reason. I thought that's why they changed it in the show to having one of his sons be killed in cold blood by Jaime b/c it makes Karstarks' desire for vengeance make more sense in a strange way. Ultimately, I think Lord Karstark must have unconsciously wanted to die though or else he wouldn't have tempted Robb into it so much.

[Akal Colzet]

Yes, they were squires but in that moment, they were prisoners who were unarmed and while the Lannister armies were engaged in atrocities, those boys were locked up and not active participants. And it's not like the Lannisters were the only ones committing ugly acts during the war, if you go by that theory then any prisoner of war should be free killing fodder.

I don't think it's understandable that Lord Karstark did it, in the context of the books at all. His sons died fighting in the books, that's a risk of war and they died defending their king. You can't get a much more honorable death than that one. I never understood his reasoning in the books. He was clearly allowing his grief to take over and ruin his ability to reason. I thought that's why they changed it in the show to having one of his sons be killed in cold blood by Jaime b/c it makes Karstarks' desire for vengeance make more sense in a strange way. Ultimately, I think Lord Karstark must have unconsciously wanted to die though or else he wouldn't have tempted Robb into it so much.

Most people don't use the argument that they were POWs but instead focuses on their youth. The fact that they were prisoners and valuable hostages should have protected them. Their youth in itself should not.

[Mother of Mini Dragons]

Agreed. Your age is irrelevant in Westeros, look what happens even to babes in their mother's arms.

[StannisandDaeny]

At any rate, Karstark executed the Lannisters relatively humanely. They weren't tortured or abused. He shouldn't have done it, but it's very understandable that he did so. Especially in terms of the times, since they were squires, and therefore adult armed uniformed combatants in Westerosi society.

Not at the time they were killed. They were unarmed then.

By killing them, he weakened the North's cause, too, because they had more value to Robb alive. They may have been traded for another captive, a son who would otherwise die.

[Dragonstoned]

Mmmn the show scene rammed home how terrible the act was, when reading the books I didn't appreciate it.

Agree a lot more now with Robb for executing Karstark.

[ChromeWeasel]

Not at the time they were killed. They were unarmed then.

By killing them, he weakened the North's cause, too, because they had more value to Robb alive. They may have been traded for another captive, a son who would otherwise die.

I agree with you on all counts, I'm not making the case for Karstark. As I said in the post you quoted, he was wrong to kill them. I just said that it's understandable. Karstark was unreasonably emotional here. Most of the things that sink characters in this story are emotional. Catlyn, Robb, and Walter Frey all being good examples of emotion getting in the way and making really stupid decisions.

[Clariana]

Karstark had to die not only for killing the squires but because of his implicit disloyalty to Robb in doing so. Robb had determined that the boys would be held prisoner, he had extended them his protection. A king and a leader needs to be able to show that when he does this, the hostages concerned are safe. If they are not, what authority does that leader have? None.

Karstark further signed his death sentence by openly challenging Robb in front of his officers.

Robb really had no choice.

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

I agree with you on all counts, I'm not making the case for Karstark. As I said in the post you quoted, he was wrong to kill them. I just said that it's understandable. Karstark was unreasonably emotional here. Most of the things that sink characters in this story are emotional. Catlyn, Robb, and Walter Frey all being good examples of emotion getting in the way and making really stupid decisions.

It's "Understandable" in the sense that there are treacherous fools who do stupid shit that weakens their own kin's position and safety.