Lady Stoneheart what are her bad deeds and why?

[Biglose]

Who says Ned was perfect? Ned judged people equally bad - though he didn't have the power to execute them every time.

I'm just sayin' that, compared to Beric's brotherhood, Stoneheart's sucks. They're not likable at all, IMO. Hell, at least Beric TRIED dealing out justice - even though his methods - or anyone's methods aren't and weren't perfect. She's no better than Gregor's band of lunatics at this point - except for the fact that she kills them in a more 'humane' way.

Honestly, fighting against one of the best and most experianced swordman in Westeros you call FAIR. Honestly?

She's no better than Gregor's band of lunatics at this point - except for the fact that she kills them in a more 'humane' way.

So rape and killing civilians is neutral to you?

[MikeDC]

I feel dumber for having read through this thread.

[Father of Hosts]

She's literally anger and revenge personified, or monsterfied, if you will. You are supposed to fist pump when she gets her hands on the Freys and then really question what exactly she is about, wanting to hang Pod, Hyle and Brienne.

I would hesitate to call what she is doing fighting the good fight or justice. I've softened my position on her but am still very uneasy about her character as a whole. The biggest mistake in my mind is calling her Cat. She is not Catelyn. She's an aspect of Catelyn Tully's personality, or anyones personality in general, on steroids. There are small traces of real Cat but her overriding personality is not anywhere close to the original Cat.

[Leif]

Honestly, fighting against one of the best and most experianced swordman in Westeros you call FAIR. Honestly?

So rape and killing civilians is neutral to you?

Wut? When did I say fair? And who's this best and more experienced swordsman you're talking about? Beric? The Hound?

She's the same as Gregor - as in they both enjoy killing. They don't ask questions, they simply kill. Gregor's following orders, SH has her little crusade going on.

[Biglose]

Self defense is a specific doctrine of justification. And it is not applicable here. Try again.

Legally it might work that way in some systems but morally thats hard to uphold. Because wrong does not get right if you have a good reason.

If you argue like that every "rule" gets "relative", which is kind of annoying...

The "anything does in war" defense. Sorry, I don't believe in that defense.

I did not say that. I said, to do it with a Patton quote: The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

Now we can argue that war is wrong. But the BwB did not started the war.

Well then! What are you waiting for! Go kill everybody! It's obviously what you believe in.

And again, you made a claim and I told you you are wrong, underlining it with oh well, just the most important book in the western culture.

Now I might not agree with everything what is written in this book, that does however not negate its existance or its standing in the western culture.

I see no evidence that she is more merciful than they are. They all suck, though, with the exception of Eddard. Dany and Arya might be redeemable.

Dany but a whole fucking city to the sword with the exception of women and children (which is kind of nice of her).

Honesty LS is lightyears away from that kind of bloodthirst.

Pretty much. I love the fact that you are using Theon and Jaime, murderers of children, as your standard of morality.

I was throwing out the names of most of the major Characters the point was made with

"maybe the exception of Robb Stark"

But ok: I can life with the statement that UNCat is about as "good" as Edd.

[Ilunen]

Because she has no interest in her still-living daughters.

This is not true. In the epilogue of ASoS, the BwB is clearly searching for Arya. Tom o' Sevens asks Merrett Frey if he's by chance seen the Hound and mentions that Sandor might be accompanied by a young girl/boy. And I think we can asume that they are acting at Lady Stoneheart's request, since she is already their leader.

[David Selig]

I am at a loss why people keep saying that Beric's BWB was a spotless noble organisation and UnCat single-handledly turned them evil. Beric's trials were a complete joke. They let Sandor go even though he admitted he was guilty of murdering a child. Apart from that, they were hanging pretty much everyone they captured:

“Would he hang him, Lem?” one of the village women asked. “It’d be half a shame to hang a man as pretty as that one.”

“A trial first!” said Anguy. “Lord Beric always gives them a trial, you know that.” He smiled. “Then he hangs them.”

There was laughter all around.

Does this seem like a description of fair trials to you?

For anyone in position of power in this series would've had Brienne executed just for her refusal to go kill Jaime, even putting aside all the evidence that she's working for the Lannisters now. Ned, Jon, Stannis, Dany - all of them . They take fealty oaths and chain of command very seriously in Westeros. Jon executing Slynt is a very similar case and everyone cheers him for it.

[binga]

I think Lady Stoneheart's story is trying to highlight the dangers of revenge and bringing back what has passed on. It is not pretty and can lead to messy situations, people crossing the line ,etc. I think Arya will also learn that revenge even if you think it is just and righteous may not be for the best.

[Alhazred]

Legally it might work that way in some systems but morally thats hard to uphold. Because wrong does not get right if you have a good reason.

If you argue like that every "rule" gets "relative", which is kind of annoying...

Huh?? Total non-sequitur. I said the self-defense doctrine does not apply here. Not because moral rules (like the self-defense justification) are inapplicable in Westeros because of dumb-ass relativity, but because Stoneheart did not kill anyone in self-defense.

Your justification, insofar as I understand it, is not the "self-defense" doctrine, but the "all's fair in war" doctrine.

Now we can argue that war is wrong.

I did not argue that war is wrong. I merely declined to endorse the "all's fair in war" doctrine.

And again, you made a claim and I told you you are wrong [...]

Yes. You think its okay to kill everybody, because the Bible says so. I don't think it is okay to kill everybody, and do not wish to argue about whether the Bible says so.

Dany but a whole fucking city to the sword with the exception of women and children (which is kind of nice of her).

Honesty LS is lightyears away from that kind of bloodthirst.

????. LS has not gotten to sack a city yet. Sounds to me merely like an issue of opportunity.

But ok: I can life with the statement that UNCat is about as "good" as Edd.

IIRC, I specifically disagreed with that part.

[Biglose]

Huh?? Total non-sequitur. I said the self-defense doctrine does not apply here. Not because moral rules (like the self-defense justification) are inapplicable in Westeros because of dumb-ass relativity, but because Stoneheart did not kill anyone in self-defense.

Your justification, insofar as I understand it, is not the "self-defense" doctrine, but the "all's fair in war" doctrine.

Self defence is one way of having "moral" killing. War is an other possibility. Death sentence is an other possibilitie. Of course not everybody sees it that way. A pacifist is against every single one.

I did not argue that war is wrong. I merely declined to endorse the "all's fair in war" doctrine.

Which I have never used. That was just your strawman.

Yes. You think its okay to kill everybody, because the Bible says so. I don't think it is okay to kill everybody, and do not wish to argue about whether the Bible says so.

Alright slowly it gets silly.

You: Vengeance is often the Devil

Me: Read the old testament. God is much more into that.

Those are simple facts, I gave no moral judgement nor an opinion. It is simply a fact that even genocides are seen as an "godly" act. (So now people who read ASoIaF now where I am really standing)

????. LS has not gotten to sack a city yet. Sounds to me merely like an issue of opportunity.

So you again condemn her for crimes she never comitted?

Thats my hole point. Most of your accusations she did not even do. And you are complaining about her not beeing fair...

IIRC, I specifically disagreed with that part.

No, you said:

I see no evidence that she is more merciful than they are. They all suck, though, with the exception of Eddard. Dany and Arya might be redeemable.

So, no you actually agreed

[Alhazred]

Self defence is one way of having "moral" killing.

I agree ... if the doctrine applies.

War is an other possibility.

A bit vague. Is there something more specific than the "all's fair in war" doctrine?

Death sentence is an other possibilitie.

Is that the justification you are relying on?

Which I have never used. That was just your strawman.

Fair enough. What is your justification for Cat's killings. Or are you just not interested in moral questions.

Alright slowly it gets silly.

You: Vengeance is often the Devil

Me: Read the old testament. God is much more into that.

Those are simple facts, I gave no moral judgement nor an opinion.

I never said "Vengeance is often of the Devil" or anything remotely like that. I don't necessarily disagree. But I certainly never said it. So whatever your reasons were for citing the bible to justify mass murder, it has nothing to do with me saying that "Vengeance is often of the Devil". If, hypothetically, I had said that vengeance is often of the Devil, then your response would have been a non-sequitur. Silly indeed!

So you again condemn her for crimes she never comitted?

No. I simply see no reason to excuse her for acts other people committed. Your brought up Dany, not me. I merely consider Dany irrelevant.

So, no you actually agreed

???

[LordStoneheart]

Off-topic sort of... I like how a lot of lyrics/dialogue in Sweeney Todd can apply to her...

Italicized are the inserts...

No, not Catelyn. That woman is dead.

Its Stoneheart now. Lady Stoneheart.

And she will have her revenge...

Not one man, no, nor ten men.

Nor a hundred can assuage me.

I will have you!

And I will get him back even as he gloats

In the meantime I'll practice on less honorable throats.

And my Robb lies in ashes

And I'll never see my boy again

The more she bleeds, the more she lives.

She never forgets and she never forgives

To seek revenge may lead to hell,

But everyone does it and seldom as well

As Stoneheart

As Lady Stonheart

The Demon Mother of the Riverlands

[Biglose]

I agree ... if the doctrine applies.

A bit vague. Is there something more specific than the "all's fair in war" doctrine?

Is that the justification you are relying on?

That killing is in general ok, unless it violates human dignity or any other moral system you might want to use..

Fair enough. What is your justification for Cat's killings. Or are you just not interested in moral questions.

And now we enter the question of which morality to use.

Utilitarism?

Her killings will probably force the lords to abandon the tactics of bleeding out civilians thus saving much more lives in the long run than she takes. And of course in the short therm she acting against a houses which are probably standing in the way of the survival of humans in westeros in general. (It does not matter if they want it or not)

So honestly, she got a "you go girl" card right here.

Argumentation based on human dignity and equallity:

She judges everybody equal and only depending on the choices they made. She did never attack innocent people or people who were neither involved with her nor her enemies.

Everybody she kills dies, because he himself has chosen the path that lead him to his fate. Thus she sees them not as pawn but as individuals who are a cause of their own. Thus she is passing the dignity test. They pick up a sword so they can die by the sword. (Sword here as Symbol for violance in general)

Her morality applies for everbody no concern of race, gender or social status. (Equality met)

]

I never said "Vengeance is often of the Devil". I don't necessarily disagree. But I certainly never said it.

Correct you used the phrase agents of Hell.

I'm not sure why I should ... given the long tradition in Western folklore and fiction that most revenants are assumed to be agents of Hell.

No. I simply see no reason to excuse her for acts other people committed. Your brought up Dany, not me. I merely consider Dany irrelevant.

I do not say it is ok. I just ask to put her in context. As I said: I can live with the verdict that she is as bad as Eddart Stark. (Might be a bit gentle but we haven't heard much of her so I am ready to give her the shadow of the doubt)

[LordStoneheart]

I am at a loss why people keep saying that Beric's BWB was a spotless noble organisation and UnCat single-handledly turned them evil. Beric's trials were a complete joke. They let Sandor go even though he admitted he was guilty of murdering a child. Apart from that, they were hanging pretty much everyone they captured:

:agree:

I've never thought of the BWB as a "good" organization.

[Alhazred]

That killing is in general ok, unless it violates human dignity or any other moral system you might want to use..

Under the moral system "I want to use", the killings are not justified.

And now we enter the question of which morality to use.

Utilitarism?

Sorry. Not for me.

Correct you used the phrase agents of Hell.

Yes, but it had nothing to do with vengeance.

Edit: The word "revenant" has nothing to do with the word "revenge". Perhaps that was where you got confused.

[Bran The Burner]

Lady Stoneheart is still one of my favorite readings when she first appeared in the books. "She doesn't speak. But she remembers."

I love this whole "Freys are so nice, Lannisters are such good people". To those, I'd just say, grab your copy of Storm of Swords and go to Catelyn's last chapter. Then tell me about their mercy and how they were all forgiving to her and to Robb. If anything, Lady Stoneheart represents me as a reader, what I wanted to happen after the RW. She's taking revenge for me and for every other reader for Catelyn's and Robb's death, and Dacey's, and so many other Northeners.

I completely agree, couldn't have said better myself. While Cat was alive I disliked her for being a traitor to her own son, but now she has almost redeemed herself, for that redemption to be complete she just has to kill one more sob, jaime the coward knight.

[LordStoneheart]

I completely agree, couldn't have said better myself. While Cat was alive I disliked her for being a traitor to her own son, but now she has almost redeemed herself, for that redemption to be complete she just has to kill one more sob, jaime the coward knight.

I disagree that she needs any sort of redemption, but the last part I like.

[Biglose]

Under the moral system "I want to use", the killings are not justified.

Which begs the question which one that would be...

A system which prevents you from killing enemy combatants in war but is ok with war in general is kind of hard to make up, I guess...At least if you want to stay consistant...

[Alhazred]

Which begs the question which one that would be...

A system which prevents you from killing enemy combatants in war but is ok with war in general is kind of hard to make up, I guess...At least if you want to stay consistant...

Are you saying that Cat's killings are all justified because her victims are "enemy combatants"?

I really think it has more to do with vengeance.

[LordStoneheart]

Are you saying that Cat's killings are all justified because her victims are "enemy combatants"?

I really think it has more to do with vengeance.

And any other war doesn't?