Lady Fevre Dream Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I'd forgotten that. Thank you. No problem, even with tons of rereads, I forget things, too. I blame it on all the intricate details, but that is what makes the story better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Killing people whose surrender has been accepted by one's commanding officer (as well as their guards) isn't justice. It's murder and mutiny. And, it puts every prisoner in Lannister hands at risk. When the one who should be killed was at large who would bring justice for Rickard's children? Or they don't deserve justice because they are not Starks? edit: Since 163 kids were killed by slavers, Dany was right to kill 163 slavers. That was justice.* *for the record, neither scenario has anything to do with justice. But if Dany can be condemned for not knowing if all 163 were truly guilty, then Rickard is even more damned, given he's well aware those boys weren't actually guilty. Dany as far as I know, wasn't their mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 When the one who should be killed was at large who would bring justice for Rickard's children? Or they don't deserve justice because they are not Starks?"Bringing justice" is not an issue. No crime was committed against Lord Karstark's children. In the same way, no crime was committed against the Lannisters who died in battle.Once Robb Stark accepted the boys' surrender, he guaranteed their safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 "Bringing justice" is not an issue. No crime was committed against Lord Karstark's children. In the same way, no crime was committed against the Lannisters who died in battle.Once Robb Stark accepted the boys' surrender, he guaranteed their safety.You know they have been killed right? If no crime was commited then no crime had been committed against Robb either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 When the one who should be killed was at large who would bring justice for Rickard's children? Or they don't deserve justice because they are not Starks? edit: Dany as far as I know, wasn't their mother. I just love your views on morality. Real murderer has ran away? Just kill the nearest relatives of his and justice would be served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 You know they have been killed right? If no crime was commited then no crime had been committed against Robb either.Killing enemy combatants on the battlefield is not considered a crime, in our world or in Westeros.Killing prisoners of war, and allied soldiers, in cold blood, in defiance of your commanding officer's orders is regarded as murder, in our world and in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy the Ruin Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I just love your views on morality. Real murderer has ran away? Just kill the nearest relatives of his and justice would be served.:agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Killing enemy combatants on the battlefield is not considered a crime, in our world or in Westeros.Killing prisoners of war, and allied soldiers, in cold blood, in defiance of your commanding officer's orders is regarded as murder, in our world and in Westeros.The moment that Walder made an alliance with Tywin, Rob wasn't his allie anymore. Thus he had any reason to kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I just love your views on morality. Real murderer has ran away? Just kill the nearest relatives of his and justice would be served. At least Karstark didn't give them cold looks. The moment that Walder made an alliance with Tywin, Rob wasn't his allie anymore. Thus he had any reason to kill him. The RW wasn't an open battlefield, nor did he openly declare his turning against Robb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The moment that Walder made an alliance with Tywin, Rob wasn't his allie anymore. Thus he had any reason to kill him.Walder pretended that he was still an ally, and invited him under his roof, and then treacherously killed him. So, of course Walder's a murderer.Had Walder openly switched sides, and slain Robb in battle, there would be no crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Walder pretended that he was still an ally, and invited him under his roof, and then treacherously killed him. So, of course Walder's a murderer.Had Walder openly switched sides, and slain Robb in battle, there would be no crime.He wasn't an ally the moment Robb broke his vows and then Walder made an alliance with Tywin. If Robb had kept his promises then Walder wouldn't had killed him. If Catelyn hadn't freed Jaime then Rickard wouldn't had killed the hostagies. If the Starks had done what they supposed to do then the others wouldn't have reacted. It's similar situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 He wasn't an ally the moment Robb broke his vows and then Walder made an alliance with Tywin. If Robb had kept his promises then Walder wouldn't had killed him. If Catelyn hadn't freed Jaime then Rickard wouldn't had killed the hostagies. If the Starks had done what they supposed to do then the others wouldn't have reacted. It's similar situation.He was an ally, until he openly repudiated his alliance. He never did so. A fresh marriage pact was negotiated, and Robb fulfilled his end of the bargain. Then Walder murdered him.What Catelyn did is irrelevant, in terms of analysing the morality of Karstark's action. He defied his King and commanding officer, and paid the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 He was an ally, until he openly repudiated his alliance. He never did so. A fresh marriage pact was negotiated, and Robb fulfilled his end of the bargain. Then Walder murdered him. Robb betrayed Walder when he married Jeyne, Walder had no reason to go and tell him that he was Tywin's ally anymore. The moment Robb betrayed his vow broke their alliance, which was Robb marrying Walder's daughter not Edmure. The moment between Robb's betrayal and the negotiations Walder was free to do whatever he wanted. What Catelyn did is irrelevant, in terms of analysing the morality of Karstark's action. He defied his King and commanding officer, and paid the price. You do know that Karstark killed the hostages after and because Catelyn freed Jaime right? So it happened because of Catelyn's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 You do know that Karstark killed the hostages after and because Catelyn freed Jaime right? So it happened because of Catelyn's actions. Did Walder arrange the RW for a reason other than Robb's own actions? To justify Karstark and attribute blame to Cat is to justify Walder Frey and attribute blame to Robb, as it applies. There's causality, but the truly wrongful parties here are Rickard and Frey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Did Walder arrange the RW for a reason other than Robb's own actions? To justify Karstark and attribute blame to Cat is to justify Walder Frey and attribute blame to Robb, as it applies. There's causality, but the truly wrongful parties here are Rickard and Frey. Why Rickard killed the hostagies? Because Jaime was freed. Why Walder allied with Tywin? Because Robb broke his vows. That is how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Mac Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 You do know that Karstark killed the hostages after and because Catelyn freed Jaime right? So it happened because of Catelyn's actions. SeanF said that Catelyn's actions were irrelavant in analyzing the morality of Karstark's actions, which is true. Catelyn's decision to free Jaime will always be controversial. However, she is not at fault for his murdering of two unarmed squires. Karstark's actions were morally reprehensible no matter what way you look at it. He wanted "justice" for a crime that didn't even happen. And he didn't even care about killing the true culprit apparently, since he killed two boys that had nothing to do with it other than being related to the perpetrator. He acted like a baby throughout the entire ordeal and refused to act rationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Why Rickard killed the hostagies? Because Jaime was freed. Why Walder allied with Tywin? Because Robb broke his vows. That is how I see it. Ok, but you think Rickard would have been right if he could have killed Cat for vengeance, and you seem to believe Walder was wrong for the RW as vengeance on Robb. I think you need to reassess your views on who's wrong here; it's wildly inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Why Rickard killed the hostagies? Because Jaime was freed. Why Walder allied with Tywin? Because Robb broke his vows. That is how I see it. And both Rickard and Walder were in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 SeanF said that Catelyn's actions were irrelavant in analyzing the morality of Karstark's actions, which is true. Catelyn's decision to free Jaime will always be controversial. However, she is not at fault for his murdering of two unarmed squires. Karstark's actions were morally reprehensible no matter what way you look at it. He wanted "justice" for a crime that didn't even happen. And he didn't even care about killing the true culprit apparently, since he killed two boys that had nothing to do with it other than being related to the perpetrator. He acted like a baby throughout the entire ordeal and refused to act rationally. Again. If Catelyn hadn't freed Jaime then Rickard had no reason to kill the hostages. If he wanted to have them dead he would have done it already. As what you said that he should had punished the guilty, how he could had found him? Ok, but you think Rickard would have been right if he could have killed Cat for vengeance, and you seem to believe Walder was wrong for the RW as vengeance on Robb. I think you need to reassess your views on who's wrong here; it's wildly inconsistent. I think that Rickard killed the hostages because of Jaime's release, I think that he expected Robb to react at Catelyn's actions. As for Walder I believe that he overreacted but Robb has to share the blame. If he hadn't broke his vows Walder had no reason to go to Lannisters' side. After all Robb had to pay for what he did. He used the Freys and then after they helped him to fight and to become the King he betrayed them. And both Rickard and Walder were in the wrong. And that is your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifth Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Robb showed weakness when he out right pardoned Cat for freeing Jamie. By that logic I'm pretty sure Karstark felt he would be pardoned as well for doing something similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.