Lord Karstark Killing Catelyn

[sifth]

I am really not sympathetic to Catelyn freeing Jaime, but, come on, just as bad as killing two kids? She's doing it with the hope of saving two children, which makes her intent the exact opposite of Karstark's. Karstark's actions also went beyond just killing two kids, he murders two Tully guards as well, and also invites reprisal killings of Stark men imprisoned by the Lannisters in return. Catelyn freeing Jaime doesn't come anywhere close to the intent or cost in lives that Karstark's actions do.

I view them both as fucked up, but just letting a man go who killed a king, crippled a little boy, and killed nearly half of Robbs men on the off chance that Tyrion would keep his word is just beyond stupid and selfish if you ask me. Alright, maybe it wasn't as bad as what Karstark did, but it's pretty close in my book

[ghosts in winterfell]

I view them both as fucked up, but just letting a man go who killed a king, crippled a little boy, and killed nearly half of Robbs men on the off chance that Tyrion would keep his word is just beyond stupid and selfish if you ask me. Alright, maybe it wasn't as bad as what Karstark did, but it's pretty close in my book

Exchanging hostages and murdering hostages while they sleep aren't really comparable at all. And it really wasn't an "off chance" that Tyrion would follow through. The only reason it didn't happen was because he was framed for murder and Sansa skipped town.

And without straying too far OT, the Kingslayer grievance is beyond silly. Jaime took out the king that no one actually liked (hence the rebellion). Aerys abused his subjects and was planning on burning the entire population of Kings Landing alive. Jaime did the right thing here, and yet for some reason people seem to think this is one of his negative attributes.

[sifth]

Exchanging hostages and murdering hostages while they sleep aren't really comparable at all. And it really wasn't an "off chance" that Tyrion would follow through. The only reason it didn't happen was because he was framed for murder and Sansa skipped town.

And without straying too far OT, the Kingslayer grievance is beyond silly. Jaime took out the king that no one actually liked (hence the rebellion). Aerys abused his subjects and was planning on burning the entire population of Kings Landing alive. Jaime did the right thing here, and yet for some reason people seem to think this is one of his negative attributes.

it wasn't a prisoner exchange, Cat literally broke the guy out of prison and hoped Tyrion would keep his word and no ones knows the reason why he killed Aerys in case you haven't realized

[ghosts in winterfell]

it wasn't a prisoner exchange, Cat literally broke the guy out of prison and hoped Tyrion would keep his word and no ones knows the reason why he killed Aerys in case you haven't realized

She released him so Tyrion would release Sansa. Literally an exchange of hostages. And I'm well aware that Jaime never shared this information with the public, but their lack of knowledge is irrelevant because the reader knows; you know. Therefore, holding it against him is irrational.

[sifth]

She released him so Tyrion would release Sansa. Literally an exchange of hostages. And I'm well aware that Jaime never shared this information with the public, but their lack of knowledge is irrelevant because the reader knows; you know. Therefore, holding it against him is irrational.

but Cat did not know, which is what counts when she made her choice

Jamie was Robb's prisoner, not Cat's and Cat broke him out without Robb or anyone's approval. Even if you want to count it as a prisoner exchange (which it sure as heck wasn't) it was an informal one at best. Which means Tyrion had no authority to up hold his end of the bargain.

[ghosts in winterfell]

but Cat did not know, which is what counts when she made her choice

Jamie was Robb's prisoner, not Cat's and Cat broke him out without Robb or anyone's approval. Even if you want to count it as a prisoner exchange (which it sure as heck wasn't) it was an informal one at best. Which means Tyrion had no authority to up hold his end of the bargain.

Yes she may have done it behind Robb's back, but it still isn't on par with murdering valuable hostages in their beds. Robb even admits later that he should have taken her advice on the hostage exchange from the start. The Wot5K flopped because no one wanted to listen to her.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Robb swore no such oath to Karstark.

King's responsibility is to protect his subjects and give them justice. It may not be an oath but it is what a King meant to do.

Except the Karstark Kids weren't murdered. There's a world of difference between dying in battle and being murdered.

That said, Karstark was stupid to allow both sons to fight. One should have remained at Karhold in case both Rickard and the other son were killed, to provide an heir.

I agree, he shouldn't allow both his sons fight, but they were young and they wanted to fight. What he could do?

I'm sorry, but you're seriously reaching.

There is no justice to be had here because Rickard Karstark's sons were not murdered. They were soldiers, their sole purpose is to be expendable in war. If he was so concerned for their safety, he shouldn't have permitted them to take up arms alongside him. They died in battle and that battle was long over. Those Lannister boys were slain in their beds while they slept, while they were under protection due to their statuses as hostages. The only "crimes" they committed were being the closest relatives of Jaime's in the vicinity.

By your logic, what of the sons that Rickard cut down in battle? Are their fathers entitled to murdering members of his family? Were the Lannisters justified in their abuse of Sansa? What good does revenge serve? Killing Jaime or those boys won't bring his own sons back. An eye for an eye is never the right approach.

Expendable in battle? Then the hostages were soldiers, Robb and his army were soldiers. Is that ok for them to be killed in a different kind of battle?

[Salinda]

Can't really blame Karstark if he did kill Catelyn. Catelyn commited high treason and would have died had she not been the King's mommy

And this whole situation could have been avoided if Robb punished Catelyn in front of Karstark and the other aggrieved Lords who were angered by Jaime's release. The punishment didn't have to be execution, but something severe. But nope, he had to outright forgive her in front of everyone showing his political acumen yet again..

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Can't really blame Karstark if he did kill Catelyn. Catelyn commited high treason and would have died had she not been the King's mommy

And this whole situation could have been avoided if Robb punished Catelyn in front of Karstark and the other aggrieved Lords who were angered by Jaime's release. The punishment didn't have to be execution, but something severe. But nope, he had to outright forgive her in front of everyone showing his political acumen yet again..

True. Something severe punishment not a 5***** hotel.

[Roddy the Ruin]

True. Something severe punishment not a 5***** hotel.

i agree, he should have punished her in some form. But I can't think of a way. I don't see how a good son would make his own mother do a Walk of Shame. Maybe he could have married her to Bronze Yohn to try and bring the Vale in.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

i agree, he should have punished her in some form. But I can't think of a way. I don't see how a good son would make his own mother do a Walk of Shame. Maybe he could have married her to Bronze Yohn to try and bring the Vale in.

Robb should have acted as a King not a son.

[SeanF]

King's responsibility is to protect his subjects and give them justice. It may not be an oath but it is what a King meant to do.

Expendable in battle? Then the hostages were soldiers, Robb and his army were soldiers. Is that ok for them to be killed in a different kind of battle?

He did give Karstark justice. He executed him.

Re the two prisoners of war. Prisoners of War aren't combatants, once they've surrendered. Killing them is like killing civilians. Either they'll be ransomed; or exchanged for prisoners taken by the other side; or released at the end of the war. But, their lives are meant to be sacrosanct.

[SeanF]

Can't really blame Karstark if he did kill Catelyn. Catelyn commited high treason and would have died had she not been the King's mommy

And this whole situation could have been avoided if Robb punished Catelyn in front of Karstark and the other aggrieved Lords who were angered by Jaime's release. The punishment didn't have to be execution, but something severe. But nope, he had to outright forgive her in front of everyone showing his political acumen yet again..

No, Karstark was bent on murder, regardless of what Catelyn did.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

He did give Karstark justice. He executed him.

Re the two prisoners of war. Prisoners of War aren't combatants, once they've surrendered. Killing them is like killing civilians. Either they'll be ransomed; or exchanged for prisoners taken by the other side; or released at the end of the war. But, their lives are meant to be sacrosanct.

He should have killed Cat too then. But no he didn't dared to punish mummy.

You know there is a saying that "All's fair in love and war"? Meaning no rules, no war hostages no nothing.

No, Karstark was bent on murder, regardless of what Catelyn did.

Murder is worse than high treason? That's new.

[Salinda]

He did give Karstark justice. He executed him.

Re the two prisoners of war. Prisoners of War aren't combatants, once they've surrendered. Killing them is like killing civilians. Either they'll be ransomed; or exchanged for prisoners taken by the other side; or released at the end of the war. But, their lives are meant to be sacrosanct.

Yup Robb was a really great guy

I'm sure Kevan was secretely thanking Robb for giving his son's murderer the death penalty, as he drew up the bill of attainder stripping Edmure of Riverrun.

This is war for god's sake. Nobody cares about the "sanctity of prisoners". Robb alienated a Northern family over something his opponents won't appreciate. Sure Karstark should have been punished for killing someone valuable and some Riverrun guards. Maybe he should have been imprisoned. But execution? Why?

[SeanF]

He should have killed Cat too then. But no he didn't dared to punish mummy.

You know there is a saying that "All's fair in love and war"? Meaning no rules, no war hostages no nothing.

War can be fought on those terms. But, if Robb's prisoners are murdered with impunity, the Lannisters will murder their prisoners in turn. These prisoners include prominent Northern Bannermen, and their relatives. So, there's a very good reason for treating prisoners well. It ensures good treatment for members of your own side who are captured.

Had Robb executed his mother, the Tullys and most River lords would have abandoned his cause and people like the Greatjon and Lady Mormont would have concluded they were led by a lunatic.

[ghosts in winterfell]

Yup Robb was a really great guy

I'm sure Kevan was secretely thanking Robb for giving his son's murderer the death penalty, as he drew up the bill of attainder stripping Edmure of Riverrun.

This is war for god's sake. Nobody cares about the "sanctity of prisoners". Robb alienated a Northern family over something his opponents won't appreciate. Sure Karstark should have been punished for killing someone valuable and some Riverrun guards. Maybe he should have been imprisoned. But execution? Why?

Because there is no room for such a gross lack of discipline.

[SeanF]

Yup Robb was a really great guy

I'm sure Kevan was secretely thanking Robb for giving his son's murderer the death penalty, as he drew up the bill of attainder stripping Edmure of Riverrun.

This is war for god's sake. Nobody cares about the "sanctity of prisoners". Robb alienated a Northern family over something his opponents won't appreciate. Sure Karstark should have been punished for killing someone valuable and some Riverrun guards. Maybe he should have been imprisoned. But execution? Why?

If Rob had let this murder pass, how do you think the Lannisters would have responded?

[Salinda]

War can be fought on those terms. But, if Robb's prisoners are murdered with impunity, the Lannisters will murder their prisoners in turn. These prisoners include prominent Northern Bannermen, and their relatives. So, there's a very good reason for treating prisoners well. It ensures good treatment for members of your own side who are captured.

Had Robb executed his mother, the Tullys and most River lords would have abandoned his cause and people like the Greatjon and Lady Mormont would have concluded they were led by a lunatic.

The Lannisters were already treating the Northern prisoners like garbage. Wylis Manderly anyone? They thought he was dead. And treating the prisoners well doesn't mean you should get angry if they're killed to the point where you damage your own war effort. That does nothing but benefit the enemy who will see that prisoner's sacrifice as worth it, if it means Karhold becomes treacherous.

He should have thrown her in a cell not executed her

[Salinda]

If Rob had let this murder pass, how do you think the Lannisters would have responded?

They would have done something crazy, like get Robb murdered at a wedding

Oh wait, that was already well in the works before any of the Karstark business happened and wasn't stopped because Robb executed Karstark and brought justice for two of Tywin's nephews

They may have forcefully married Sansa too

Hold on...

They don't care. It was all for Robb's conscious and had no practical benefit