[BOOK SPOILERS] Discussing Sansa IX: The birth of Alayne Stone

[Colonel Green]

Manderly doesn't have any issue paying the ransom for his son

As part of a larger scheme to defy the Lannisters. "The North Remembers" means the Lannisters too, not just the hatchet men.

[juanml82]

As part of a larger scheme to defy the Lannisters. "The North Remembers" means the Lannisters too, not just the hatchet men.

Of course. What I meant was that the breach of guest right didn't impede peace and hostage negotiations, parlays nor it broke trust in the word of the Iron Throne. Manderly expected Cersei to fulfill her part of the bargain, even after the RW.

[joachim]

I am completely with you on Barristan. I have never understood why so many people see him as extremely honourable and the epitome of a true knight. I don't think he is an evil man by any means but he is not as principled as people seem to believe and his changes of allegiance were completely self serving.

If that's true, why didn't he throw in with Renly or Stannis?

[DaughterOfThe9Moons]

If that's true, why didn't he throw in with Renly or Stannis?

What? I'm not sure how you got there from my comment. What do you mean?

[voodooqueen126]

Frankly, Robb's war against the Lannister's,* is far, far less justified than Vietnam,** and more on par with WW1; which started when a tubercular Bosnian Teenager assassinated an Austrian Archduke. Think of how many people died because of that.

I think the character arc that best discusses the rights and wrongs of starting wars (rather than Arya's arc which makes visible the consequences of war) is Daenery's debacle in Meereen. There Martin went out of his way to make residents of Slaver's Bay as morally bankrupt and unlikable as possible***...and the moral reformation of a society as a result of invasion is still shown as being incredibly problematic.

Sansa's arc is more about personal morality, than the public morality associated with warfare.

*From the perspective of modern morality, rather than medieval morality.

**Please remember that Communism has killed a greater number of people than Fascism

***short of them committing genocide. But the Yunkai, Astapori, and Meereenese, it's like they got out of bed, ate their lead based porridge, whilst firmly clutching the villain ball, whilst being beaten with an ugly stick. They have nothing going for them, yet Daenerys is still portrayed ambiguously for invading them and trying to change their society.

[Annara Snow]

I do not think that any cause of Robb, Stannis or Renly is even remotely comparable to the cause of fighting the Nazis, those would-like-to-be kings are basically defending the interests of a very small group of whatever nobility and who wins is rather pointless for the majority of Westerosi population, it is one liege lord against the other. Only Dany's story introduces bigger and more important issues about freedom. We as readers may root for this or that group or character because we get attached to one side for very personal reasons but the Westerosi common folk suffers no matter who wins and will hardly feel the difference between exploitation by one or the other noble family. No way Robb's or Stannis' cause can be seen as rightfully defending democracy against faschist Lannisters or Tyrells. Actually this comparison would be slightly offensive towards Hitler's victims.

I wasn't talking about the cause when comparing them, I was talking about the methods they use. You could say that soldiers on each side will do things like rape and murder civilians, but it's different when a commander orders such things, or, in case of Tywin, even specifically employs forces for that purpose.

GRRM portrays the horrors of war and shows the horrible reality of it, but he certainly doesn't portray every soldier character or commander character in the same light. If he wanted to, he could have shown Robb employing some version of Bloody Mummers/Gregor and specifically using them to rape, torture and murder smallfolk. He does show Robb ordering the sack of Westerlands but he conveniently doesn't specify what it would entail other than burning and looting. He also shows Stannis - for all his faults and moral ambiguity - punishing rapists severely, and he happens to show Stannis doing that at exactly the same moment when the readers are likely to start being on his side, since he has just come to the defense of the NW. You may want to think that all military commanders in ASOAIF are the same in terms of war ethics, but GRRM doesn't actually portray them that way. People like to talk about nobody being "completely good or completely evil" in ASOAIF, but it's not true, well, the latter is not true: it's very easy to think of people he purposefully made completely evil, which includes Gregor Clegane and his men and the Bloody Mummers. When the Bloody Mummers switch sides and start working for the northmen, this could be seen as a moment of moral ambiguity - except for the fact that they are working for Roose Bolton, another character GRRM has written as completely evil. The closest that GRRM goes in associating Robb with them is having them work for his bannerman who is a thousand miles away and commanding his own forces in that part of the Riverlands, not to mention with his own agenda (and is about to become a major antagonist in the next book).

Well, then it's cynicism 1, medieval chivalric romance 0

I've never said that. If you think ASOIAF in black and white terms, it would make sense, but ASOIAF it's not about black and white. It's not that idealism and ethical behavior lead to failure per se, it's that naivety and idealism for the sake of idealism lead to failure. Ned naively trusted LF to act against his own interests, Robb naively believed he could afford to marry for love, Theon naively believed he could rule Winterfell and earn his father's acceptance, Sansa used to believe in True Knights and Brienne naively believes she can find Sansa.

Pragmatism, OTOH, works: Tywin Lannister is a successful character until he's undone by a very non pragmatic underestimation of his son, the Tyrells first starve the Kingslanders to death and then appear as their saviors. And pragmatism, in Westeros, means that sometimes the character has to get his hands dirty.

As for Brienne rescuing Arya, she's in Braavos and needs no rescue. As for Sansa, what happened to all that discussion about agency and everything else? Not only Brienne is a captive hundreds of miles away from her, Sansa's arc is heading into the direction of "rescuing" herself instead of relying on a True Knight, however subverted the trope might be.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean that someone whose goal is to rescue her has to be a failure. Contrary to the popular trope of Lone Hero, it's far more likely that people are going to succeed when they have help and collaborative efforts are more likely to succeed. Arya, for instance, could have died many times over in the first books if she hadn't had help from various people, from Syrio to Yoren to Jaqen to Sandor. Yet I don't see anyone criticizing her for that out of an idea that she has to save herself all on her own with no help from anyone in order to be worthwhile.

Most wars ignore, to a degree, the Geneva Convention and winners never go on trial.

As for ASOIAF, would you kindly quote any part of the text where Robb Stark punish rapists or impose strict rules? "Children prisoners" were "nephews of Tywin Lannister held as hostage" whose death could very well lead to the execution of Sansa Stark, specially since Robb no longer had Jaime prisoner. It's really a matter for another thread, but Robb ordered the sacking of the Westerlands. As for Stannis, he burns people as a mean of execution and employs people like Clayton Suggs.

So no, not really. GRRM shows that Woman of War ideas about what a war really is do apply. What he does is to make sure readers root for one side/character, so they overlook (and die hard fans even get worked out and upset) and defend their favorite character despite the crimes he either commits or order/allow his soldiers to commit.

Yes, war is bad. Duh. That's not exactly a fresh new idea, you know. But there are still rules and ethics of conduct during war. Does everyone who breaks them get indicted and convicted for war crimes? Of course not. Do you think that everyone who commits crimes in peace gets brought to trial, convicted and sentenced? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, powerful and rich people have better of getting away with their crimes? But does that mean that there should be no law and everyone should just be allowed to do what they want? "Hey, since we can't punish everyone, let's just let everyone go"?

I've seen the "but war crimes just happen during the war, and not everyone who did it will be brought to trial!" argument IRL more times than I care to remember, and IRL it's always a part of an attempt to argue that no war crimes trials should be held at all. Yet, oddly enough, nobody ever tries to argue that there should be no courts, trials or jails in general, since it will never be possible to try and convict every criminal in the world, and some will always get away...

Regarding the Westerosi military commanders, I never said any of them were perfect; but there is a clear difference between having some douche in your service (what's Clayton Suggs done, anyway?) and a systematic policy of rape and murder of civilians through employing men who are clearly there just for that purpose (the Mountain and his men, the Bloody Mummers).

**Please remember that Communism has killed a greater number of people than Fascism

I don't remember USA going to war against Stalin or Pol Pot, do you?

[Zorn Gottes]

I wasn't talking about the cause when comparing them, I was talking about the methods they use. You could say that soldiers on each side will do things like rape and murder civilians, but it's different when a commander orders such things, or, in case of Tywin, even specifically employs forces for that purpose.

GRRM portrays the horrors of war and shows the horrible reality of it, but he certainly doesn't portray every soldier character or commander character in the same light. If he wanted to, he could have shown Robb employing some version of Bloody Mummers/Gregor and specifically using them to rape, torture and murder smallfolk. He does show Robb ordering the sack of Westerlands but he conveniently doesn't specify what it would entail other than burning and looting. He also shows Stannis - for all his faults and moral ambiguity - punishing rapists severely, and he happens to show Stannis doing that at exactly the same moment when the readers are likely to start being on his side, since he has just come to the defense of the NW. You may want to think that all military commanders in ASOAIF are the same in terms of war ethics, but GRRM doesn't actually portray them that way. People like to talk about nobody being "completely good or completely evil" in ASOAIF, but it's not true, well, the latter is not true: it's very easy to think of people he purposefully made completely evil, which includes Gregor Clegane and his men and the Bloody Mummers. When the Bloody Mummers switch sides and start working for the northmen, this could be seen as a moment of moral ambiguity - except for the fact that they are working for Roose Bolton, another character GRRM has written as completely evil. The closest that GRRM goes in associating Robb with them is having them work for his bannerman who is a thousand miles away and commanding his own forces in that part of the Riverlands, not to mention with his own agenda (and is about to become a major antagonist in the next book).

:agree:

I'd like to add that Robb forbade Roose Bolton to flay their prisoners, just like Ned did, so he's not the kind of commander who indulges in cruelty.

[juanml82]

Frankly, Robb's war against the Lannister's,* is far, far less justified than Vietnam,** and more on par with WW1; which started when a tubercular Bosnian Teenager assassinated an Austrian Archduke. Think of how many people died because of that.

I think the character arc that best discusses the rights and wrongs of starting wars (rather than Arya's arc which makes visible the consequences of war) is Daenery's debacle in Meereen. There Martin went out of his way to make residents of Slaver's Bay as morally bankrupt and unlikable as possible***...and the moral reformation of a society as a result of invasion is still shown as being incredibly problematic.

Sansa's arc is more about personal morality, than the public morality associated with warfare.

*From the perspective of modern morality, rather than medieval morality.

**Please remember that Communism has killed a greater number of people than Fascism

***short of them committing genocide. But the Yunkai, Astapori, and Meereenese, it's like they got out of bed, ate their lead based porridge, whilst firmly clutching the villain ball, whilst being beaten with an ugly stick. They have nothing going for them, yet Daenerys is still portrayed ambiguously for invading them and trying to change their society.

I understand that arguing about the justification of Vietnam is is off-topic. Nonetheless, I need to point out that two million Vietnamese died in the war and that the USA was supporting an unpopular dictatorship there.

And while we can say that "go to war and kill thousands because your father was imprisoned" isn't a good justification, a modern hypothetical example would be the arrest of an American high official or former president outside the USA for crimes of war/against mankind/plain murder, followed by an American military intervention in the country imprisoning him. And, TBH, the far fetched part of this hypothetical is any country trying to make the arrest.

I wasn't talking about the cause when comparing them, I was talking about the methods they use. You could say that soldiers on each side will do things like rape and murder civilians, but it's different when a commander orders such things, or, in case of Tywin, even specifically employs forces for that purpose.

GRRM portrays the horrors of war and shows the horrible reality of it, but he certainly doesn't portray every soldier character or commander character in the same light. If he wanted to, he could have shown Robb employing some version of Bloody Mummers/Gregor and specifically using them to rape, torture and murder smallfolk. He does show Robb ordering the sack of Westerlands but he conveniently doesn't specify what it would entail other than burning and looting. He also shows Stannis - for all his faults and moral ambiguity - punishing rapists severely, and he happens to show Stannis doing that at exactly the same moment when the readers are likely to start being on his side, since he has just come to the defense of the NW. You may want to think that all military commanders in ASOAIF are the same in terms of war ethics, but GRRM doesn't actually portray them that way. People like to talk about nobody being "completely good or completely evil" in ASOAIF, but it's not true, well, the latter is not true: it's very easy to think of people he purposefully made completely evil, which includes Gregor Clegane and his men and the Bloody Mummers. When the Bloody Mummers switch sides and start working for the northmen, this could be seen as a moment of moral ambiguity - except for the fact that they are working for Roose Bolton, another character GRRM has written as completely evil. The closest that GRRM goes in associating Robb with them is having them work for his bannerman who is a thousand miles away and commanding his own forces in that part of the Riverlands, not to mention with his own agenda (and is about to become a major antagonist in the next book).

The thing is that, as you say, GRRM conveniently leaves out the exact description of Robb's crimes. We do know Tywin orders chevauchée and we get a first hand impression of what it entails and the kind of people who carry it out. Robb orders the same, but we need to fill in the blanks. We do have mentions of Northern forces sacking and raping. We don't have a name for those criminals.

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean that someone whose goal is to rescue her has to be a failure. Contrary to the popular trope of Lone Hero, it's far more likely that people are going to succeed when they have help and collaborative efforts are more likely to succeed. Arya, for instance, could have died many times over in the first books if she hadn't had help from various people, from Syrio to Yoren to Jaqen to Sandor. Yet I don't see anyone criticizing her for that out of an idea that she has to save herself all on her own with no help from anyone in order to be worthwhile.

Well, Sansa will have to get allies. Part of her narrative in the coming books should revolve about that. But her arc seems to be going in the direction of political allies instead of the very different knight coming to rescue her while she remains passive and is passively taken to safety so she can knit a fancy cloth for her rescuer.

And Brienne simply doesn't fit the role of a political ally.

Yes, war is bad. Duh. That's not exactly a fresh new idea, you know. But there are still rules and ethics of conduct during war. Does everyone who breaks them get indicted and convicted for war crimes? Of course not. Do you think that everyone who commits crimes in peace gets brought to trial, convicted and sentenced? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, powerful and rich people have better of getting away with their crimes? But does that mean that there should be no law and everyone should just be allowed to do what they want? "Hey, since we can't punish everyone, let's just let everyone go"?

I've seen the "but war crimes just happen during the war, and not everyone who did it will be brought to trial!" argument IRL more times than I care to remember, and IRL it's always a part of an attempt to argue that no war crimes trials should be held at all. Yet, oddly enough, nobody ever tries to argue that there should be no courts, trials or jails in general, since it will never be possible to try and convict every criminal in the world, and some will always get away...

Regarding the Westerosi military commanders, I never said any of them were perfect; but there is a clear difference between having some douche in your service (what's Clayton Suggs done, anyway?) and a systematic policy of rape and murder of civilians through employing men who are clearly there just for that purpose (the Mountain and his men, the Bloody Mummers).

Did I say anything remotely like the bolded part? No, I didn't.

As for Clayton Suggs, he has been Stannis torturer for years, which means he tortured people in Dragonstone dungeons, even during peacetime. Conveniently, GRRM leaves out the details.

:agree:

I'd like to add that Robb forbade Roose Bolton to flay their prisoners, just like Ned did, so he's not the kind of commander who indulges in cruelty.

That's the show. I don't think there is any moment in the books in which Robb makes any ruling regarding torture, rape or murder.

[voodooqueen126]

I understand that arguing about the justification of Vietnam is is off-topic. Nonetheless, I need to point out that two million Vietnamese died in the war and that the USA was supporting an unpopular dictatorship there.

I am not denying that the Vietnam War was unjustified, but just pointing out that preventing the spread of communism is not an unworthy cause. Or atleast not a petty emotional one.

And while we can say that "go to war and kill thousands because your father was imprisoned" isn't a good justification, a modern hypothetical example would be the arrest of an American high official or former president outside the USA for crimes of war/against mankind/plain murder, followed by an American military intervention in the country imprisoning him. And, TBH, the far fetched part of this hypothetical is any country trying to make the arrest.

Oddly, I have roughly argued the same thing to LF defenders/trolls: that if an American President or British Prime minister was judicially murdered by another head of government whilst visiting a foreign country, there would probably be a war... hopefully not as disastrous as WW1.

The thing is that, as you say, GRRM conveniently leaves out the exact description of Robb's crimes. We do know Tywin orders chevauchée and we get a first hand impression of what it entails and the kind of people who carry it out. Robb orders the same, but we need to fill in the blanks. We do have mentions of Northern forces sacking and raping. We don't have a name for those criminals.

Well, Sansa will have to get allies. Part of her narrative in the coming books should revolve about that. But her arc seems to be going in the direction of political allies instead of the very different knight coming to rescue her while she remains passive and is passively taken to safety so she can knit a fancy cloth for her rescuer.

And Brienne simply doesn't fit the role of a political ally.

Well I agree that Sansa's arc (unless the show really does want to make Sansa remain a damsel in distress, as I fear) is about gaining political allies, but I am sure when/if Brienne eventually rocks up, she will serve some sort of purpose. Otherwise why subjugate us to that trek around the Crownlands?

Did I say anything remotely like the bolded part? No, I didn't.

As for Clayton Suggs, he has been Stannis torturer for years, which means he tortured people in Dragonstone dungeons, even during peacetime. Conveniently, GRRM leaves out the details.

That's the show. I don't think there is any moment in the books in which Robb makes any ruling regarding torture, rape or murder.

Well do you think it is significant that GRRM elides over Robb's possible war crimes (such a modern notion)? Or the fact that Stannis employed Clayton Suggs for years? Whilst emphasising Tywin's numerous crimes?

[Zorn Gottes]

That's the show. I don't think there is any moment in the books in which Robb makes any ruling regarding torture, rape or murder.

really? I misremembered then, sorry :dunce:

[joachim]

What? I'm not sure how you got there from my comment. What do you mean?

After he was cashiered by Joffrey, Barristan crossed half of the world to find Daenerys, when he could've reached Highgarden or Dragonstone in a fraction of the time. In the book, Tywin was concerned that he would support Renly or Stannis and lend credibility to their causes. They were both closer at hand and either one must've seemed like a safer bet. Doesn't it prove his bona fides that he sought Daenerys?

[Wmarshal]

Apart of me thinks this extra sibling would be used to replace papa kettleblack. Be that with his sons gone who needs him.

[DaughterOfThe9Moons]

After he was cashiered by Joffrey, Barristan crossed half of the world to find Daenerys, when he could've reached Highgarden or Dragonstone in a fraction of the time. In the book, Tywin was concerned that he would support Renly or Stannis and lend credibility to their causes. They were both closer at hand and either one must've seemed like a safer bet. Doesn't it prove his bona fides that he sought Daenerys?

Not really. He only sought her out after he had been dismissed by the Lannisters. Had he not been dismissed he would have continued to serve them regardless of his personal opinion of their regime. It would have supported his bona fides had he left his previous service to seek her out of his own volition. I don't even know how keen Renly or Stannis would have been to accept him anyway. Regardless of his prowess or reputation, he was an old man who would only have come to support them because he seemed to be out of other options. Hardly the epitome of a trustworthy recruit who, given the aforementioned reputation, would have to have been placed in a position of some power.

[DaughterOfThe9Moons]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that I believe Barristan is an evil person or anything, and I know that by Westerosi standards his loyalty and obedience make him a "good" man. It's just that I don't find his obedience or loyalty to be particularly honourable in that it caused him to stand by while truly awful acts were carried out and he never intervened because of his 'honour'. I just find it all a bit sickening really. I mean let's call a spade a spade here. He had many opportunities to seek out different employ and dedicate his honourable obedience to an honourable cause. The books are full of people making choices that challenge their preconceived notions of honour and Barristan made his choices to support some truly despicable people just because they happened to rule the country. Aerys tortured his wife and planned to burn everyone in King's Landing to death and Barristan just stood there and was like "Welp, you're the boss." Uhhhhh, ok?

Remember, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[Colonel Green]

I don't even know how keen Renly or Stannis would have been to accept him anyway.

Renly had kept a spot open on his Kingsguard specifically in case Barristan showed up.

[Yojimbo]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that I believe Barristan is an evil person or anything, and I know that by Westerosi standards his loyalty and obedience make him a "good" man. It's just that I don't find his obedience or loyalty to be particularly honourable in that it caused him to stand by while truly awful acts were carried out and he never intervened because of his 'honour'. I just find it all a bit sickening really. I mean let's call a spade a spade here. He had many opportunities to seek out different employ and dedicate his honourable obedience to an honourable cause. The books are full of people making choices that challenge their preconceived notions of honour and Barristan made his choices to support some truly despicable people just because they happened to rule the country. Aerys tortured his wife and planned to burn everyone in King's Landing to death and Barristan just stood there and was like "Welp, you're the boss." Uhhhhh, ok?

Remember, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I can see where your coming from with Barristan, I really do, but as I've said already Barristan does not "honour" Aerys II, he honours the crown. Two very different things. And has someone has already said, this is the trouble with a order who vows to protect the King, not the crown. I also always look at wider theme of what people honour has cost the realm so far, when it comes to Barristan. Take Ned for example; it was Neds honour which cost him his life and was one of the key events that brought the realm into mass civil war. Same with his son Robb, if it wasn't for Robb's honour that he married Jayne Westerling (books not show), he would have married a Fray and not got himself, his family and men massacred as a result, allowing the Lannisters to remain ruling Westeros. This is one of the many reasons why I love the books so much, because it brings into question the values of such things as honour. Is it that no person should have honour because it can lead to the result of evil things? Or is it that more people should have honour so these evil things can't take root?

And I agree with the saying "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", but isn't the saying "good does not always triumph over evil" just as true?

[DaughterOfThe9Moons]

Renly had kept a spot open on his Kingsguard specifically in case Barristan showed up.

Noted.

I can see where your coming from with Barristan, I really do, but as I've said already Barristan does not "honour" Aerys II, he honours the crown. Two very different things. And has someone has already said, this is the trouble with a order who vows to protect the King, not the crown.

You say that honouring the crown and honouring Aerys II are two very different things and theoretically you are right but in reality they are one and the same. Barristan's loyalty to the "crown" is directly translated into loyalty to the King, regardless of who he is or what he does. So it may make his changes of allegiance understandable and "honourable" since he is supporting whoever is wearing that precious crown but as I have said, I don't think it's honourable to stand by and allow mad men to torture, burn and kill solely because they're wearing the crown you hold so dear. He knows it too.

I also always look at wider theme of what people honour has cost the realm so far, when it comes to Barristan. Take Ned for example; it was Neds honour which cost him his life and was one of the key events that brought the realm into mass civil war. Same with his son Robb, if it wasn't for Robb's honour that he married Jayne Westerling (books not show), he would have married a Fray and not got himself, his family and men massacred as a result, allowing the Lannisters to remain ruling Westeros. This is one of the many reasons why I love the books so much, because it brings into question the values of such things as honour. Is it that no person should have honour because it can lead to the result of evil things? Or is it that more people should have honour so these evil things can't take root?

The problem wasn't that Ned and Robb had honour, the problem was that they were stupid and naive. They could have retained their honour and achieved what they intended but they underestimated their opponents severely. I guess they believed that their code of honour was universal when it was plain to see that it wasn't. It's not a matter or honour leading to good or evil in and of itself, it's the blind adherence to a code of "honour" (or any doctrine really) that is devoid of personal responsibility, moral integrity and common sense that causes problems.

And I agree with the saying "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", but isn't the saying "good does not always triumph over evil" just as true?

Absolutely, but just because there is a possibility of failure, that's no reason not to try at all.

[Annara Snow]

Guys, since this discussion is really off-topic, I think it would be great to continue it in one of the threads about Barristan in general book thread, where a lot more people would see it and participate in it. Parwan has an interesting thread about Barristan and the Westerosi system in general that has recently been brought to my attention, you can see it here.

[Mladen]

snip

snip

snip

Guys, since this discussion is really off-topic,...

Well, someone will have to explain me what Barristan hate rant, Communism and Nazis have anything to do with GoT and Sansa... Let it be known that I personally don't like my thread being turned into off-topic discussions and for those of you who consciously decided to do that, I would ask for restrain the next time. The next episode will be rather significant for Sansa and I don't want these off-topic discussions to take place. Take them where they belong.