True Revenge

[Boarsbane]

Which was monstrous, Jaime was the one that should have payed.

Paid for what? In Karstark's own words you kill your enemies in war. Jaime killed his sons on a battlefield fair and square. There was no crime committed.

[7th-key]

Which was monstrous, Jaime was the one that should have payed.

No he shouldn't have paid for that. It's a battle. Jaime killed the Karstark's sons fair and square, because they were all attacking each other. What about every other person that each soldier killed in battle?

ETA: or what Boarsbane said. :D

[Wmarshal]

I believe exile is a terrible idea, but marriage to the crown or sent to holy orders seems quiet active in moving a dynasty in Westeros.

[The Wolves]

And anyways Tywin had those children killed because it needed to be done in that kind of world.

Seriously?

When the murder of children needs to be done in any kind of world than humanity is seriously lost.

And no Tywin did not need to kill Aegon nor Rhaenys he had no idea that the Rebels wanted the crown for all he knew the rebels would crown Aegon and take control of the crown until he is of age.

Aegon and Rhaenys did not need to die I wish people would stop defending that gross, inhumane act under the pretense that it needed to be done.

[Wmarshal]

Good point on Karstark. Still, acts of harming a child is unforgivable, for any of this men, or women.

[Mladen]

Tywin is a child killer, and I wouldn't use anything he says or does as a basis for what justice is like someone did with Rickard Karstark. And anyways Tywin had those children killed because it needed to be done in that kind of world, Rickard Karstark did it for petty revenge.

Oh, of course... Double standards... I kinda expected that.

Just for clarification for others:

1. If petty vengeance is when you are honoring two dead sons, how do we call woman being beaten, raped, her child being crushed in front of her and then killed for intervening in marriage plans for daughter?

2. One children killing is "necessary" (even though it kinda isn't) but other is a crime. One man is a great general and other a scum... Use double standards and this will make some sense.

Dont get me wrong Mladen, I dont necessarily disagree with you but - please see my 2nd point - if we do judge in-world actions with our current value sets then we must do it all-encompassing and not selective because selective judgement consequently leads to hypocrisy. Respect to those who can do this, I certainly cannot.

Thus my comment about my sentiment towards nobility ;). The very concept of "blood right", nobility, feudalism etc is COMPLETELY despicable to me...but this is how Westeros works and I have to suspend my disbelief and tell myself "under current circumstances there must always be a Stark in Winterfell aka they are the rightful everlasting rulers of the North".

Though I agree with you. One must ask questions and reflect about what happens in the books. But I try to do it more with a "historic" way of reading those things

Understanding historical concept, basically there is no historical concept here, is kinda moot question because this is not historical drama. This is epic fantasy novel set in medieval world. Some of the rules we know from our own medieval history are applied here like nobility, patriarchate society, slavery etc... But, for the conclusions about characters, right or wrong, all those conclusions any reader made about anything in the books is solely on that reader. This novel has set completely new set of rules that differs from medieval history drama and that is why what happened in London in 1602 doesn't actually matter. The characters mostly surpass the setting and the setting itself becomes irrelevant when the characters speak with language we so easily understand. In conclusion, Westeros is a whole new world with its own rules. Understand them, understand the rules of the world, but don't return to RL history, for it simply isn't the same. Actually it is different in many ways.

[FalseKnight]

While I agree that the walk of shame is a really terrible thing, everyone seems to accept it as normal so I don't think the High Septon should be considered evil for it,

Everyone considered the Spanish Inquisition normal too. Was the High Inquisitor a swell chap? What about chattel slavery, segregation, ritualistic female genital mutilation, or genocide of opposing tribes? Were they just straightening some kinks? When people condone morally reprehensible behavior because it's normal, they're complicity responsible for it.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Tywin is a child killer, and I wouldn't use anything he says or does as a basis for what justice is like someone did with Rickard Karstark. And anyways Tywin had those children killed because it needed to be done in that kind of world, Rickard Karstark did it for petty revenge.

Yeah, no. Tywin had them killed (and he practically admits as much to Tyrion) because he arrived late to Robert's cause and he needed to make a splash (literally) so no one could question he had abandoned the Targs forever. Plus, he likely had Elia killed out of spite

But the truth is that the kids could have been neutralized in some other way, like marrying Rhaenys to Renly and keeping Aegon as a hostage and sending him to the Wall when older

[Boarsbane]

Oh, of course... Double standards... I kinda expected that.

Just for clarification for others:

1. If petty vengeance is when you are honoring two dead sons, how do we call woman being beaten, raped, her child being crushed in front of her and then killed for intervening in marriage plans for daughter?

2. One children killing is "necessary" (even though it kinda isn't) but other is a crime. One man is a great general and other a scum... Use double standards and this will make some sense.

1. So killing the two squire prisoners is honoring his two dead sons who died on the battlefield? I think you are confusing your own fanfiction with canon.

2. Both are crimes, one is just for nonsensical vengeance while the other actually has some logic behind it and can even be argued was necessary going forward.

[Mladen]

1. So killing the two squire prisoners is honoring his two dead sons who died on the battlefield? I think you are confusing your own fanfiction with canon.

2. Both are crimes, one is just for nonsensical vengeance while the other actually has some logic behind it and can even be argued was necessary going forward.

1. I have never said that Karstark is right. In my book, he and Tywin are the same. In yours, they aren't. You absolve one and condemn the other. Hence my conclusion about double standards.

2. Again, as I pointed out, double standards. Dead child is a dead child, regardless whether you kill it because of vengeance or sucking-up to a new King.

[Boarsbane]

1. I have never said that Karstark is right. In my book, he and Tywin are the same. In yours, they aren't. You absolve one and condemn the other. Hence my conclusion about double standards.

2. Again, as I pointed out, double standards. Dead child is a dead child, regardless whether you kill it because of vengeance or sucking-up to a new King.

1. You just said he was honoring his dead sons which kind of makes it sound like you approve.

2. The reasons for them killing a child might not matter to you but they do to me.

[Arakan]

Understanding historical concept, basically there is no historical concept here, is kinda moot question because this is not historical drama. This is epic fantasy novel set in medieval world. Some of the rules we know from our own medieval history are applied here like nobility, patriarchate society, slavery etc... But, for the conclusions about characters, right or wrong, all those conclusions any reader made about anything in the books is solely on that reader. This novel has set completely new set of rules that differs from medieval history drama and that is why what happened in London in 1602 doesn't actually matter. The characters mostly surpass the setting and the setting itself becomes irrelevant when the characters speak with language we so easily understand. In conclusion, Westeros is a whole new world with its own rules. Understand them, understand the rules of the world, but don't return to RL history, for it simply isn't the same. Actually it is different in many ways.

All right, this is what I will do in the future..but please then do the same as well. Dont use RL value sets to judge a Fantasy Series. By your rules, RL is RL (whether 2014 or 1314) and Fantasy is Fantasy, with its own rules.

If for the Westerosi the Walk of Shame is appropriate thats it then. Fantasy after all.

At the end you make selective judgements as well. You condemn the Walk of Shame because it is sexist (it is) but do you also condemn Death Penalty (maybe your a supporter of it, then the point is irrelevant for you), or do you condemn Frey pies (many here find it very funny, I find it murder and repulsive)?

The Walk of Shame is humiliating and nothing what I support, but I also dont support Death Penalty and dont think that Frey Pies are funny.

[Mladen]

1. You just said he was honoring his dead sons which kind of makes it sound like you approve.

2. The reasons for them killing a child might not matter to you but they do to me.

1. No, I was speaking about their mindsets, never for a second I said that I approve either of them.

2. Well, of course they matter to you. Your favorite character is on the line...

Basically I am tired of this argument. You may continue... I just pointed very clearly the fallacy in your reasoning.

All right, this is what I will do in the future..but please then do the same as well. Dont use RL value sets to judge a Fantasy Series. By your rules, RL is RL (whether 2014 or 1314) and Fantasy is Fantasy, with its own rules.

If for the Westerosi the Walk of Shame is appropriate thats it then. Fantasy after all.

At the end you make selective judgements as well. You condemn the Walk of Shame because it is sexist (it is) but do you also condemn Death Penalty (maybe your a supporter of it, then the point is irrelevant for you), or do you condemn Frey pies (many here find it very funny, I find it murder and repulsive)?

The Walk of Shame is humiliating and nothing what I support, but I also dont support Death Penalty and dont think that Frey Pies are funny.

But, the way WoS is written, it is not meant to be satisfactory and OK for us. As for death penalty, I understand the need for it, but I do believe it is barbaric and inhumane regardless of technique. As for Frey pies, in my essay about Northern honor, I have mentioned that as one of the major points why Northern honor doesn't exist.

And all your opinions are modern and easily traced in the books... I simply don't believe that GRRM intended Frey pies to be funny.

[Boarsbane]

1. No, I was speaking about their mindsets, never for a second I said that I approve either of them.

2. Well, of course they matter to you. Your favorite character is on the line...

Basically I am tired of this argument. You may continue... I just pointed very clearly the fallacy in your reasoning.

But, the way WoS is written, it is not meant to be satisfactory and OK for us. As for death penalty, I understand the need for it, but I do believe it is barbaric and inhumane regardless of technique. As for Frey pies, in my essay about Northern honor, I have mentioned that as one of the major points why Northern honor doesn't exist.

And all your opinions are modern and easily traced in the books... I simply don't believe that GRRM intended Frey pies to be funny.

Ok if you say so, btw where did you get the insight into Tywin's head to know it was him being pissed off about the Elia marriage?

[Nictarion]

That's actually the reason I hate most stories of revenge. They're always about how it "means nothing" or you lose yourself along the way. There's rarely any plain "I got my revenge so suck it!" stories.

I think Quentin Tarantino does revenge stories really well. Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds , and Django Unchained are all great revenge stories imo.

[LordStoneheart]

I think Quentin Tarantino does revenge stories really well. Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds , and Django Unchained are all great revenge stories imo.

Actually I was going to mention Kill Bill. I love the girl in the kitchen scene because of the way the Bride handles it. Perfect.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I think Quentin Tarantino does revenge stories really well. Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds , and Django Unchained are all great revenge stories imo.

Actually I was going to mention Kill Bill. I love the girl in the kitchen scene because of the way the Bride handles it. Perfect.

Nikia? That scene is gorgeous and gives a good message about revenge, exactly what Elia tried to tell the Snakes, and what describes pretty much what has doomed many characters like Oberyn and even Robb himself (as pointed above by WMarshall, Robb's justice was actually revenge for Ned). Which reminded me that

HBO SPOILERS

It's going to be Elia also wanting revenge next season, for what I've read. Thanks for fuck up one of the best characters of the books, HBO.

[WilliamWesterosiWallace]

People, I'm sorry if I am just repeating what someone said, but killing Rhaenys and Aegon was (even if in different levels of need) NECESSARY.

Rhaenys could have been kept as "Queen" and be married off to Robert when she could, but Aegon HAD to die, because his every breath would fuel a Targaryen rebellion to put the real King on the throne, just as it is happening right now in ADWD.

It is a horrible crime, yes, but it is NECESSARY. Or else the rebels would have someone to rebel for.

[Nictarion]

People, I'm sorry if I am just repeating what someone said, but killing Rhaenys and Aegon was (even if in different levels of need) NECESSARY.

Rhaenys could have been kept as "Queen" and be married off to Robert when she could, but Aegon HAD to die, because his every breath would fuel a Targaryen rebellion to put the real King on the throne, just as it is happening right now in ADWD.

It is a horrible crime, yes, but it is NECESSARY. Or else the rebels would have someone to rebel for.

I'm not so sure. If it was so necessary, why did Robert wait so long to send Stannis after the Targaryens that were on Dragonstone? Wasn't Rhaella there with Viserys for like 8 months or so?

[Lion of the West]

I'm not so sure. If it was so necessary, why did Robert wait so long to send Stannis after the Targaryens that were on Dragonstone? Wasn't Rhaella there with Viserys for like 8 months or so?

I would figure that as Master of Ships, Stannis had to build an entire new royal fleet to take on the fleet protecting Dragonstone, although rather handidly did get smashed to pieces by a storm when Daenerys was born.