In Defense of Rickard Karstark

[Modelex]

It seems to me that the whole double standard of Robb's treatment of Karstark and Catelyn is solely defended because dead children are involved in one case and not the other (forget the the tons of dead children Cat and Robb's actions have caused that suddenly don't matter)

Posters themselves are acting very Stark-like and ignoring all reasoning and logic in light of this fact. Dead children being the worse thing in the world and hence objective analysis of Karstark, unclouded by righteous indignation, becomes impossible and people just blindly agree with what Robb did. This in spite of the fact that Martin makes it painfully clear (via the failure of Robb to sever the head cleanly) that what he did was not just and that we as readers should be critical of this action

[Talleyrand]

I don't see how people can claim that the Red Wedding wouldn't have happened without Jaime being freed, plans were in place for Cat and Edmure to be taken alive as hostages, Tyrion thinks Tywin has written Jaime off and Tywin attacked KL while Jaime was in Aerys' power and could have been killed at any point.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

forget the the tons of dead children Cat and Robb's actions have caused that suddenly don't matter.

They never do. Since they are not named they don't exist.

[David Selig]

It seems to me that the whole double standard of Robb's treatment of Karstark and Catelyn is solely defended because dead children are involved in one case and not the other (forget the the tons of dead children Cat and Robb's actions have caused that suddenly don't matter)

That's a pretty huge difference, no?

In one case there was a multiple murder of innocent people, and in the other there was an unauthorized hostage exchange attempt. there is an enormous difference morally and in most other aspects between the two things.

Posters themselves are acting very Stark-like and ignoring all reasoning and logic in light of this fact.

Yes, you are the only reasonable poster here, sure.

Dead children being the worse thing in the world and hence objective analysis of Karstark, unclouded by righteous indignation, becomes impossible and people just blindly agree with what Robb did. This in spite of the fact that Martin makes it painfully clear (via the failure of Robb to sever the head cleanly) that what he did was not just and that we as readers should be critical of this action

Here is an objective analysis of Karstark's actions - he is a multiple murderer, including of two innocent children. He is an utter scum by any moral standard ever. But please, go on making objective analysis how his actions weren't so bad.

[Light a wight tonight]

Basically Karstark had to die. He was an idiot. He lost both his sons because he put them both in the line of danger. If you go to war you risk loss of life. One of the sons should have been left at home to preserve at least one male heir. Then, he blames Jaime for the deaths. Throwing the younger Karstarks in his path is like throwing them into a meat grinder; he's arguably the greatest swordsman in town.

But what he really did wrong was to defy his king's specific orders not to act against the Lannister prisoners. Defying one's king in wartime isn't done, and if unpunished could easily be seen as weakness on Robb's part. OTOH, what Catelyn did was to try to negotiate a prisoner exchange. The situations are not quite parallel.

[David Selig]

Basically Karstark had to die. He was an idiot. He lost both his sons because he put them both in the line of danger. If you go to war you risk loss of life. One of the sons should have been left at home to preserve at least one male heir. Then, he blames Jaime for the deaths. Throwing the younger Karstarks in his path is like throwing them into a meat grinder; he's arguably the greatest swordsman in town.

But what he really did wrong was to defy his king's specific orders not to act against the Lannister prisoners. Defying one's king in wartime isn't done, and if unpunished could easily be seen as weakness on Robb's part.

Especially after Rickard publicly insulted him. After that letting Rickard alive would've been pretty dumb from Robb. And let's not forget he killed some of Edmure's men too, a leader has to deal harshly with such behaviour in wartime.

Robb commit his fair share of blunders, but executing Rickard wasn't one of them.

[Modelex]

That's a pretty huge difference, no?

In one case there was a multiple murder of innocent people, and in the other there was an unauthorized hostage exchange attempt. there is an enormous difference morally and in most other aspects between the two things.

Sure if you stop at "Catelyn released a prisoner and Karstark killed children" then they seem vastly different morally. Upon consideration of the basic and logical ramifications of releasing such a high profile prisoner and what that could lead too, they are no longer that different at all

Here is an objective analysis of Karstark's actions - he is a multiple murderer, including of two innocent children. He is an utter scum by any moral standard ever. But please, go on making objective analysis how his actions weren't so bad.

Again, this is in lack of consideration of why he did what he did. The circumstances surrounding his actions (i.e the lack of any justice he was recieving from people he sacrificed tons for) which make his actions not at all as unjustifiable as you are painting them out to be. Martin would agree with me, which is why is makes note of the fact that his execution was messy and unclean when such extraneous detail would only exist for symbolic reasons

[David Selig]

Sure if you stop at "Catelyn released a prisoner and Karstark killed children" then they seem vastly different morally. Upon consideration of the basic and logical ramifications of releasing such a high profile prisoner and what that could lead too, they are no longer that different at all

Again, this is in lack of consideration of why he did what he did. The circumstances surrounding his actions (i.e the lack of any justice he was recieving from people he sacrificed tons for) which make his actions not at all as unjustifiable as you are painting them out to be. Martin would agree with me, which is why is makes note of the fact that his execution was messy and unclean when such extraneous detail would only exist for symbolic reasons

His reasons makes it even worse. "The guy I have an actual reason to hate got away, so I will murder two innocent kids and some of the people who are guarding them, who BTW are on my side in this war". He was utter scum and this act is indefensible. If he had went after Cat or Robb, it still would've been wrong, but I would've had some understanding and sympathy for him, but he was too much of a coward for that.

[Dolorous Gabe]

Again, this is in lack of consideration of why he did what he did. The circumstances surrounding his actions (i.e the lack of any justice he was recieving from people he sacrificed tons for) which make his actions not at all as unjustifiable as you are painting them out to be. Martin would agree with me, which is why is makes note of the fact that his execution was messy and unclean when such extraneous detail would only exist for symbolic reasons

Having reasons for doing something abominable does NOT make the action justifiable. The symbolism you are referring to doesn't just refer to the Karstark business but to the overall mess Robb had got himself into at that point.

[Minsc]

Sure if you stop at "Catelyn released a prisoner and Karstark killed children" then they seem vastly different morally. Upon consideration of the basic and logical ramifications of releasing such a high profile prisoner and what that could lead too, they are no longer that different at all

If anyone is ignoring the basic logic and ramifications, it is the people trying to pretend they are the same actions. For all the whining how Catelyn's actions lost Robb an important prisoner the same is true for Karstark's but times two with added murdered and ordered treason.

[mormont]

Sure if you stop at "Catelyn released a prisoner and Karstark killed children" then they seem vastly different morally.

Why would you go any further? What is it about murdering children in cold blood that requires deeper moral analysis?

And even if you do go further, guess what? Karstark still loses handily. You can argue, if you like, that in freeing Jaime, Cat prolonged the War of Five Kings and maybe triggered the Red Wedding. But both those points are, at the very least, debatable - there are very strong arguments as to why they are wrong.

On the other hand, by murdering hostages, Karstark very definitely very definitely enraged the Lannisters and thus can be said to have prolonged the war every bit as much as Cat did by freeing Jaime. More seriously, he endangered the safety of every Northern hostage - man, woman and child. He did what he did, knowing that the Lannisters might retaliate with the murder of other hostages.

So the consequences of Karstark's actions for innocents would have been much, much worse than Cat's. And let's look also at other factors: motivation, for example. Cat's motives were to rescue innocent girls from captivity - Karstark's were simply revenge. (Call it 'justice' if you want - but how is it 'justice' to execute a man for having slain someone in a fair fight on the battlefield?)

Or collateral damage: very few are harmed in the process of what Cat does. Karstark, in the act of his revenge murders, also murders loyal Tully guards who had done him no harm. (And incidentally, commits another act of treason by ordering his men to abandon their king.)

In every single aspect of what he did, in every respect bar none, what Karstark did was enormously worse than what Cat did. There's no credible argument that says they were the same.

[Daenerys Targaryen's slave]

Karstark's treason was motivated by his sons death, which he is responsible for in some way because he took them into battle.

Catelyn's treason was motivated by wanting to save sansa, which she is responsible for because her and Ned are largely responsible for the war (arresting tyrion, siding against joffrey for stannis, etc.)

Both Karstark and Catelyn are responsible for the lives of many who died. They were given power and they misused that power, making selfish choices that would had foreseeable consequences.

Did Karstark care about all the innocent people who would die by sending his men to search for Jaime? No. Did he care about the lives lost by abanding Robb? No.

Did Catelyn care about the innocent people who would die when she arrested Tyrion? No. She took him to a false trial. Tyrion was brother of the queen, son to one of the most powerful lords in all of the seven kingdoms. A halfwit could foresee the consequences of Cat arresting him and taking him to be tried by her own family. Did Cat care about all the people who would die? No.

Both of them were cruel, evil and irresponsible in their own way.

[mormont]

Karstark's treason was motivated by his sons death, which he is responsible for in some way because he took them into battle.

Arguably. He knew they were at risk. We don't know if he gave them a choice, but if he did, they'd likely have gone anyway. They were adults.

Catelyn's treason was motivated by wanting to save sansa, which she is responsible for because her and Ned are largely responsible for the war (arresting tyrion, siding against joffrey for stannis, etc.)

Not at all. Ned and Cat are not responsible for the war, at least not in any really significant way. Cersei is: Renly and Stannis and Robb and Tywin are: Littlefinger and Varys and Illyrio are. Ned did nothing that anyone knows about. Cat did nothing that, had she not done it, would have meant no war.

Both Karstark and Catelyn are responsible for the lives of many who died. They were given power and they misused that power, making selfish choices that would had foreseeable consequences.

Nonsense. Cat's choice was anything but selfish. She sacrificed her own freedom, knowingly, for someone else. If making a sacrifice for your children is now 'selfish', the word has lost any meaning.

Did Karstark care about all the innocent people who would die by sending his men to search for Jaime? No. Did he care about the lives lost by abanding Robb? No.

True.

Did Catelyn care about the innocent people who would die when she arrested Tyrion? No.

Did Cat foresee that anyone would die as a result? No. Did Cat do all she could to avoid anyone dying as a result? Yes. Did Cat do her best to avoid even being noticed by Tyrion? Yes. Did Cat believe she had any other choice when she arrested Tyrion? No.

She took him to a false trial.

Did she do this knowingly? No. Could she have foreseen it? No.

You appear bound and determined to criticise Cat for things she didn't do. A halfwit could have foreseen these things? Sorry, but that's total rubbish.

Both of them were cruel, evil and irresponsible in their own way.

Anyone who thinks Cat is cruel, evil or irresponsible needs to think again.

[Sanset]

If we can blame Catelyn for the war, we can go on and blame Jaime because he tried to kill Bran. We go even farther and blame Bran because he disobeyed his mother and climbed the walls.

[Taenqyrhae]

If we can blame Catelyn for the war, we can go on and blame Jaime because he tried to kill Bran, or go even farther an blame Bran because he disobeyed his mother and climbed the walls.

I blame Ned for not teaching Bran to listen to his mother.

Of course, that's probably his parent's fault for not being a good role model as a father. So back to a different Rickard.

[ser snark]

I'd have banished cat from the war effort at the very least and imprisoned her at the worst. He should have made Rickard take the black for killing the northern guards but any Northmen should be valued above any southron prisoner in the King of the norths eyes. If it weren't for the guards I'd have slap his wrist and call it a day

[mormont]

I'd have banished cat from the war effort at the very least and imprisoned her at the worst.

You mean, you'd do exactly what Robb actually did?

He should have made Rickard take the black for killing the northern guards

You can't 'make' anyone take the Black. You can only offer them the option.

Doing so in this case would have been a risk. First, Karstark might have rejected the offer, making Robb look weak. Second, if he'd accepted, the Lannisters would have concluded that Robb connived at or at least approved of the murders. That would lead to reprisals against Northern prisoners.

but any Northmen should be valued above any southron prisoner in the King of the norths eyes.

Does that mean that a murderer of children should be valued over the children he murdered? That would appear to be a total abandoning of moral judgement. And, as I say, would raise suspicion that Robb approved of the cold-blooded murder of prisoners - may even have ordered it. If that's the sort of king you'd follow, well, it's not the kind of king Robb was.