In Defense of Rickard Karstark

[Tywin Manderly]

Karstark murdered prisoners, and Ser Edmure Tully's men. He sent his men to ravage the Riverlands. He was therefore guilty of murder and mutiny, in addition to treason. Execution was the appropriate punishment for his behaviour. He was lucky to be beheaded, rather than hanged.

Or be put on the rack or breaking wheel.

Catelyn's POV makes clear that she knew she could be hanged for what she had done, because of anger amongst Robb's Bannermen. She certainly did commit treason, albeit with strong mitigating factors in her favour. Most of the Bannermen seemed to think it understandable that a grieving mother would act as she did.

Indeed.

[Tijgy]

Sorry I’m saying this, but I’m really astonished you are comparing Catelyn’s “freeing” Jaime to Karstark’s murder of Tion and Willem Lannister.

Catelyn freed Jaime in order to exchange him for her two daughters, while Karstak killed the two boys, because he felt he was robbed of his revenge. Originally, he wanted to kill Jaime. So first of all, Catelyn’s behaviour could have possibly a usefull result for the North, while Karstark had only fed his own revenge.

Second of all, the nature of their acts are also completely different. Yes, maybe Catelyn and Karstark both committed treason. But while Catelyn only freed a man, Karstark murdered two children. Karstark did not only commit treason, but also murder. And that is the reason why it is possible to justify an different punishment, both legally as (in my eyes) morally.

It is indeed true that both armies of the North and the Lannistere included children, who died during in the war. While now war children are (luckily) no longer socially accepted, I must remind you it isn’t same in the fantasy world of Westeros: it isn’t abnormal that children fight during wars.

There is a (legal) difference between killing a man on the battlefield and murder. Even in our world, people condemm (not or less) a soldier than a murderer. So saying Robb hasn’t the right to condemm Karstark, because he himself led children to war, isn’t actually correct.

If Robb would have pardoned Karstark for these murders, he himself would have been known as a child murderer. Like Eddard Stark, who thought the murders of Elia’s children dishonered Robert’s cause, Robb also thought the murders by the Karstarks hurted his honour. The refusal of Robert to punish the murderers had as result that some people thought of Robert as a child murderer.

I also don’t believe that keeping Karstark hostage of sending him to the wall were very good options. Robb could keep him hostage and then what? Hope Harrion would stay loyal? What did Robb himself, when his father was imprisoned and his sister(s, according his belief) were kept hostage? He went to war.

And does sending Karstark to the Wall really have the certainty he will keep the vows of the Night Watch. You mustn’t forget Karstark has already shown to be an oathbreaker. What will hold him back to leave the Wall and to rally the rest of his army in the North and start there a war against the Starks?

To conclude, I don’t believe Robb a wrong decision by excecuting Rickard Karstark.

I will however admit that I don’t believe Robb was totally objective, while he made that decision.

It is in my eyes completely normal to treat your mother differently from other people. That is also the reason why in modern society a judge can’t conclude a dispute between one of his family and someone else.

Also everybody forgets Robb’s real emotions about killing/murdering two young male hostage. Not so long before Karstark killed Tion and Willem, two other boys were killed while they were kept hostage: his brothers Bran and Rickon.

And during all that time, Robb wasn’t able to have justice or revenge about their murders. And under his watch, Tion and Willem, those two children, were killed again.

So I think the rage, grief and pain he felt about his brothers’ death influenced a lot his decision to execute Rickard.

And while these two factors made sure his decisions weren’t completely objective, I think they made however these decisons very human.

[Coaxmetal]

First of all RW would happen regardless of Jaime's release. Post RW the blackfish would get the choice between returning RR to the Tullys if Jaime was handed over alive (or other very favorable terms), or putting the entire castle to the sword if he was killed. Most people are pragmatic faced with such a choice, and although there is a risk for BF choosing the latter outcome Tywin would roll the dice regardless. So Cat releasing Jaime was not really what doomed the Starks. Not punishing her was a mistake though, but taking her head off would most likely not be the right choice. I mean cleaving your mom's head off yourself is not honorable no matter how you put it.

Second Karstark's men were allready gone when Lord Karstark was apprehended. If he only sneaked out the back with them without killing the prisoners he would gain a death sentence. Add killing the hostages under Robb's protection, killing RR guards, plus spitting in his face at the presence of the entire court. Each of these offences would be punished by death, maybe with the exception of the defiance in open court, depending on the King's mood. Hence the beheading was just as could be. He could of course have sent him to the wall, but anything else would be silly.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Oh, sorry, I forgot, you love Jon and that changes everything.

Basically, for you, all the children are expendable as long as they are not Jon Snow. I, however, have rather different view on that.

You are so much better than this, there are others than you expect nothing more than that. But you? You are much much better.

And yes it is the same; a mother who grieves frees the North's most valuable prisoner and commits high treasonl causing a grieving father to kill two hostages. It was her actions that caused his actions. Why it is ok for a grieving mother to commit high treason and isn't ok for a grieving father to react at what she did? After all doesn't people blame Lysa for her actions which caused the Starks actions? If it is Lysa's fault is also Cat's fault.

If it was "idiocy", if it was a mistake, then surely there are people in-universe considering it so. But I cannot recall any, save for Rickard Karstark himself, and the old man was somewhat grumpy on the account of his pending execution. Does anybody in-universe begrudge Robb the leniency he showed his mother? Does anybody consider it wrong?

Mother's madness, doesn't sound very flattering does it? Or Cat's own acknowledgement that what she did was treason.

[Bryanfury]

Why it is ok for a grieving mother to commit high treason and isn't ok for a grieving father to react at what she did?

Because making an oath with a prisoner for the return of other prisoners is never going to be the same as the murder of what, four individuals at least, two or more of which were allies. Try as hard as you want to, but the two actions are NOT the same and they are ALWAYS going to be judged separately, and differently. Cat did not murder two highborn hostages aged 14 and 12, nor did she murder guards to get to them. Rickard Karstark did not release a prisoner with the intention of exchanging that prisoner for two others. Stop trying to put these two and their actions on the same playing field. They committed different crimes, and were judged differently. Deal with it.

[Lord Damian]

Treason is whatever the King or persons in power say it is. Rhenanya was the lawful queen, Aegon her brother was the true userper. Their father lawfully made her his heir, whether her children were by her husband or not (unlike Cersei who had no royal blood had bastards who were also non-royal blood) Rheanya was the true heir. As far as Rickard Karstark, he and his men murdered allied guards just to get to the two prisoners whom he then murdered. Robb, by law, should have executed his own mother or ordered her to be but he gave clemency as she was his mother, he should have done the same to Rickard Karstark as to attempt some form of justice. he should have ordered Rickard to compensate for the two guards who were killed and made him re-sware his oath to Robb, while on his knees in front of the whole Karstark host and lords etc.. Then got back to business.

[MyLittleFinger]

Force Karstark to take the Black, send Cat to the order of septa's. Done...still prob die

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Because making an oath with a prisoner for the return of other prisoners

You mean an oath at swordpoint between two people, one hostage and one captor who have no power of each other's army? After all "Vows made at sword point are not valid".

It were Cat's actions which cause Rickard's actions, if she had not committed treason, by her acknowledgement, he wouldn't had killed those hostages. The end.

[Bryanfury]

It were Cat's actions which cause Rickard's actions, if she had not committed treason, by her acknowledgement, he wouldn't had killed those hostages. The end.

And if Rickards father hadn't finished inside his mother instead of on her belly, he would never have grown into the piece of trash he is. Nah, blaming your own idiotic actions on someone else's don't fly bud, or else it'd be Jaime's fault for killing the Karstark boys in the first place. No wait, it'd be Tywin for starting the war. No, Cat for Tyrions kidnapping. No, it'd be Littlefinger. No, Joff. No, Jaime. No, Robert. No, Rhaegar. No, Aerys. No, Egg. No, Maekor. No, Baelor. No, Ser Pennytree. No, Daemon Blackfyre, or Aegon the Conqueror, the list of "he only did it because of X doing Y" goes on forever. It's stupid, and so is the logic founded upon it.

You're responsible for your actions, and you answer to your superior. Both owned up to what they did, both faced their superior, one died like the dog he is and one was lucky enough to be forced under house arrest for the rest of her short life. Whatever your point is, your attacking Cat isn't helping it. It's making you look very very silly.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

. Nah, blaming your own idiotic actions on someone else's don't fly bud,\

So it was Cat's and the Starks' in general fault the fact that they trusted Lysa's letter.

It's making you look very very silly.

Because using derogatory terms is much smarter. Yes, thank you for that. I prefer what I said, there is nothing more from this "conversation".

[Dolorous Gabe]

It surprises me how many people are lumping Cat's crime and Rickard's crime into the same bracket. Nobody is going to argue that what Cat did was sensible or lawful, but releasing a prisoner and killing two young boys in custody are two wholly different crimes. The sheer fact that they were both done against orders of their king does not mean they are punishable by the same sentence. Karstark had every right to be upset about his sons but Jaime killed them at war on the battlefield, whereas Rickard brutally murdered two innocent youngsters in captivity.

I do agree that Robb could've handled it better. Karstark should have been sent to the Wall and Cat banished from Robb's side.

[cxvb]

And the point of the justice is too be blind to such things when administering it

Basically the immoral behaviour of excusing Catelyn and then invoking the moral highground to justify Karstark's death is faulty logic. Karstark did not deserve to die by the metric applied to Catelyn that's all I'm saying

That's why he pardoned Catelyn. _By definition_ a pardon is not a pure and rational application of the law. It's outside the law. Everybody in this world and on Westeros gets that, why don't you?

[Mithras]

Rickard's action cannot be defended and it is nowhere comparable to Cat's freeing Jaime.

Besides, the quote in the OP is very unfortunate and is not related to Rickard in anyway. Daemon II didnot pay his treason with his life for all we know because BR was intending to keep him alive to prevent other Blackfyre pretenders and show that Aerys is a merciful king. BR also spared Lord Frey in Whitewalls.

[Lharys]

I'm not a fan of black and white morality. I understand fully what Rickard Karstark did. I think it stemmed from, along with revenge, his discontent with Robb as a leader (i.e. breaking the Frey vow). IMO, he thought Robb was foolish and weak and figured he could take advantage of him. Robb pretty much had to behead him or else he would be just that.

Had Robb not married Jeyne Westerling, would Karstark have still killed the Lannister hostages? And if he did, would Robb still behead him? Karstark was foolish too in taking his vengeance out on innocents.

Revenge accomplishes nothing. It's a selfish act and is even more foolish during a time of war.

[SeanF]

The Doctor's Consort - Catelyn did not cause Karstark to act as he did. It was his decision, and his responsibility.

Unlike Catelyn, he was a murderer and mutineer. He got punished lightly for what he did.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The Doctor's Consort - Catelyn did not cause Karstark to act as he did. It was his decision, and his responsibility.

Unlike Catelyn, he was a murderer and mutineer. He got punished lightly for what he did.

She commited high treaso. Unlike Rickard who didn't provoked her actions, she was the one who caused Rickard actions. If she hadn't commited treason then Rickard wouldn't had killed those hostages so their blood is on her hands.

[SeanF]

Did she put a knife to Rickard's throat, and leave him no choice but to murder allies and prisoners?

[MyLittleFinger]

Did she put a knife to Rickard's throat, and leave him no choice but to murder allies and prisoners?

Did she put a knife in the entire North's campaign and leave them no choice but to accept she let the deadliest man in Westeros free and pulled away 99% of the leverage they had on Tywin?

[SeanF]

My Littlefinger, even if I accepted the truth of your assertion ( I don't) it does not provide the slightest shred of justification for Karstark's behaviour.

Suppose he was so furious at Catelyn's behaviour that he killed her. That would be at least understandable. Taking out his fury on several people who were completely innocent was the act of a fool and a villain.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Did she put a knife to Rickard's throat, and leave him no choice but to murder allies and prisoners?

Figuratively speaking yes she did.

Did she put a knife in the entire North's campaign and leave them no choice but to accept she let the deadliest man in Westeros free and pulled away 99% of the leverage they had on Tywin?

I hardly think that Tywin would had stoped the RW if Jaime was a prisoner. However what she did is one of the top 3 worst thinks that she has done. What is smarter than setting your King's not your own, most valuable prisoner free?