In Defense of Rickard Karstark

[RainGhost]

Torrhen and Eddard Karstark did not need justice because they were both killed honourably in battle with swords in hands, defending their liege lord. Karstark only wanted vengeance, which he got when he killed Stafford Lannister and raided the westerlands. I think losing his two sons actually tipped him over the edge into borderline madness.

After the Blackwater, they were losing the war. Robb would probably have killed Jaime if they won the war but if they were losing, Jaime was safe. There's a good chance that once they returned to Riverrun, Karstark would have killed Jaime had he still been a prisoner. That would have been even worse than Catelyn releasing him and would probably have meant Harrion's head stupidly.

I don't think sending Karstark to the Wall was possible in practice. Firstly, how would he get there? Secondly, he could just escape to Karhold out of Robb's reach. Robb showed with Catelyn that he could be merciful but there's a fine line between merciful and weak. People admire merciful kings but not weak kings. Had he let Karstark off, he would have shown that he was weak. All young leaders need to make an example to show that they're not to be messed with, like Tywin and Castamere, Jon and Slynt.

[Mladen]

Yet. Not ever. There could be a time that Jaime would die in the future.

No. Robb simply made it clear. Jaime wasn't going to die in imprisonment. His sisters were in danger and he is a valuable prisoner...

Both are treason and Cat's action caused Rickard's reaction. If he just wanted to kill them then he would had done them before her freeing Jaime. Both were traitors both and both had to be punished. By death? Not really. Send Rickard to the Wall and Cat at the Silent Sisters or at least to be a Septa, send both to house arrest. But they both had to be punished.

Again, Cat's actions didn't cause Rickard's. He killed Lannisters before Jaime was killed, he played Mountain card before Jaime was released. Furthermore, he had no hopes of Jaime being sentenced to death by Robb. Same would have happened if Robb decided to do the same Cat did. Karstark had to be punished because he KILLED UNARMED CHILDREN, for God's sake. He died because he was dishonorable coward who killed children. And equalization of this just shows what I have said 10 posts ago, your leniency towards child killings is astonishing and I simply have no word to describe how I feel about it... Especially regarding the fallacy of double standards enforced here.

TBH, I am done...

Mladen what is the point of debating this with Consort? It is obvious that you uncovered the truth of the matter a few pages back, in how her outrage is only based around her hatred of Catelyn and general approval of the murder of children (Elia and children's fate, Blood and Cheese, etc) thus the creation of a false equivalency.

I swear I had no idea... I thought... I don't know what I was even thinking...

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Again, Cat's actions didn't cause Rickard's.

Timeline disagrees.

[Fat Mac]

There's not much to defend about Rickard Karstark, imo. He murdered two children, who were not only children, but had value as hostages. And with Jaime gone, they were some of the only valuable hostages Robb's side had. We know the price Tywin pays for even Lannister children (Martyn, a child, was traded for one of the Glovers, who has actual value in Robb's cause).

All that aside, it was cold blooded vengeance what Rickard did. Those kids were not responsible for the deaths of Torrhen and Eddard, who didn't need to be avenged anyway since they died on the battlefield. Even if they were evil incarnate, they were murdered in cold blood, and that was a terrible act. Rickard deserved to have his head lopped off. No, he actually deserved a less dignified death than that. I don't defend Robb much, but I defend his execution of Rickard.

[Tywin Manderly]

No, he actually deserved a less dignified death than that.

Rickard Karstark should indeed have died on the rack, breaking wheel, or torture table. :agree:

[fellow reader]

Rickard Karstark went mad. Although I do not defend what he did(he committed treason and murders), I can understand why he was so angry. There was more than just the fact that jaime had killed two of his sons.

Let us look at the war from his perspective.

-Robb called his banners to free Ned. Rickard came with his sons and his army, and we have not read the he held back a big part of his troops like some others.

-Two of his sons died defending the son of his liege lord and Jaime got captured. Rickards last son got captured and it is not sure if he will survive.

-Rickard was angry at Jaime for killing his sons, but he did not act upon it. Rickard continued to loyally fight for Robb. He trusted his liege lord and hoped that Jaime would get his due because he also threw Bran out of the window and was supposedly involved in sending the assassin.

-After Neds death, Robb became his liege lord and Rickard was among those who proclaimed him king, thereby making new enemies of Stannis and Renly.

-Rickard accompanied Robb on his campaign in the Westerlands.

Then his king and later his mother started to sabotage their own cause.

-Robb married Jeyne Westerling, the daughter of a lord who fought for Tywin, that cost him the support of thousands of Frey soldiers and made it harder for his remaining troops to fight the war.

-Everything they had conquered in the Westerlands was just left behind and Robb decided to leave a big part his new kingdom in the Riverlands unprotected while marching back north.

-Catelyn let Jaime, the most important bargaining chip against Tywin, go, which was treason and what she got for this was simple house arrest. Catelyn had the desperate hope to get her daughters back, but the chance for that was practically non-existent. There was no official agreement to a hostage exchange, Catelyns only guaranty was an oath of the person who is famous for being an oathbreaker, sworn at swordpoint and thereby officially worthless, and the fact that his brother had included a hostage exchange in a former negotiation attempt which had been refused. The Lannisters could simply say since it was no official hostage exchange, it was more like an escape and there is no obligation to fulfill their part. Or do you think if Tywin said no, Jaime would have managed to send the girls back if they had been there? Catelyn herself suspected that Arya was likely dead and she was convinced that they would not let Sansa go after the marriage to Tyrion. And she only sent another freed prisoner and one guard with him through a war zone. So Catelyn basically hoped for a miracle against all odds.

I think Rickard Karstark felt betrayed by his king. He had fought loyally for him, two of his sons died for him, the last got captured and could also end up dead, and then his king and his mother threw the achieved victories away for sex and an unrealistic plan. His two sons died during the battle in which Jaime got captured, and then Catelyn let him just walk away to rejoin their enemies in order fight again against them, and what she hoped to achieve with that was basically wishful thinking. They more or less spat on the sacrifices of his sons, because that way they died for nothing. He likely said to himself: "What am I fighting for? What did my sons die for or get captured for? It was all for nothing."

I think Rickard Karstark had the right to be angry at Robb and Catelyn, but it was not okay what he then decided to do. From his perspective, his king and his mother carelessly threw away what was achieved through the sacrifices of his sons (and others).

[Modelex]

The idea that Catelyn's actions did not motivate Rickard's is quite baffling to say the least. It is pretty much arguing against the text

His words rang against Catelyn’s ears, harsh and cruel as the pounding of a war drum. Her throat was dry as bone. I did this. These two boys died so my daughters might live.

Lord Karstark looked instead at Catelyn. “Tell your mother to look at them,” he said. “She slew them, as much as I.”

I don't think it can be any clearer. This arguement is weaker than the idea that Cat did not commit treason

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Child murderer is not what Catelyn did. I am sorry, but I am appalled by the fact that anyone can actually equalize what Cat did and what Rickard did. I suppose you also believe that Ned got what he deserved for not bringing Jon so Robert could have killed him. 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.

This. The fact that this thread brought on the usual pro-child murder posters, and I'm not even surprised. First, Aegon and Rhaenys, now the two Lannister children. But touch on Jon's locks and you should die a painful death. Lack of Logic, as always.

Moreover, to anyone still on denial, the Red Wedding would have happened with Jaime as a prisoner in Riverrun. That was Tywin's original plan, to exchange Edmure and Cat for Jaime. It's in the text.

[Modelex]

Torrhen and Eddard Karstark did not need justice because they were both killed honourably in battle with swords in hands, defending their liege lord. Karstark only wanted vengeance, which he got when he killed Stafford Lannister and raided the westerlands. I think losing his two sons actually tipped him over the edge into borderline madness.

After the Blackwater, they were losing the war. Robb would probably have killed Jaime if they won the war but if they were losing, Jaime was safe. There's a good chance that once they returned to Riverrun, Karstark would have killed Jaime had he still been a prisoner. That would have been even worse than Catelyn releasing him and would probably have meant Harrion's head stupidly.

I don't think sending Karstark to the Wall was possible in practice. Firstly, how would he get there? Secondly, he could just escape to Karhold out of Robb's reach. Robb showed with Catelyn that he could be merciful but there's a fine line between merciful and weak. People admire merciful kings but not weak kings. Had he let Karstark off, he would have shown that he was weak. All young leaders need to make an example to show that they're not to be messed with, like Tywin and Castamere, Jon and Slynt.

Well then Eddard did not need justice because he was executed as a traitor legally. There was no "dishonor" in his death

.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The idea that Catelyn's actions did not motivate Rickard's is quite baffling to say the least. It is pretty much arguing against the text

I don't think it can be any clearer. This arguement is weaker than the idea that Cat did not commit treason

Well then Eddard did not need justice because he was executed as a traitor legally. There was no "dishonor" in his death

:bowdown: :owned: :bowdown:

It doesn't matter if StCat has already herself said that she commited treason or that she cause the Lannisters' deaths, her stans know better than her PoV.

[Minsc]

I don't think it can be any clearer. This arguement is weaker than the idea that Cat did not commit treason

Seeing how the law (the king's word) didn't declare her actions treason, that must mean she didn't.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Figuratively speaking yes she did.

If we are following this logic, then Jon left the Night's Watch men no choice when he decided to face Ramsay and break the neutrality of the Watch, right? Right?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

If we are following this logic, then Jon left the Night's Watch men no choice when he decided to face Ramsay and break the neutrality of the Watch, right? Right?

If Jon had physically left the Wall and had actually moved against Ramsey and not with words then you might had been correct.

[Minsc]

If we are following this logic, then Jon left the Night's Watch men no choice when he decided to face Ramsay and break the neutrality of the Watch, right? Right?

Jon is a special snowflake, thus why it is okay for him to repeatedly break and treat his NW oaths without any concern, while not deserving punishment. But, if Slynt decides to question/disobey a LC who was only elected by underhanded that means he is deserving of death. Despite, how Jon has no problem forgiving Mance, who he is friendly with, for leading an army against the Watch.

[Modelex]

Seeing how the law (the king's word) didn't declare her actions treason, that must mean she didn't.

You are confusing the forgiveness of treason with not committing it at all. The former is what happened to Catelyn, as Catelyn herself knows she is a traitor. It's cut and dry to anyone objective, but Robb wants his mom to forgive him so he lets it go

[Minsc]

You are confusing the forgiveness of treason with not committing it at all. The former is what happened to Catelyn, as Catelyn herself knows she is a traitor. It's cut and dry to anyone objective, but Robb wants his mom to forgive him so he lets it go

Catelyn's opinion doesn't matter, instead the law does. And Robb's word is law and he doesn't treat it as treason, therefore it isn't treason.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Mladen what is the point of debating this with Consort? It is obvious that you uncovered the truth of the matter a few pages back, in how her outrage is only based around her hatred of Catelyn and general approval of the murder of children (Elia and children's fate, Blood and Cheese, etc) thus the creation of a false equivalency.

I've been through the issue of Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon so many times, It's not worth it, at this point. But the false equivalency is rather annoying, as the lack of logic and reason regarding Catelyn and most issues, so I feel compelled to answer.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

This thread is like train without wheels: very soon got nowhere.

[Modelex]

Catelyn's opinion doesn't matter, instead the law does. And Robb's word is law and he doesn't treat it as treason, therefore it isn't treason.

Robb is the judge and interprets it to how what he sees fit. That doesn't mean that he can rewrite reality as you are claiming, because the release of a high ranking hostage against your King's directive is objectively treasonous

If Catelyn killed those boys instead of Rickard that wouldn't make it murder if Robb forgave her, right?

[Minsc]

Robb is the judge and interprets it to how what he sees fit. That doesn't mean that he can rewrite reality as you are claiming, because the release of a high ranking hostage against your King's directive is objectively treasonous

Treason is a specific crime, which is determined by Robb's word thus him not treating it as treason means it isn't treason.