Eddard Stark should not have executed Gared

[Dolorous22]

No. At least I am not saying that. He is wrong for not properly interrogating him. Also, it is not "a load of shit". It is fact. The execution itself was within the law and justified. The lack of proper interrogation was reckless and stupid.

Sláinte

He didn't need interrogating. Ned heard his final words and that was enough. The word of a traitor carries no weight in Westeros so once he decided to abandon his brothers his head was as good as severed and his word couldn't be trusted.

Harsh, but that's Westeros, folks!

[JonisHenryTudor]

Harsh perhaps, but wrong no.

Whether fictionally or historically, the lack of law and order opens the door for significant unrest. If Ned let him live, then other NW men would have seen it as an opening to flee as well. We have to remember that the majority of these men are thieves, murders, and the lowest of society whom were all likely forced to join the wall, especially the new crop. Their integrity was in question long before they joined the wall. If people think they will get away with something, they will do it.

You just have to look to the Baltimore riots for an example. How many of the looters would have never thought to do that in their lives, but the riots, and confusion associated with it, opened the door for people to do things they may not have before.

It is easy to criticize the law/people, but you need to think about the consequences if the opposite were to occur.

80 men guarding CB is better than none. Let's argue from an extreme pov and say the entire force disbands because everyone flees. The entire plot of the north would go unnoticed, and then suddenly wights and WW's show up to Winterfell? If one man is allowed to flee, then that opens the door for argument that anyone should be able to flee.

Even if it seems harsh, what Ned did was for the bigger picture. Not executing him would have been shortsighted.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

No. At least I am not saying that. He is wrong for not properly interrogating him. Also, it is not "a load of shit". It is fact. The execution itself was within the law and justified. The lack of proper interrogation was reckless and stupid.

Dunno about "proper", but Gared was interrogated. Apparently, he wasn't enough of a mystery to warrant anything else than simply following the book. OK, so mayhaps Sherlock Holmes would have never let it go without getting to the bottom of the story. Most people, however, are not Sherlock Holmes. "Reckless and stupid" is rather uncalled for.

[Bawn]

He didn't need interrogating. Ned heard his final words and that was enough. The word of a traitor carries no weight in Westeros so once he decided to abandon his brothers his head was as good as severed and his word couldn't be trusted.

Harsh, but that's Westeros, folks!

Of course he needed interrogating. He was a witness to the first White Walker attack in a long, long time.

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

Lord Stark is exercising justice as Warden of the North. Historically speaking, Wardens were men given legal jurisdiction over a region to exact the King's justice and law of the land, as well as assemble armies in times or war and maintain the peace. Anywhere else Gared would have been summarily executed in the name of the Lord/Regent/Warden of the region. In the north, the Stark lords see it as their duty to met out the prescribed punishment themselves.

For all this talk about the "valuable information" Gared had, it seems that he made no effort to get back to castle black and inform his brothers of the goings on. If he had, its possible that Benjen would have never left on that doomed scouting expedition to find Ser Waymar. Gared bares full responsibility for quietly deserting instead of trying to inform anyone.

As Ned tells Bran, a deserter from the night's watch has nothing to lose and thus is capable of anything. What reason does Ned have to believe the ramblings of a deserter?

Waymar Royce, for all his blundering, at least had the courage to face and fight the Others. Will, despite being terrified, made an effort to retrieve evidence and return to the wall. They were the brave ones. Gared got exactly what he deserved. Sure it would have been nice if his info could have been legitimately passed on to Ned, but we have no one to blame for that failure except Gared. Good riddance I say.

[Dolorous22]

Of course he needed interrogating. He was a witness to the first White Walker attack in a long, long time.

So there you are, sat in WF having a bit of a chat with JS about the pointy end of things when in walks NS with some scruffy NW deserter babbling about monsters no-one believes in. Everyone you know has told you that the stories are 'just stories' and not to believe them. The general consensus is that FF and NW alike try to flee into Westeros and the WotN and his peers aren't cool with that. How many creeps do you think have been caught south of the Wall and put to the sword prior to Gared?

a: He's a convict

b: He's abandoned his post.

c: What important information did he not have sufficient time to reveal????

Runnaway, check. Monsters killed my friends, check. Decapitation in 3...2...1

In hindsight, fair enough. Maybe Gared could of...I dunno...no I really don't know he was well past his usefulness and evidently broken but probably didn't deserve death. As i said, it's a Westeros thing.

Harsh perhaps, but wrong no.

Whether fictionally or historically, the lack of law and order opens the door for significant unrest. If Ned let him live, then other NW men would have seen it as an opening to flee as well. We have to remember that the majority of these men are thieves, murders, and the lowest of society whom were all likely forced to join the wall, especially the new crop. Their integrity was in question long before they joined the wall. If people think they will get away with something, they will do it.

You just have to look to the Baltimore riots for an example. How many of the looters would have never thought to do that in their lives, but the riots, and confusion associated with it, opened the door for people to do things they may not have before.

It is easy to criticize the law/people, but you need to think about the consequences if the opposite were to occur.

80 men guarding CB is better than none. Let's argue from an extreme pov and say the entire force disbands because everyone flees. The entire plot of the north would go unnoticed, and then suddenly wights and WW's show up to Winterfell? If one man is allowed to flee, then that opens the door for argument that anyone should be able to flee.

Even if it seems harsh, what Ned did was for the bigger picture. Not executing him would have been shortsighted.

And this right here, is game-set-match for me.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Waymar Royce, for all his blundering, at least had the courage to face and fight the Others. Will, despite being terrified, made an effort to retrieve evidence and return to the wall. They were the brave ones. Gared got exactly what he deserved. Sure it would have been nice if his info could have been legitimately passed on to Ned, but we have no one to blame for that failure except Gared. Good riddance I say.

Nevermind that Waymar didn't blunder. He made exactly the right choices. And if Gared hadn't deserted, the patrol would have been an astonishing success.

[Humble Maester]

Of course he needed interrogating. He was a witness to the first White Walker attack in a long, long time.

That's just silly. If someone ran up to you on the street and start babbling about demons and dragons and pixies would you take him to your house for a cup of tea to find out the truth behind these claims? Or would you just dismiss him as a whacko and leave him babbling/alert the authorities. Cause that's pretty much the same thing as if someone in Westeros appears totally crazy talking about White Walkers and stuff. Those things are about as mythical to Westerosi as demons and angels are to most of us.

Your argument only makes sense if we assumed that Ned actually knew about the White Walkers returning. But as he doesn't Gared just seems to be a nutcase fugitive.

[Melisandre's White Pubes]

Whether Ned had the legal right to do that has no bearing on whether it was a good or evil act, or if one DOES think the legality of the action determines whether it was good or evil, there's a lot of stuff going in the books that seems evil but is totally legal.

It's completely legal to kill a child for striking the heir to the throne. I don't think that makes it right. The Good Masters were entirely within their legal rights when they crucified their property to deliver a message. For a real world example, the Indian Removal Act was legal - it was an act of congress which received a majority vote and was signed by the President, you can't get much more legal than that. And up until the 1860s, it was completely legal to capture a runaway slave and return it to it's master - in fact, it was illegal NOT to.

So legal rights should be left out of whether it was right or wrong.

[Mikkel]

Nevermind that Waymar didn't blunder. He made exactly the right choices. And if Gared hadn't deserted, the patrol would have been an astonishing success.

So much this. Waymar did pretty much everything right, well except he died but he can hardly be blamed for that. The failure to pass on the vital information about the Others' return is almost solely on Gared, not on Ned and certainly not on Waymar.

[Bloodmane]

1. Ned had the right and obligation to deal justice in the name of the King.

2. Gared was a deserter of the NW, by Westerosi law the penalty for it was death. Those who take the black are sent to the Wall, not those who forsake it.

3. The fact that Gared has encountered an Other does not justify his flight. The reason behind the NW is to fight the Others. Is just like a soldier would excuse himself for desertion by arguing that he was expecting to fight peasants with pitch-forks, not men at arms.

4. Gared was interrogated ... sort of. Gared said his story and Ned either believed it, or didn't bother to prove it a lie. Probably he had no skilled interrogators at all (unlike Sir Gregor or the Boltons...).

[Bawn]

That's just silly. If someone ran up to you on the street and start babbling about demons and dragons and pixies would you take him to your house for a cup of tea to find out the truth behind these claims? Or would you just dismiss him as a whacko and leave him babbling/alert the authorities. Cause that's pretty much the same thing as if someone in Westeros appears totally crazy talking about White Walkers and stuff. Those things are about as mythical to Westerosi as demons and angels are to most of us.

Your argument only makes sense if we assumed that Ned actually knew about the White Walkers returning. But as he doesn't Gared just seems to be a nutcase fugitive.

He did not mention Demons or Pixies.

You are not talking about our world, you are talking about Westeros. A world that has Dragons. He also did not mention Dragons. He mentioned White Walkers. And yes, I would have the truth of the matter before I swung the sword.

My argument only makes sense if White Walkers existed in the past, which they did. They still do. My argument is that Eddard made a mistake which is common in Westeros.

[Mikkel]

Ned heard his words, and deemed them either madness or an attempt to excuse desertion - then he mentioned it to Benjen at the first opportunity, just in case there was something there after all. I can't see how anyone can find fault with that.

It's a fact that even if Ned had believed Gared completely, and even if Gared's words were entirely true (they probably were) Ned would still have to execute Gared, as he had deserted his duty.

If Gared had brought word to LC Mormont, as he should have, nothing bad would have befallen him. As it is, he chose (for whatever reason, or lack thereof) to flee south, and so his life was forfeit. It also damaged his story, as it sounded like the words of a madman or a desperate deserter rather than the incredible truth that it was.

[Mikkel]

He did not mention Demons or Pixies.

You are not talking about our world, you are talking about Westeros. A world that has Dragons. He also did not mention Dragons. He mentioned White Walkers. And yes, I would have the truth of the matter before I swung the sword.

My argument only makes sense if White Walkers existed in the past, which they did. They still do. My argument is that Eddard made a mistake which is common in Westeros.

You're failing to understand the context in which the White Walkers are supposed to exist. In Westeros (prior to AGoT), they're fairytale monsters from old wives' tales, not something that anyone takes seriously, no more than modern politicians take stories of demons or trolls seriously in their policy making. You seem unable to differentiate between the information you as the reader is given, and the information the people in the story can be reasonably expected to have. Also see above for why it doesn't really matter if Ned believed Gared or not, as the end result would be exactly the same, and the fault for why nothing was done sooner was Gared's and not Ned's.

[Bawn]

1. Ned had the right and obligation to deal justice in the name of the King.

2. Gared was a deserter of the NW, by Westerosi law the penalty for it was death. Those who take the black are sent to the Wall, not those who forsake it.

3. The fact that Gared has encountered an Other does not justify his flight. The reason behind the NW is to fight the Others. Is just like a soldier would excuse himself for desertion by arguing that he was expecting to fight peasants with pitch-forks, not men at arms.

4. Gared was interrogated ... sort of. Gared said his story and Ned either believed it, or didn't bother to prove it a lie. Probably he had no skilled interrogators at all (unlike Sir Gregor or the Boltons...).

1. Agreed

2. Agreed

3. Agreed

4. Disagree.

Gared said his story? He did not even come close to his whole story. In fact, he barely began his story.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

4. Disagree.

Gared said his story? He did not even come close to his whole story. In fact, he barely began his story.

Why do you assume that? Bran gives zero details, only that it's a lengthy exchange. Don't be confused by the show.

[dinner]

It doesn't seem unlikely that a policy of 'if you catch our deserters, go ahead and kill them' would have been common. Why waste resources sending a single prisoner back to the walk from as far off as Dorne when you can just give them a very close shave? For that mattet, why dont NW deserters just steal some new threads off a farmers clothesline and then just avoid the hell out of wherever they were drafted from?

That would be the obvious choice which for some reason never happens in the books. Get different clothes then pretend to be a sell sword. Who would know the difference once you are in the south?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That would be the obvious choice which for some reason never happens in the books. Get different clothes then pretend to be a sell sword. Who would know the difference once you are in the south?

Nobody.

But how to get different clothes? Without murdering the owner and leaving a trail of corpes to be picked up.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Whether Ned had the legal right to do that has no bearing on whether it was a good or evil act, or if one DOES think the legality of the action determines whether it was good or evil, there's a lot of stuff going in the books that seems evil but is totally legal.

It's completely legal to kill a child for striking the heir to the throne. I don't think that makes it right. The Good Masters were entirely within their legal rights when they crucified their property to deliver a message. For a real world example, the Indian Removal Act was legal - it was an act of congress which received a majority vote and was signed by the President, you can't get much more legal than that. And up until the 1860s, it was completely legal to capture a runaway slave and return it to it's master - in fact, it was illegal NOT to.

So legal rights should be left out of whether it was right or wrong.

Why is this an issue of good or evil? This is an issue of law, not morality. Gared knew the law, just as Jon had when Sam stopped him.

In your example, the North American Indians didn't have a say in the ACT. Whereas in the NW, all men have a choice to say the vows. There is a slight difference.

The examples you have given are based on laws imposed on people who had no choice. In Westeros, everyone accepts and stands behind the laws of the NW and desertion. From Winterfell to the Wall, everyone involved knew the consequences of desertion and everyone accepted the statute.

[JonisHenryTudor]

BAWN - perhaps, but law is law. Gared knew that and instead of warning his brothers at CB he fled south. It was only when he was caught that he began mumbling about WW"s.

For all we know, he planned to run as far as Dorne and live there without telling a soul. Not only did he desert, there was a possibility that he left CB open to a surprise assault. As I stated above, there are larger consequences here that need to be considered. It isn't a simple case of desertion.