Eddard Stark should not have executed Gared

[Connartist92]

The argument is "Should Eddard Stark have executed Gared", not "Was it legal to execute him?".

The OP says that Eddard didn't have the right, implying it was illegal is his opinion. Obviously in the thread people are going to debate that....

[JonisHenryTudor]

He thinks of Jon Arryn as a model far more than anyone else. Whenever he thinks of what JA did or would do, he thinks of it as interchangeable with the right thing to do. When he thinks of Northern models, it's almost always in relation to wolf's blood/rashness.

-------------

This thread in general: people use phrases like 'deserves death' or 'got what was coming' with frightening frequency. I never understand how casually people consign characters to a deserved death, and/or a birthright to dealing out death.

I hope it's not reflective of their contemporary views, but then with regards to rape or slavery or marital/parental abuse modern morals seem to be the applicable standard. It's confusing.

Doubtful. We are discussing in context of westeros. Not 21st century Earth.

Even then, this is a fantasy series which obviously includes blood, guts, gore, death, etc. Should we infer that people are driven by blood lust? Doubtful.

In my experience, however, people tend to wear a special pair of glasses for their world and another for a distant world. Take history for example. Most historians would crush their students/colleagues for making a claim without documented evidence to support it. Yet how many of those same people are willing to make critiques about the present government, etc without a single shred of evidence? I see it all the time in my department. One scholar reads a piece of work and shreds it because the author failed to use one archive, one set of manuscripts, and so on. BUT ask them about some contemporary issue, and suddenly the reliance on evidence goes out the window and is less important.

[JonisHenryTudor]

The argument is "Should Eddard Stark have executed Gared", not "Was it legal to execute him?".

Should Sandor have killed Mycah? Of course!

Should Cersei have been forced to walk naked through town? Of course!

Should the Spanish Inquisition have tortured people for being Jews? Of course!

That was all perfectly legal. There's really no debate about "Was it legal for Ned Stark to kill Gared?" Of course it was legal. But was it right?

I'm not taking a position on it. Though I don't approve of summary execution of criminals without a fair trial, Ned Stark grew up in a brutal world where that is the norm. There are arguments that what he does was both legal and morally correct, and arguments that what he did was both legal and morally wrong. That's a good discussion.

Yes but in this world based on honor, morality/legality are intertwined. It is based on honor.

I see the world for what it is, not their world through our lenses. From a 21st century view, Ned was wrong. But Westeros is not situated in the 21st century so I have no problem with making the argument that Ned was right, both morally and legally. That doesn't mean you have to agree with that, but once you start interjecting your world view on another century, you begin to imply that "they should have known better" and that is a terrible way to understand people. I am not suggesting you do this, just speaking in general here.

[James Arryn]

Doubtful. We are discussing in context of westeros. Not 21st century Earth.

Even then, this is a fantasy series which obviously includes blood, guts, gore, death, etc. Should we infer that people are driven by blood lust? Doubtful.

In my experience, however, people tend to wear a special pair of glasses for their world and another for a distant world. Take history for example. Most historians would crush their students/colleagues for making a claim without documented evidence to support it. Yet how many of those same people are willing to make critiques about the present government, etc without a single shred of evidence? I see it all the time in my department. One scholar reads a piece of work and shreds it because the author failed to use one archive, one set of manuscripts, and so on. BUT ask them about some contemporary issue, and suddenly the reliance on evidence goes out the window and is less important.

I think maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not arguing against monochromatic anachronism or suspension of modern morals, I am against the arbitrary way we do it. Read the last line with more emphasis than I seem to have used. If we are adopting textual standards, why are we anti-slavery or regretting children forced into loveless marriages or the like. If we are instead maintaining the modern sensibilities which underline these types of things, why are we ok with ideas like 'broken oath = death, the NW as an obligation rather than a massive injustice, etc.?

The hit and miss nature of our adoption/rejection of textual morality really makes it seem like people are fitting their morality in around their favourite characters or pet issues, disregarding the rest and acting like that makes some kind of sense.

[Luddagain]

I am with you regarding not judging by today's standards.

However i feel that a wiser Ned would have brought Gared to Winterfell, given him food and warmth and had him interrogated perhaps by Luwin or EVEN Jon, Robb and himself (ie himself and tow nearly adult sons). Enough time to find out what it was that scared Gared so much. Crikey he could have sent Bran and Arya and Sansa who as children, may have winkled the reason for his terror. After all whatever it was, be it a band of Boltons or wildings, a pack of wild shadow cats or some other unknown terror, Ned SHOULD have found out what it was, since it might be a threat to Winterfell.