Anck Su Namun Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 I read a similar topic asking what the appropriate punishment for Catelyn. She is guilty of letting an important POW go. I will instead ask for you all to consider pardoning Rickard Karstark. Here are my reasons for believing he should have been pardoned. Robb Stark called his banners because he loved his father. It mattered little or not at all if Eddard had actually been guilty of treason. The Starks were going to rescue him anyway. The number of people who will die didn't matter. It was about family. Catelyn Tully Stark arrested Tyrion in order to take him to trial for the attempted murder of her son. She knew the consequences. She knew many innocents will die because of this. It didn't matter because it was about her son. What did it matter that the children of innocent peasants and lords alike will die as long as she gets satisfaction for her son's injuries. This is all about family after all. The Starks started a rebellion fifteen years ago in order to protect Ned and Robert from a completely legal request by King Aerys. Would it matter if Rickard and the Baratheons were plotting against the throne? That would be wrong and illegal. Brandon threatened to murder the royal family. They needed to get Duskendaled. Would the Starks be willing to allow the king to execute Ned? They should but they would not. Because Ned was family and it doesn't matter if he was wrong. Jon Snow swore an oath to the Night's Watch. The membership require the brotherhood to leave behind old grudges in order to do the job they were given. There is no out clause after the oath. Jon Snow deserted and had to be brought back by his friends. This is breaking oaths and he should have known better because he was there when Gared was executed for the same crime. Jon went because he was thinking of his family. His loyalty always has been with his family instead of the Night's Watch. Rickard Karstark marched south with Robb Stark. He was a loyal man. Jaime killed his sons. Does it not stand to good reason that Rickard loved his boys as much as the Starks loved Ned? Absolutely. Didn't Catelyn do something irrational when she took Tyrion? Didn't this decision cause the deaths of many innocent people in the river lands? It sure did. So if the Starks can be forgiven for all of their f*%$ed up decisions, why couldn't Rickard Karstark be forgiven! I say he should have been forgiven. Robb Stark was full of hypocrisy. He would have forgiven another Starks for the worst of f*%$ ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Anck Su Namun said: The Starks started a rebellion fifteen years ago in order to protect Ned and Robert from a completely legal request by King Aerys. Would it matter if Rickard and the Baratheons were plotting against the throne? That would be wrong and illegal. Brandon threatened to murder the royal family. They needed to get Duskendaled. Would the Starks be willing to allow the king to execute Ned? They should but they would not. Because Ned was family and it doesn't matter if he was wrong. You can't be serious, even if Rickard and Robert were plotting against the Crown, and is a huge if because both Robert and Ned were clueless, Ned was inoccent, there was absolutely nothing legal in what Aerys pulled off. 1 hour ago, Anck Su Namun said: Rickard Karstark marched south with Robb Stark. He was a loyal man. Jaime killed his sons. Does it not stand to good reason that Rickard loved his boys as much as the Starks loved Ned? Absolutely. Didn't Catelyn do something irrational when she took Tyrion? Didn't this decision cause the deaths of many innocent people in the river lands? It sure did. So if the Starks can be forgiven for all of their f*%$ed up decisions, why couldn't Rickard Karstark be forgiven! I say he should have been forgiven. Robb Stark was full of hypocrisy. He would have forgiven another Starks for the worst of f*%$ ups. I agree that the moment for killing Rickard wasn't that but Rickard said Robb was no King of him. So, the man had it coming, besides killing innocents is stupid and killing Robb's men is treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 He even murdered Robb's own soldiers. There is only going to be one penalty for such an act. In fact, it would be a very bad commander who failed to punish such an act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Ice-Eyes Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Maybe, But Catelyn was his own Mother so he could hardly execute her whereas Rickard was his own vassal and making an example of him would have been unfortunately necessary. Besides, hadn’t Rickard already began to make his men leave camp in search of Jaimie, thus abandoning the war cause against the orders of his king. That in itself warrants execution for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Robb was completely justified in taking his head. He was just a moron for doing so instead of keeping him hostage for Harrion's good behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The hairy bear Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Anck Su Namun, You seem to argue that, because other people defied the law "for their family", any breach of law done for the same reason should be pardoned. And that's absurd. Different crimes bear different punishments. In your examples, you also make some misrepresentations of the facts: 2 hours ago, Anck Su Namun said: Catelyn Tully Stark arrested Tyrion in order to take him to trial for the attempted murder of her son. She knew the consequences. Please, explain to me what are those consequences that Catelyn should have known. Was somehow foreseeable that the Lannisters would murder the king and send an army to invade the Riverlands? Moreover, in a world were Catelyn does not arrest Tyrion, do the Lannisters step aside quietly when Ned discovers the incest? Do Stannis and Renly decide that they don't want the Crown after all? Does Balon decide that the Iron Islands are content under the Iron Throne? Wasn't the war of the 5 kings inevitable with or without Catelyn? 2 hours ago, Anck Su Namun said: Didn't Catelyn do something irrational when she took Tyrion? Didn't this decision cause the deaths of many innocent people in the river lands? It sure did. Why was something irrational? Hadn't she reason to believe that he had ordered her son's murder? Wasn't the suspected assassin in the lands of her family? I will never understand why some see the arrest of a suspected criminal as the single direct cause of the war, but dismiss Tywin's vicious criminal attacks as some act of nature that no one should bear responsibility from. 2 hours ago, Anck Su Namun said: The Starks started a rebellion fifteen years ago in order to protect Ned and Robert from a completely legal request by King Aerys. Completely legal request? Do you think that the "trial by battle" that the Starks were given was "legal"? That summoning the fathers of every member of Brandon's entourage to murder them without trial was "legal"? He was called the Mad King for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fattest Leech Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Another Stark hate thread in paper-thin disguise. Beyond boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Newman Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Another article criticizing the Starks. I see nothing wrong in that. "Pardon for Rickard Karstark" He should have been pardoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 10 hours ago, Anck Su Namun said: I read a similar topic asking what the appropriate punishment for Catelyn. She is guilty of letting an important POW go. I will instead ask for you all to consider pardoning Rickard Karstark. Here are my reasons for believing he should have been pardoned. Robb Stark called his banners because he loved his father. It mattered little or not at all if Eddard had actually been guilty of treason. The Starks were going to rescue him anyway. The number of people who will die didn't matter. It was about family. Catelyn Tully Stark arrested Tyrion in order to take him to trial for the attempted murder of her son. She knew the consequences. She knew many innocents will die because of this. It didn't matter because it was about her son. What did it matter that the children of innocent peasants and lords alike will die as long as she gets satisfaction for her son's injuries. This is all about family after all. The Starks started a rebellion fifteen years ago in order to protect Ned and Robert from a completely legal request by King Aerys. Would it matter if Rickard and the Baratheons were plotting against the throne? That would be wrong and illegal. Brandon threatened to murder the royal family. They needed to get Duskendaled. Would the Starks be willing to allow the king to execute Ned? They should but they would not. Because Ned was family and it doesn't matter if he was wrong. Jon Snow swore an oath to the Night's Watch. The membership require the brotherhood to leave behind old grudges in order to do the job they were given. There is no out clause after the oath. Jon Snow deserted and had to be brought back by his friends. This is breaking oaths and he should have known better because he was there when Gared was executed for the same crime. Jon went because he was thinking of his family. His loyalty always has been with his family instead of the Night's Watch. Rickard Karstark marched south with Robb Stark. He was a loyal man. Jaime killed his sons. Does it not stand to good reason that Rickard loved his boys as much as the Starks loved Ned? Absolutely. Didn't Catelyn do something irrational when she took Tyrion? Didn't this decision cause the deaths of many innocent people in the river lands? It sure did. So if the Starks can be forgiven for all of their f*%$ed up decisions, why couldn't Rickard Karstark be forgiven! I say he should have been forgiven. Robb Stark was full of hypocrisy. He would have forgiven another Starks for the worst of f*%$ ups. I see the logic behind your argument but I disagree. While Rickard definitely loved his sons each incident has to be looked at in its entirety & not in little pieces. 1. Robb knew beyond a shadow of a doubt Ned was not guilty of treason so the argument that he would have went regardless really holds no water. Ever faithful, honest, honorable Ned? Everyone knew he wasn't guilty let alone a son who had been raised by the man. 2. Cat cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. She arrested Tyrion, yes. But she killed no Innocents. By this argument Rickard is responsible for his own beheading because he knew the consequences of his actions as well. 3. The 'legal' request was legal in the sense that it was given by the king. Any order he gave was technically legal. But that doesn't make it right or justified. Ned & Robert hadn't done anything wrong & the rebellion that followed was direct evidence of humanity at it's finest. Doing what is right regardless of what you are told. You cannot use "I'm just following orders" as a justifiable defense. 4. Jon tried to leave & was brought back. No one died. No oaths were broken as he didn't succeed in deserting, albeit not for lack of trying. 5. Jaime killed Rickards sons in a battle & while I completely understand Rickards grief, he along with his sons knew death was a very real risk. Jaime could hardly be expected to stand there & let them kill him could he? That being said I understand the want for revenge & had he killed Jaime maybe we would be having a different conversation. He killed children that had absolutely nothing to do with the death of his sons, guards he & his sons were fighting with, & began to desert Robb prior to Robb beheading him. He was insolent when confronted about the situation & renounced Robb as his King. I just don't know how he could be pardoned after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aebram Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Darn it, L<3R stole my thunder. But I want to emphasize her point #5, because I think it's actually the most important. Rickard's sons were killed by Jaime Lannister. But Rickard didn't go after Jamie. He killed (or ordered the killing of) two young Lannister cousins, who were unarmed captives at the time. He also killed (or ordered ...) a couple of Stark guards; these were men on his own side of the battle. That isn't justice. It isn't even revenge. It's just rage. Besides, death in battle is not murder. Rickard had no reason to think there was any treachery or dishonorable behavior involved in his sons' deaths. So he had no legitimate reason to punish Jaime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universal Sword Donor Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 18 hours ago, Victor Newman said: Another article criticizing the Starks. I see nothing wrong in that. "Pardon for Rickard Karstark" He should have been pardoned. Pardoned? No Not executed? Yes as it was the smart play. Hold him at RR in a nice apartment and make him join the NW after the war or when WF is retaken (in an alternate universe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyser1 Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 The King's Mother versus a Vassal. I would not expect the same treatment. Right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Leftwich Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 On 9/4/2019 at 12:39 PM, The Fattest Leech said: Another Stark hate thread in paper-thin disguise. Beyond boring. Atom-thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheThreeEyedCow Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 I've already danced a dance similar to this just a few weeks ago. All I'm going to say is this, Cat had no right to abduct Tyrion and take him to the Vale. It was the second most stupid thing she did in the series. But what Karstark did was far more stupid. He gave the king no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aline de Gavrillac Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 Punishment can be either hard or soft but it must be applied without bias. The same punishment for the crime of treason. It should not matter who the guilty person is. The crime should be the same. All of the actors in this drama are guilty of damaging behavior because they could not set family aside. If Robb can forgive Cat, which he did, he can forgive Karstark. Robb's feelings are unimportant. Karstark got cheated out of justice and therefore, I cannot blame the Karstarks for turning against the Starks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 3 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said: Punishment can be either hard or soft but it must be applied without bias. The same punishment for the crime of treason. It should not matter who the guilty person is. The crime should be the same. All of the actors in this drama are guilty of damaging behavior because they could not set family aside. If Robb can forgive Cat, which he did, he can forgive Karstark. Robb's feelings are unimportant. Karstark got cheated out of justice and therefore, I cannot blame the Karstarks for turning against the Starks. You do realize that Rickard Karstark killed people. Not just anybody...he killed Stark soldiers (his allies) and Stark hostages. And let's home in on the hostage part: part of the laws of war and the rules of engagement is that important POWs and hostages are to be kept safe and treated well. Lord Karstark killing hostages communicates that Robb Stark considers the lives of Lannister hostages - including his sister Sansa and another one of Karstark's sons - forfeit. It's just sacrilegious. It's not quite on the scale of the Red Wedding but yeah...it's bad. Now, let's look at Catelyn. Catelyn didn't kill anyone. None of the established laws of war were broken. No one was killed as a direct consequence of her actions. These are two different crimes. Yeah, both are treason, but these are two different crimes, two different forms of treason. It's like comparing first-degree homocide to negligent homicide. It's also worth to remember that Catelyn was penitent and humble whereas Karstark was insolent and nasty. Not only was Karstark insolent and nasty, he was insolent and nasty in public in front of Robb's other bannermen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lluewhyn Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 7 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said: You do realize that Rickard Karstark killed people. Not just anybody...he killed Stark soldiers (his allies) and Stark hostages. And let's home in on the hostage part: part of the laws of war and the rules of engagement is that important POWs and hostages are to be kept safe and treated well. Lord Karstark killing hostages communicates that Robb Stark considers the lives of Lannister hostages - including his sister Sansa and another one of Karstark's sons - forfeit. Plus the fact that Karstark ordered his entire army (except for basically the wounded) to abandon Robb's cause and go hunting after Jaime (I believe to bring him back dead, no longer useful to Robb). He's really sabotaging Robb's war effort at that point, and that's even before we find out that the Karstark men are going around committing war crimes in the Riverlands, which adds to the sabotaging of Robb's efforts, to put it mildly. If anything, I think Martin whiffed a bit here on presenting the "To kill Karstark or not to kill Karstark" moral argument. There are no consequences to Robb for killing him since the Karstarks had already abandoned the cause at that point. The main point of discussion at that point is whether they could keep the deaths quiet from the Lannisters or not, and Brynden points out that "It is too late for such games". Pardoning Karstark at that point would be even worse. "I'm sorry my bannerman went behind my back and killed your family members who were my hostages. I totally wasn't cool with him doing this, although I did pardon him." IIRC, the only consequence that comes from killing Karstark is the sequence of events down the line that causes Alys Karstark to flee to the Wall, which is a little beyond Robb's concern at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 No. He should've been held hostage on the good behavior of the rest of his family and army with the promise he'd be pardoned at the end of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Mormont Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 No way should he have been pardoned. The arguments against your reasons have been well laid out by others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melifeather Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 Rickard Karstark murdered two young boys - practically children - who were already in custody - technically under guest right protection. Empathizing with his actions isn't the same as condoning his actions. If Robb had let this incident go unpunished, then he'd have lost all control over his men. He lost some support as it happened, but it could have gone much, much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.