The Starks and Revenge

[SeanF]

Christians are taught not to seek revenge, but the inhabitants of this world are not Christian (and it's about the hardest teaching for Christians to follow).  Many real-world religions teach that taking an eye for an eye is morally acceptable.

One should not assume that taking revenge is viewed as morally wrong, in-universe.  Nor, am I sure that the author sees it as being necessarily morally wrong either.  The thing is to avoid taking excessive revenge, or to inflict on people who have done you no wrong.

[Adam Yozza]

12 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said:

No, their beloved overlord confessed to treason in public.  There will be little support coming from the south for a Stark restoration.  Except perhaps from the Tullys. 

And the Valemen. And what little remains of the Baratheon's. And while the Tyrell's probably don't care who rules the North, they also know that Ned's confession was bs. And the people who want a Stark restoration vastly outnumber the people who are supporting Bolton rule, which is limited to the Lannister's who are about to lose power spectacularly.

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

I feel like we are going to see them get some real revenge in TWoW and it's not going to be satisfying in the way anybody wants it to be.

[Hugorfonics]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Christians are taught not to seek revenge, but the inhabitants of this world are not Christian (and it's about the hardest teaching for Christians to follow).  Many real-world religions teach that taking an eye for an eye is morally acceptable.

Idk how christian GRRM is, but I know how christian I am, not lol. I still grew up learning forgiveness is a good quality and vengeance is not. Its not even a christian thing anymore, its a Luke Skywalker thing, a Count of Monte Cristo thing

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

One should not assume that taking revenge is viewed as morally wrong, in-universe.  Nor, am I sure that the author sees it as being necessarily morally wrong either.  The thing is to avoid taking excessive revenge, or to inflict on people who have done you no wrong.

Course it is. The thing is to find the distinction between justice and vengeance, though it often becomes blurry. Beric fought for justice for example while Catelyn now seems only bent on vengeance. 

And we see what vengeance has done to our sweet Cat, almost like some Vader/Palpatine episode III shit, the revenge one. Similarly we see Doran sacrifice his sons life for the vengeance he craves, as his brother lost his life in the same pursuit. 

Jaime almost killed Bran, Theon too. Tyrion held Sansa and Ice as a hostage while Robb was murdered at the Twins. So, whats the next move, war on everyone? Fight over wrongs committed in the past like an Other who feels wronged from the pact of Children and First Men?

[Roswell]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Christians are taught not to seek revenge, but the inhabitants of this world are not Christian (and it's about the hardest teaching for Christians to follow).  Many real-world religions teach that taking an eye for an eye is morally acceptable.

One should not assume that taking revenge is viewed as morally wrong, in-universe.  Nor, am I sure that the author sees it as being necessarily morally wrong either.  The thing is to avoid taking excessive revenge, or to inflict on people who have done you no wrong.

George Martin himself appear to hold high moral standards.  I do not believe he would have condoned the murder of the Braavosi insurance agent or the unjust execution of Janos Slynt. 

[sweetsunray]

On 4/30/2020 at 3:44 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Raff couldn't be the target. Faceless men dont kill ones they know.

But interesting post @sweetsunray. 

It does rather seem that this would be the last day Mercy would put on her face and thusly Arya does have an assassination job that day 

I don't claim in there that Raff was the "target". The mission isn't "kill Raff" imo, but "cause trouble for the sealord and envoy" and the means is making Braavosi believe that a Westerosi man of King's Landing envoy killed a girl-child actress called Mercy.

George intended to have Mercy in aDwD, but always moved it further along. The political background of Mercy is Swyft making his visit to Braavos to appease the Iron Bank about the loan repayments that Cersei stopped paying. Except Kevan and Swyft are too late: the Iron Bank already sent an envoy of theirs to Eastwatch, with the power to negotiate with the NW of the Wall and a contract for Stannis to sign. The envoy even plods through snowstorms, ransoms prisoners, etc and has Stannis sign the contract in a village at ice lakes, pretty much middle of nowhere. It shows how far the Iron Bank is willing to go to back someone who isn't a Lannister related king. But then the envoy for King Tommen with Lannister regents shows up. The Iron Bank cannot say a blank "no" without risking issues for their tradesman sailors. So, imo they want to turn the tables: create a PR scandal for the Lannister envoy that gives Braavos an imminent reason to send Swyft back on his way to King's Landing quickly for his own safety without a deal. The best way to do this is to have the Braavosi riled up against the presence of Swyft and his men. A scandal where a sweet, smiling, girl-child is believed to have been murdered by a predator amongst Swyft's men is one of the scenarios to do this. I don't even think it's the sole scenario at Arya's disposal, but when she sees Raff, she believes he makes the ideal candidate for this "staged" murder scandal.

So, indeed, nobody of the HoBaW told her "kill Raff", but "cause trouble for the sealord and envoy" and preceding the capter she already worked out a potential scenario to frame someone for the murder of Mercy. And then she recognizes Raff, who's the easiest scapegoat and it simultaneousy allows her to scratch Raff from her list personally. A win-win for all, except Swyft, Raff and King Tommen (and Cersei).

 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk how christian GRRM is, but I know how christian I am, not lol. I still grew up learning forgiveness is a good quality and vengeance is not. Its not even a christian thing anymore, its a Luke Skywalker thing, a Count of Monte Cristo thing

Course it is. The thing is to find the distinction between justice and vengeance, though it often becomes blurry. Beric fought for justice for example while Catelyn now seems only bent on vengeance. 

And we see what vengeance has done to our sweet Cat, almost like some Vader/Palpatine episode III shit, the revenge one. Similarly we see Doran sacrifice his sons life for the vengeance he craves, as his brother lost his life in the same pursuit. 

Jaime almost killed Bran, Theon too. Tyrion held Sansa and Ice as a hostage while Robb was murdered at the Twins. So, whats the next move, war on everyone? Fight over wrongs committed in the past like an Other who feels wronged from the pact of Children and First Men?

Millions will likewise sympathise with the protagonist of "I Spit on your Grave."

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

George Martin himself appear to hold high moral standards.  I do not believe he would have condoned the murder of the Braavosi insurance agent or the unjust execution of Janos Slynt. 

The execution of Janos Slynt was a fist-pumping moment.

[Hugorfonics]

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The execution of Janos Slynt was a fist-pumping moment.

"If you have any last words, now is the time to speak them," he said, expecting one last curse.

Janos Slynt twisted his neck around to stare up at him. "Please, my lord. Mercy. I'll … I'll go, I will, I …"

No, thought Jon. You closed that door. Longclaw descended.

.

Im not getting into if he deserved it or not. But that scene was pitiful. Nothing like Karstark who gave out one last curse. Yes Janos was a bastard, but no one imo needs to die like a dog

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Millions will likewise sympathise with the protagonist of "I Spit on your Grave."

lmao. That movie was so weird. I saw it with a lady friend years ago, shit was so strange lol. Yea I sympathized with the poor lady who got raped everywhich way and didnt really feel bad for the tortured victims who had like their balls tied to the doorknob or something (i hardly remember it) but, I remember thinking this shits fucked up, like majorly lol.

I sympathized with Edmund Dantes too, shit I sympathize with Michael Corleone getting vengeance for the murder and betrayal of Sonny too, but killing your brother inlaw like 5 minutes after baptizing their kid is so monumentally fucked up. Vengeance is not, nor can it be, the markings of a "good guy". 

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Roswell said:

George Martin himself appear to hold high moral standards.  I do not believe he would have condoned the murder of the Braavosi insurance agent or the unjust execution of Janos Slynt. 

And yet Martin went out of his way to show Slynt in the worst light possible, from the moment we are introduced to the character. And irt Slynt’s execution, Martin goes out of his way even further to show how and why he deserved to be executed. Martin could have written all those scenes leading up to the execution in a much, much subtler and dubious manner, and he didn’t. He had Slynt being an obnoxious and insubordinate arsehole from the first convo Jon has w/ him about giving him command of Greyguard, all the way up to seconds before Slynt’s head is chopped off. 

[Bowen 747]

15 hours ago, Stannis Cool-Ranchus said:

I feel like we are going to see them get some real revenge in TWoW and it's not going to be satisfying in the way anybody wants it to be.

A lot of undeserving people are gonna get hurt because of that.  Jon will come back with an even bigger chip on his shoulders.  Arya is already mentally ill and will only get worse with each murder.  Rickon is growing up with savages.  But maybe he's too young yet to create too much suffering.   It won't look good for anybody who ever crossed the Starks.  Honorable people like Bowen Marsh are gonna get killed.  The Stark's fans are gonna be pumping their fist but the fair minded among us will dislike the Starks even more.

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

The execution of Janos Slynt was a fist-pumping moment.

Jon Snow murdered that man.  There was not enough justification to do that.  Jon was itching to commit that murder.  That boy is sick.  Nothing positive came out of that killing.  Jon took another step towards complete corruption and misuse of authority.

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Bowen 747 said:

 

Jon Snow murdered that man.  There was not enough justification to do that.  Jon was itching to commit that murder.  That boy is sick.  Nothing positive came out of that killing.  Jon took another step towards complete corruption and misuse of authority.

 

Publicly defying one's commanding officer would result in a death sentence in this world.

[Bernie Mac]

20 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

And the Valemen.

Why would they support it? One thing being sympathetic to their plight, quite another to actually support them to retake their lands.

The Vale and North is traditionally enemies, a few years of good terms between Jon Arryn and Ned Stark is probably not going to mean much to most of the people of the Vale.

20 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

And what little remains of the Baratheon's.

Robb rebelled and did not support any of the Baratheon claimants.

Stannis will do what suits Stannis. If that means putting a Karstark in power or some other Northman who will obey then he will do that.

20 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

And while the Tyrell's probably don't care who rules the North, they also know that Ned's confession was bs.

Do they?

Did Ned not try to arrest the royal family.

20 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

And the people who want a Stark restoration vastly outnumber the people who are supporting Bolton rule,

Vastly? Like to see where you are getting these numbers for a claim like that.

 

[teej6]

On 5/1/2020 at 2:12 AM, Aline de Gavrillac said:

 

"Everyone she has killed is someone she has run into by accident."

Oh gosh.  She didn't just happen to accidentally murder the old man.  The insurance underwriter.  That man had nothing to do with Arya.  She went out of the way to carry out this murder.  She has the traits of a sociopath. Might even be one.  Arya's mind is totally shattered.  She is very, very sick.  Her trajectory is headed to tragedy.  I hope the tragedy she causes will only harm her and the Starks instead of the innocents. 

I believe @Nevets was referring to people on Arya’s list in the post. The insurance seller was not on her list. She killed him because she is training to be an assassin with the FM, and as part of this training she was required to kill this person. If you recall the chapter, Arya does not blindly kill the insurance seller, instead she tries to justify it in her mind that the man is evil. She gets information from the kindly man that the insurance seller is corrupt and dishonest, he takes money from people and does not honor his promise/ binder and instead refuses to pay what he owes to the dead mens’ widows and children. Arya only proceeds to kill the man once she’s justified to herself the man is evil. This does not make it right but I wouldn’t label Arya a sociopath either, not yet at least.

As to your desire to see Arya harm herself and other Starks in the end, I doubt that is going to be the case. But go ahead and keep hoping.

[teej6]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Publicly defying one's commanding officer would result in a death sentence in this world.

You are not going to convince that poster or any of the other usual Jon/ Stark haters. They’ll continue to sing their tired old song of evuul Jon unjustly murdered poor virtuous Slynt and completely ignore the text. 

[teej6]

On 5/1/2020 at 3:54 AM, SeanF said:

Christians are taught not to seek revenge, but the inhabitants of this world are not Christian (and it's about the hardest teaching for Christians to follow).  Many real-world religions teach that taking an eye for an eye is morally acceptable.

One should not assume that taking revenge is viewed as morally wrong, in-universe.  Nor, am I sure that the author sees it as being necessarily morally wrong either.  The thing is to avoid taking excessive revenge, or to inflict on people who have done you no wrong.

Medieval Europe was as Christian as they come but that didn’t stop them from taking revenge or waging wars. If you look at some of the evangelical christians in the U.S., even today, they believe in capital punishment because they believe in retribution/ revenge for the crime. Justice is about revenge for them. But you are right, if Christians were to follow the letter of the new testament, then revenge is off limits. 

ASOIAF is a mythical/ fantasy setting, and in this genre, revenge is central to the hero/ heroine’s journey. The hero and his family is wronged, his and his family’s rights/ property are unjustly taken from them, a beloved mentor/ father figure is unjustly and mercilessly killed, there is a big bad that has to be destroyed and the hero is the only one who can do it. Here the hero’s ultimate killing of the villain serves multiple purposes — he saves the world, avenges his dead father, and restores his family’s honor/ status. So vengeance is couched in the victory of good over evil.  The villain(s) and hero(s) are clear in most these stories but in ASOIAF, not so much.

GRRM gave his thoughts on justice through Ned Stark. Ned chose not to send Loras to capture Gregor because he would make it about revenge and not justice. Someone upthread stated that Ned called his banners to fight Aerys to avenge his father and brother. That is so wrong. Ned went to war to protect his life and family. He even dislikes Jamie for killing Aerys. Ned is the kind of person who would rather have Aerys stand trial and see justice done than just kill the man out of vengeance. I’ve always felt that most of the story’s morality can be defined by Ned’s character and his kids (including Arya) will eventually come to practice what he taught/ instilled in them. Jon we see already tries to live by Ned’s morals/ values. I’m not saying that this means the Starks’ enemies will not have their comeuppance, they will but it will probably not be done in the traditional fantasy format. 

[teej6]

17 hours ago, Roswell said:

George Martin himself appear to hold high moral standards.  I do not believe he would have condoned the murder of the Braavosi insurance agent or the unjust execution of Janos Slynt. 

GRRM’s whole story is to show that people are not always good or evil, most are somewhere in between. GRRM has compared Arya’s story to that of a child soldier in today’s world. He is not passing judgment on her character but is inviting readers to think about how a child who has lost everything finds some identity/ safety with people whose morals are questionable. As to “unjust execution of Janos Slynt”, I suggest you read the Jon chapters again. GRRM gives you Jon’s thoughts and rationale for why he kills Slynt. It is the natural act of a superior in a martial order against a subordinate who not only refuses a direct order several times but also publicly insults the superior. This directly undermines/ threatens the superior’s ability to lead. 

[chrisdaw]

None of those acts in the OP were about revenge, but it is and will be a theme in a lot of their arcs. Arya's is obvious, she'll learn from Stoneheart and reject revenge and learn the importance of justice. Bloodraven is still fighting the Blackfyre Rebellion and Bran will see that he's more concerned with a Targ sitting the Iron Throne than saving the world, and reject him for it. That will guide Bran for when he himself has the power to destroy Jaime and the Lannisters, but have a purpose for them in TWFTD. He'll make allies of them rather than take revenge.

Jon will destroy Stark enemy one after the other, and bloodily. Arya and Bran, having learnt their own lessons on justice and revenge, are going to question if Jon's execution streaks are in service of saving the world or if he's avenging Ned and Robb. If he's another Stoneheart, an Ice heart. Really he'll just have learnt from his death, that no subordination that doesn't need to be tolerated will be.

[SeanF]

31 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Medieval Europe was as Christian as they come but that didn’t stop them from taking revenge or waging wars. If you look at some of the evangelical christians in the U.S., even today, they believe in capital punishment because they believe in retribution/ revenge for the crime. Justice is about revenge for them. But you are right, if Christians were to follow the letter of the new testament, then revenge is off limits. 

ASOIAF is a mythical/ fantasy setting, and in this genre, revenge is central to the hero/ heroine’s journey. The hero and his family is wronged, his and his family’s rights/ property are unjustly taken from them, a beloved mentor/ father figure is unjustly and mercilessly killed, there is a big bad that has to be destroyed and the hero is the only one who can do it. Here the hero’s ultimate killing of the villain serves multiple purposes — he saves the world, avenges his dead father, and restores his family’s honor/ status. So vengeance is couched in the victory of good over evil.  The villain(s) and hero(s) are clear in most these stories but in ASOIAF, not so much.

GRRM gave his thoughts on justice through Ned Stark. Ned chose not to send Loras to capture Gregor because he would make it about revenge and not justice. Someone upthread stated that Ned called his banners to fight Aerys to avenge his father and brother. That is so wrong. Ned went to war to protect his life and family. He even dislikes Jamie for killing Aerys. Ned is the kind of person who would rather have Aerys stand trial and see justice done than just kill the man out of vengeance. I’ve always felt that most of the story’s morality can be defined by Ned’s character and his kids (including Arya) will eventually come to practice what he taught/ instilled in them. Jon we see already tries to live by Ned’s morals/ values. I’m not saying that this means the Starks’ enemies will not have their comeuppance, they will but it will probably not be done in the traditional fantasy format. 

If so, then the abomination completely failed to grasp that point.  In D & D's eyes, you win by being "a graduate of the Littlefinger School."

[teej6]

Just now, SeanF said:

If so, then the abomination completely failed to grasp that point.  In D & D's eyes, you win by being "a graduate of the Littlefinger School."

Let’s not talk about that abomination. In D&D’s eyes, the whole story was about playing the game and winning a crown.