Baelor vs Bloodraven who was right?

[Daeron the Daring]

45 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

He took the offer of the Wall, a choice he would deny to others, according to that quote. He sounds like a messy bitch.

I wasn't saying he was right, I asked that how was his opinion effected back then by currently being attached to that tree.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I wasn't saying he was right, I asked that how was his opinion effected back then by currently being attached to that tree.

If his life choices are questionable, his political advice is too. 

[Frey family reunion]

Well, let’s look at Robert’s three major pardons from the Aerys’ administration.

1.  Barristan:  served nobly, if with misgivings.  When he was dismissed, his first action was to seek out Danaerys to help her take the throne back from Robert’s “son”.  

2.  Pycelle:  More than willing to let or help along Jon Arryn to his grave to keep Cersei and Jaime’s secret.  Probably would have done the same to Robert if Robert’s injuries were insufficient to do the job for him.

3.  Varys:  Was scheming during his entire service to Robert in how to best sow discontent to help his pet project, Aegon, take the Iron Throne.

I’m going with Bloodraven.

[Aebram]

I think the best choice depends on the foe. Speaking in broad generalities, there are two kinds of people in the world.

Honorable people keep their word. If a defeated enemy is honorable, then if he agrees to bend the knee and keep the peace, he can be counted on to do it.

Dishonorable people are more predatory. They consider promises and treaties to be a sign of weakness. If they can save their own necks by agreeing to bend the knee, only to rise again in revolt later on, they will do it. Balon Greyjoy is an example of this.

Consider the example of Jon Snow and Janos Slynt. Slynt repeatedly defied his commander's orders, until it became a matter of life and death, when he suddenly started promising to obey. If Jon had let him live, he would probably have gone right back to being defiant.

A different sort of situation occurred while Robb was King in the North, when Lord Karstark arranged the murder of a couple of Lannister prisoners. I guess you could say Karstark was honorable, but not repentant. He felt he had done the right thing, and showed no remorse or willingness to change his ways. Here too, I think the death penalty was the right decision.

[Lord Varys]

It seems that, overall, Daeron II's post-rebellion decisions were more informed by Bloodraven's than Baelor's advice. Daeron II severely punished the leading rebels, exiling many of them, and those who he allowed to remain in Westeros had to give up lands and money and hostages.

Daeron II took the hostages many of which died in the spring, allowing for the plotters to start the Second Blackfyre Rebellion.

And then it turns out that even Bloodraven isn't Bloodraven - after the Second Rebellion we get only a few executions and see Bloodraven to be pretty merciful with people who, for the most part, were committing treason a second time. Most of the men at Whitewalls had already supported the Blackfyres during the First Rebellion, after all. Bloodraven pardoning many of them is basically the same as the Baratheons pardoning Balon yet again after he rose a second time in rebellion.

Pardons are a great thing is they help you end a war - Aegon II should have offered blank pardons after his restoration to end the war - and if you have good reason to believe that the people you pardon can be won back to your side.

If you know or suspect that they continue to plot against you then pardoning them or offering them generous terms can be a grievous mistake.

Think about how stupid it was of Cersei to allow Wylis Manderly to go back home, how stupid Jaime was to take away the hostages from the Freys, etc. If you cross too many red lines in a war then completely eradicating the other side - or at least humbling them so much that they are physically incapable to become a danger again in the foreseeable future - is actually the smarter course.

But of course you do have to know exactly who you better destroy and who you offer a pardon. If you make mistakes there then things can backfire at you.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Aebram said:

Dishonorable people are more predatory. They consider promises and treaties to be a sign of weakness. If they can save their own necks by agreeing to bend the knee, only to rise again in revolt later on, they will do it. Balon Greyjoy is an example of this.

Balon should have been executed ... or at least the Greyjoys should have lost the lordship over the Iron Islands.

1 hour ago, Aebram said:

Consider the example of Jon Snow and Janos Slynt. Slynt repeatedly defied his commander's orders, until it became a matter of life and death, when he suddenly started promising to obey. If Jon had let him live, he would probably have gone right back to being defiant.

Slynt could have been dealt with in a less harsh manner - public lashing, say, or another humiliating punishment. Killing him also send a loud enough message, but it also established Jon Snow as a somewhat inflexible guy who might go to very extreme measures when openly defied ... something that could have contributed to Marsh's plan to assassinate him.

1 hour ago, Aebram said:

A different sort of situation occurred while Robb was King in the North, when Lord Karstark arranged the murder of a couple of Lannister prisoners. I guess you could say Karstark was honorable, but not repentant. He felt he had done the right thing, and showed no remorse or willingness to change his ways. Here too, I think the death penalty was the right decision.

One can say that this was a sound punishment in principle but stupid and suicidal in that particular case. Robb was already in a bad position due to the entire Frey issue, and losing the support of the Karstarks weakened his position even further. It might be that there wouldn't have been a Red Wedding without that execution - because the Karstark men with Roose later played a considerable part in the Red Wedding.

This is something where you better go with imprisonment or another non-lethal punishment.

[Angel Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One can say that this was a sound punishment in principle but stupid and suicidal in that particular case. Robb was already in a bad position due to the entire Frey issue, and losing the support of the Karstarks weakened his position even further. It might be that there wouldn't have been a Red Wedding without that execution - because the Karstark men with Roose later played a considerable part in the Red Wedding.

This is something where you better go with imprisonment or another non-lethal punishment.

... Night's Watch, anyone? Rickard Karstark's more useful on the Wall than as a head.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

... Night's Watch, anyone? Rickard Karstark's more useful on the Wall than as a head.

That could have worked, too, although him being imprisoned would have ensured his men do not defect ... which is what Robb's people warned him the men would do if Lord Rickard was executed. They could have done the same if he had been sent to the Wall. Although I guess it would have been less likely then.

George dropping the Wall thing there in the entire context looks like a grievous oversight now that I think of it. Lord Rickard should have asked for that, and Robb wouldn't have refused if he had.

[CamiloRP]

5 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

... Night's Watch, anyone? Rickard Karstark's more useful on the Wall than as a head.

Always thought the same, like, what Robb did to Karstark is the same thing Joffrey did to Ned, and in that case he at least considered the Wall. And given Robb current situation, he should have realized the Karstarks would rebel.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Always thought the same, like, what Robb did to Karstark is the same thing Joffrey did to Ned, and in that case he at least considered the Wall. And given Robb current situation, he should have realized the Karstarks would rebel.

Karstark murdered not just two prisoners, but also two guards.  Doing the former makes his king a liar in the eyes of the world, and endangers Northmen held by the Lannisters.  Doing the latter makes him a mutineer and traitor.

Execution was entirely legitimate.

[CamiloRP]

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

Karstark murdered not just two prisoners, but also two guards.  Doing the former makes his king a liar in the eyes of the world, and endangers Northmen held by the Lannisters.  Doing the latter makes him a mutineer and traitor.

Execution was entirely legitimate.

I'm not saying it was wrong legally or even ethically, but he should've realized that it was the worst posible move politically.

[BlackLightning]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:41 AM, Mourning Star said:

This is, I believe, a very important question! 

And unlike others here, I do not think this is a case of grey area or middle ground, however it is important to note the details here. This issue also appears in the main ASoIaF series.

It should be noted that Bloodraven himself was given clemency and allowed to take the black instead of being executed for breaking his promise of safe passage and kinslaying.

When in doubt with this series I think it is worth taking a look at what Ned would do.

It is also important to distinguish between what is the "right" thing to do and what thing is the most efficient or beneficial for ones self. These are not the same, and the contrast between those trying to do what is "right" and those Machiavellian "ends justify the means" types is highlighted throughout the series. But in this case there may even be overlap.

It is important to remember why one is fighting. Winning is not enough, how you win matters.

This is not to suggest everyone gets a pardon for everything. It is how one should treat a defeated foe (not to be construed with punishing crimes).

Even the author of the notorious demise of house Tarbeck and Reyne sees the wisdom of mercy for a defeated foe.

And while his logic is the pragmatic kind and not about morality, it still serves to underscore the point.

While much negative can be said of Robert as a King, and his hatred of Targaryens clearly blinded him, one of his better qualities was mercy and inspiring friendship in a defeated foe.

Those who would make friends of enemies and peace out of war must take the first step.

Mercy and forgiveness are positive qualities, especially for those in power, and especially when treating with a defeated foe.

Stannis admits this does not come naturally to him, and yet we see in Davos another possible example and maybe his most loyal man.

Another fantastic example of this is Jon and Mance. 

Mance spares Jon, and one could argue that this action more than anything caused Mance's invasion to fail. And yet, come the end of the day, this action also likely saved not only Mance himself, but the Wildlings at large.

This could obviously be a much longer rant, but I'll end here and say that I think it is a fantastic topic!

Exactly.

In the real world, most people's perception and beliefs of justice are skewed and twisted much like Stannis' and Arya's perceptions of justice are skewed and twisted.

True justice not only includes mercy but it also brings lasting peace and restoration.

Robert Baratheon, Jon Snow, Mance Rayder, Eddard Stark, Daenerys Targaryen and even little Bran Stark -- for all their flaws -- understand and strive to see true justice done. It is something that they are all good at and it's what they implement. It's one of the reasons why Bran Stark becoming King of all Westeros at the very end is both sensible and satisfying.

On 2/8/2021 at 11:48 AM, frenin said:

This is especially true when you think about how Robert, and the kings before him, handled the Ironborn, they did not offer any kind of solution or tried to understand them at any level, they simply crushed them whenever they dared to raise against the Crown... and then just pardoned/left be the  ones that remained alive and called it a day. Thus ensuring perpetual rebellions.

So in the end, Baelor and Tywin have very different positions even though they are saying the same thing.

Baelor seeks understanding and resolution as a way to bring justice and create true, full-fledged peace. Tywin wants a nominal, halfway peace and embraces once the enemies have been broken and silenced into submission and the wrath of the victors has been satiated.

On 2/8/2021 at 5:29 PM, Angel Eyes said:

... Night's Watch, anyone? Rickard Karstark's more useful on the Wall than as a head.

How you going to send him to the Wall?

They are at Riverrun. Moat Cailin has been lost to the Ironborn, the North is in chaos, they have no ships fast and strong enough to bypass the Ironborn to the west or the Redwyne Fleet to the south and east, Seagard is not a true port city, there are not coastal watchtowers on the west coast and the Shadow Tower is too far away.

Besides, shipping Lord Karstark to the Wall is risky because they risk the chance of Lord Karstark escaping (or being set free by sympathizers) and barring himself up in Karhold to raise swords to continue defying Robb.

If Moat Cailin was in good hands and the North was united and at peace, then you have a different discussion. But as it were, the war made transporting such a high-profile prisoner difficult and dangerous.

On 2/8/2021 at 5:35 PM, Lord Varys said:

That could have worked, too, although him being imprisoned would have ensured his men do not defect

The problem here is that the Karstark men already defected.

They were too late. The ones at Riverrun had already deserted and abandoned their king and the ones with Roose Bolton at Harrenhal became loyal to Roose Bolton alone and therefore embroiled in the Red Wedding plot.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

The problem here is that the Karstark men already defected.

The Karstark men at Riverrun defect only after Lord Rickard's execution.

8 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

They were too late. The ones at Riverrun had already deserted and abandoned their king and the ones with Roose Bolton at Harrenhal became loyal to Roose Bolton alone and therefore embroiled in the Red Wedding plot.

One assumes the Karstark men with Roose only ended up helping with the Red Wedding because they, too, had decided that Robb Stark 'was no king of theirs' - just as he had longer been Lord Rickard's king when Robb hacked his head off.

If Lord Rickard hadn't been killed, Roose could have never counted on the Karstark men to betray Robb. Keep in mind that up until ASoS the Karstark are the foremost Stark loyalists. They are the hose closest to Winterfell, the ones viewed very favorably by Robb and his siblings.

[SeanF]

How would the rest of Robb’s army have reacted if they knew Robb had permitted Lord Karstark to murder two of their number, simply to get at a pair of prisoners?

[lrresistable]

On 2/8/2021 at 7:53 AM, King17 said:

Baelor and Bloodraven had very different ideas on how to treat rebels

1 baelor believed "that clemency was best when dealing with an honorable foe. If a defeated man believes he will be pardoned, he may lay down his sword and bend the knee. Elsewise he will fight on to the death, and slay more loyal men and innocents". 

2 Bloodraven believed "That when you pardon rebels, you only plant the seeds of the next rebellion." 

who was right and why?

If the foe is 'honourable' or hasn't proved himself to be otherwise, you pardon, and do exactly what Baelor suggests.

Then you do a Tywin and threatened the death of their entire family, or something along those lines if they were to rise up again or plot further betrayal.

And, of course, you always follow through or your word is meaningless.

If the Lord rises again, unfortunately you gotta crush him completely and set that example with the threat follow through.

 

Lordling's fall in line pretty quickly after acouple Rains of Castmere.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

On 2/11/2021 at 10:25 AM, SeanF said:

How would the rest of Robb’s army have reacted if they knew Robb had permitted Lord Karstark to murder two of their number, simply to get at a pair of prisoners?

I don't think they would have all defected. And I expect quite a few of the men in Robb's army had little issue with Lord Rickard killing Lannisters.

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

On 2/11/2021 at 6:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Karstark men at Riverrun defect only after Lord Rickard's execution.

No, Rickard sends them out after Jaime before doing his (extra) bit of treason:

Quote

The Blackfish shut the door. "The Karstarks are gone."

 

"All?" Was it anger or despair that thickened Robb's voice like that? Even Catelyn was not certain.

 

"All the fighting men," Ser Brynden replied. "A few camp followers and serving men were left with their wounded. We questioned as many as we needed, to be certain of the truth. They started leaving at nightfall, stealing off in ones and twos at first, and then in larger groups. The wounded men and servants were told to keep the campfires lit so no one would know they'd gone, but once the rains began it didn't matter."

 

"Will they re-form, away from Riverrun?" asked Robb.

 

"No. They've scattered, hunting. Lord Karstark has sworn to give the hand of his maiden daughter to any man highborn or low who brings him the head of the Kingslayer."

 

Gods be good. Catelyn felt ill again.

"Near three hundred riders and twice as many mounts, melted away in the night." Robb rubbed his temples, where the crown had left its mark in the soft skin above his ears. "All the mounted strength of Karhold, lost."

>(A Storm of Swords, Catelyn III)

Robb only executes Karstark in the godswood later in the chapter after this discussion.

[asongofheresy]

Baelor was right. BR slayed sons of Daemon before killing him, Daemon II was imprisoned and possibly died in custody, Haegon was killed after surrounding his sword, after him, his son Daemon III was killed by Dunk though the same man showed mercy to a Baratheon rebel, Aenys was murdered even though he should be protected as he was invited to a great council (if Saera's bastard sons had a claim before then why not Aenys) and none of those murders did anything to stop Blackfyre rebellions or Bittersteels defiance. 

[The Wondering Wolf]

3 minutes ago, asongofheresy said:

Baelor was right.

Well, Baelor argued for mercy for defeated foes, not for mercy during a fight, so he wouldn't have objected to 

6 minutes ago, asongofheresy said:

BR slayed sons of Daemon before killing him

or

7 minutes ago, asongofheresy said:

Daemon III was killed by Dunk

at all. The first one ended the first rebellion, the latter the third one, so nothing wrong with that. 

In the end Bittersteel was the one that kept fighting, so sparing this or that Blackfyre wouldn't have made any difference. You could even argue that giving mercy to him after the third rebellion was the wrong choice since it allowed him to continue. 

[Willam Stark]

Baelor was right: an honorable foe will not betray you if you ask him to bend the knee and pledge allegiance to you. He will keep his word and even die for you if you respect him and his honor. Of course, you must be sure that he is honorable, so you must know him, know what he cares about, and use that as leverage to keep him in line. In front of a dishonorable man, no mercy, go full Tywin and wipe him out and his army. Dead don't rebel.