Do you agree that Eddard Stark/Ned is Near Pure Good?

[Maegor_the_Cool]

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

It just means that he’s easily manipulated. 

I willing to bet you were born and raised in a city, or in an upper class suburb. Killing the Direwolf pups was the humane thing to do. The other option being letting them alone to slowly starve to death. Lest you forget, lithos is a fantasy series, you can’t just take home 5 wild wolf pups and raise them. They’d still be wild.

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

IIRC modern martial law still does occasionally dole out death penalties for desertions...

...so it would be more "could Gared's case be pleaded for a reduced sentence" than "Ned is a psychopath", even by modern standards.

And I think I got the context of LF's joke right, because nobody is correcting me on it. Did I?

Sure, but are the people who carry them out "near pure good", "near pure evil", or something in between?

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Bad comparison. Westeros has no concept of PTSD or modern psychology. Also, the 'leaders' were doing it to further their ideology, not because of 'duty', it is those who carried out the orders who fall into that category.

They know what fear is. And Ned listened to the man and determined, without any knowledge of PTSD or modern psychology, that he was simply raving. And regardless of whether it is for ideology or duty, the question is whether this make Ned -- aka, the one who carried out his own order -- "nearly pure good", "nearly pure evil", or something in between?

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, SeanF said:

The summary execution of a deserter under military law is harsh, but in no way comparable to the Holocaust.

Modern international law would only condemn Ned for failing to try Gared before a court martial.

It's the same thought process, though, just carried out to a different scale. If Ned can still be considered "nearly pure good" despite doing his duty, then it stands to reason that no one at Nuremburg should be considered "nearly pure evil" for doing theirs'.

Ancient or modern law is irrelevant to this point because we are talking about morality, not law.

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, sifth said:

Ned murdered a man, for breaking the law. Listen, it sucks, but the Brothers of the Night's Watch serve for life. To be honest, that scene never made sense to me; how did Gared get over The Wall, without going to Castle Black first? He's an old man and not a climber and even if he were, he didn't have the equipment to climb The Wall.

We're not talking about law here. We're talking about morality. Some laws are both unjust and immoral. So if someone carries them out just because that is their duty, does that make then "near pure good", "near pure evil" of something in between?

[Craving Peaches]

19 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

It's the same thought process, though,

It's really not. A deserter is punished to enforce discipline, the fascists were murdering people due to racially motivated ideology. 

[Frey family reunion]

16 hours ago, Darrow of Lykos said:

I willing to bet you were born and raised in a city, or in an upper class suburb. Killing the Direwolf pups was the humane thing to do. The other option being letting them alone to slowly starve to death. Lest you forget, lithos is a fantasy series, you can’t just take home 5 wild wolf pups and raise them. They’d still be wild.

Actually, I'm just joking.

[Maegor_the_Cool]

9 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Actually, I'm just joking.

Oof

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

It's the same thought process, though, just carried out to a different scale. If Ned can still be considered "nearly pure good" despite doing his duty, then it stands to reason that no one at Nuremburg should be considered "nearly pure evil" for doing theirs'.

Ancient or modern law is irrelevant to this point because we are talking about morality, not law.

Distinguishing the two situations:

1. Gared is a soldier who deserted, Holocaust victims were mostly non-combatants.  Both the law and codes of ethics distinguish between killing soldiers, and killing civilians.

2. Military discipline has to be maintained, otherwise an army goes to pieces. The mass killing of civilians for belonging to the wrong race, is a straightforward atrocity.

3.  A deserter from the Nights Watch is an outlaw, and therefore a danger to ordinary citizens, as he can only survive by theft and murder.  Holocaust victims were not outlaws.

4.  Ned is acting according to the law.  Perpetrators of the Holocaust were violating both the German criminal code, and customary international law, by acting as they did.  They knew that they were in breach of the law, because they went to very great lengths to cover up their actions.

5.  Ned is performing his duty.  The perpetrators of the Holocaust were all volunteers, who could easily have chosen to serve in other branches of the armed forces, without facing any repurcussions. 

Obedience to orders is, in fact, a qualified defence to a charge of murder against a soldier.  The prevailing view is that the defence will prevail, unless the order given was "manifestly illegal." The gassing or mass shooting of civilians, based upon their race, was "manifestly illegal."

Edited September 26, 2023 by SeanF

[kissdbyfire]

17 hours ago, Darrow of Lykos said:

Killing the Direwolf pups was the humane thing to do.

Wut.

[sifth]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

We're not talking about law here. We're talking about morality. Some laws are both unjust and immoral. So if someone carries them out just because that is their duty, does that make then "near pure good", "near pure evil" of something in between?

You’re not exactly moral if you let a known criminal go by that logic. His duty was to report to Mormont, he choose dissertation instead.

The man swore a vow to serve for life. Violated that vow and was justly killed as a result.

Edited September 26, 2023 by sifth

[Maegor_the_Cool]

45 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Wut.

If they didn’t adopt them. The pups would’ve died a slow death without their mother.

[kissdbyfire]

28 minutes ago, Darrow of Lykos said:

If they didn’t adopt them. The pups would’ve died a slow death without their mother.

Aaaaah ok then.

 

[sweetsunray]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:03 PM, sifth said:

Ned murdered a man, for breaking the law. Listen, it sucks, but the Brothers of the Night's Watch serve for life. To be honest, that scene never made sense to me; how did Gared get over The Wall, without going to Castle Black first? He's an old man and not a climber and even if he were, he didn't have the equipment to climb The Wall.

There's a black gate

[sifth]

38 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

There's a black gate

True, I just thought no living brother, aside from Sam knew about it. 

[SaffronLady]

12 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Sure, but are the people who carry them out "near pure good", "near pure evil", or something in between?

Watching other people discuss Ned's various actions is why I started this thread, not giving my own opinion about it.

And you know, try not to fixate too much on the execution of a single deserter. Ned's done quite a lot of things.

[Nevets]

10 hours ago, sifth said:

You’re not exactly moral if you let a known criminal go by that logic. His duty was to report to Mormont, he choose dissertation instead.

The man swore a vow to serve for life. Violated that vow and was justly killed as a result.

He planned to write a long paper about his experience?   Too bad he never got around to it. 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

There's a black gate

I always assumed he got across at the Bridge of Skulls.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

He planned to write a long paper about his experience?   Too bad he never got around to it. 

I always assumed he got across at the Bridge of Skulls.

Another possibility, but one where he would be noticed by NW brothers.

Of course Coldhands accompanying Gared to a magical talking gate might explain why he sounded raving mad to Ned Stark.

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, sifth said:

True, I just thought no living brother, aside from Sam knew about it. 

He might have had a cold guide, who is not a living brother. Coldhands and a talking magical gate could be a reason why Gared sounded raving mad to those who questioned him. And why George did not include Gared's "raving mad" claims.

[Nevets]

55 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Another possibility, but one where he would be noticed by NW brothers.

Of course Coldhands accompanying Gared to a magical talking gate might explain why he sounded raving mad to Ned Stark.

I doubt Coldhands and the Black Gate could make Gared mad unless he was about there anyway.  We've had several other characters in contact, including an extremely sheltered teenage girl and a little boy, and it affected them not in the least.

My guess is that Martin never bothered to figure out how Gared got across the Wall, and given the POV structure there's no way to convey it to the reader in any event.  

I think that we will never find out how he got across and it's unimportant for the story in any case.