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

[Odej]

8 hours ago, Nevets said:

To the best of our knowledge, Gared said nothing at all.  Nobody present has mentioned or thought about him saying anything - crazy or not.  Given that this is a work of pure fiction, events not mentioned or readily inferred never happened.  Ergo, Gared said nothing.  Being silent and crazed by fear will not get you out of punishment in this world.

The scene on the show really stayed in my head, I could swear it was similar in the books. Anyways, this doesn't improve Gared's situation and Ned's decision couldn't be diferent then. There was nothing to do for poor Gared.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Odej

[John Suburbs]

22 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Interesting. You take a much harsher stance on the (rather arbitrary) definition of "near pure good" than the wiki that bears its name. I put the only reasons they put Ned in "near pure good" instead of "pure good" in the opening post, if you're wondering why I'm using terms such as much harsher.

But glad to see something coming on track with my intent.

My, did we just discover a reason to give Nazis standing ovations? Canadians sure could use them.

Martin is very clear that all human characters asioaf are shades of grey, some greyer than others of course. Pure good and pure evil are reserved for magical or divine characters, like God and Sauron and all the other evil dark lords that populate fantasy literature. He is not doing that here. There is no dark lord, no Mr Evil who wakes up every day contemplating what evil he is going to do, no evil minions all deformed and dressed in black . . . none of that. And there will be no final armageddon battle between the forces of good and evil to decide the fate of the world.

All of that has been done to death, and he says he's doing something different.

So there are characters who can be seen objectively as reasonably good people -- Ned, Robb, Sansa -- but even this is objective. If the PoVs were coming from the riverlands, few people would have anything nice to say about Robb, but they would laud Tywin.

This is why trying to assign labels like good and evil to humans in this story is a false trail. Nobody was born evil, not even Joffrey or Ramsay or Gregor. They commit evil acts, but they are still humans, and whether we call someone good or bad, there is nothing pure about anyone.

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

Not in the least.  Holocaust victims were not outlaws.  They were citizens or subjects of Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union etc. who were murdered in breach of those countries’ laws, and in breach of customary international law.

There is simply no comparison between the two.

@Craving Peaches

@sifth

@kissdbyfire

They were outlaws under German law. This is what I'm getting at. Nobody is pure or nearly pure good or evil, not even victims of great suffering. The German state declared them threats to peace and social order, regardless of what citizenry status they held. Murderers are citizens too. Elsewhere, they were victims, but in Germany they were outlaws -- extreme ones.

So let's apply this to asioaf. People want to say Ned is "nearly pure good," and the people who knew him and (many of) his subjects in the north would agree. But Cersei and Jaime do not. They are the good ones in their own stories, and he is the interloper who would cast them down and steal the crown.

The same goes for Robb. Is he nearly pure good? Not to the people of the westerlands whose homes he burned and goods he plundered. He is evil, and they laud Tywin Lannister as nearly pure good for having destroyed him. There will probably be a statue of Tywin in downtown Lannisport soon.

So sorry, but it is a fool's game to try and label people as good or evil an any objective sense. Martin says that's not the way it works in this story, that everyone is a shade of grey, some darker than others. But no one is pure. No one. It's all subjective.

[kissdbyfire]

24 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

They were outlaws under German law.

They who? The Jewish people? The Romany people? The persons with disabilities? The LGBTQIA+ people? The people of colour? Just to name some of those who were persecuted and viciously murdered. 

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

I think Ned carrying out an execution on a deserted NW member is more comparable to military deserters, especially one that has been drafted. Desertion used to be punishable by death, I'm not sure if that's still the case to this day. The Night's Watch has been around for 8,000 years, and their vows probably just as long or near as long. But victims of the Holocaust swore no such oaths. Their rights and properties were gradually being taken from them, but in a rather short time-span. Will had the choice to lose a hand or join the Watch, but not until after he got caught poaching (which he knew was a punishable act). He chose the Watch over losing a hand, but the victims of the Holocaust had no such choices, and their persecution was not prompted by anything they did.

[Frey family reunion]

The impression I get is that GRRM has a general criticism of "honorable" characters, if they let their honor get in the way of a positive outcome.  So while Ned couldn't bring himself to cause the death of Cersei's children or their imprisonment, Ned's actions led the way to not only his death but a spiralling situation that set the table for a war that brought a tremendous amount of hardship on a great many people.

Varys is not honorable, yet he seems to have a noble goal in mind, to create a ruler that would be more empathetic with the common people.  Varys reminds me very much of the protaganist in Tuf Voyaging.  Someone notably not heroic but willing to do some dark deeds for the greater good.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[Frey family reunion]

14 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

I think Ned carrying out an execution on a deserted NW member is more comparable to military deserters, especially one that has been drafted. Desertion used to be punishable by death, I'm not sure if that's still the case to this day. The Night's Watch has been around for 8,000 years, and their vows probably just as long or near as long. But victims of the Holocaust swore no such oaths. Their rights and properties were gradually being taken from them, but in a rather short time-span. Will had the choice to lose a hand or join the Watch, but not until after he got caught poaching (which he knew was a punishable act). He chose the Watch over losing a hand, but the victims of the Holocaust had no such choices, and their persecution was not prompted by anything they did.

I agree.  I don't think there is a comparison between Holocust victims and Gared.  That's not to say I agree with the execution of Gared, you would think that in all cases even in Westeros a ruler should be able to temper justice with mercy, and considering Gared's mental state, I think Ned could have exempted him from execution.

Even Jon, fully in his right mind, escaped any punishment for his desertion from the NIght's Watch, so there is obviously some leeway.  If Jon wasn't who he was would he have gotten off so lightly?

Edited September 28, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[SeanF]

54 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

@Craving Peaches

@sifth

@kissdbyfire

They were outlaws under German law. This is what I'm getting at. Nobody is pure or nearly pure good or evil, not even victims of great suffering. The German state declared them threats to peace and social order, regardless of what citizenry status they held. Murderers are citizens too. Elsewhere, they were victims, but in Germany they were outlaws -- extreme ones.

So let's apply this to asioaf. People want to say Ned is "nearly pure good," and the people who knew him and (many of) his subjects in the north would agree. But Cersei and Jaime do not. They are the good ones in their own stories, and he is the interloper who would cast them down and steal the crown.

The same goes for Robb. Is he nearly pure good? Not to the people of the westerlands whose homes he burned and goods he plundered. He is evil, and they laud Tywin Lannister as nearly pure good for having destroyed him. There will probably be a statue of Tywin in downtown Lannisport soon.

So sorry, but it is a fool's game to try and label people as good or evil an any objective sense. Martin says that's not the way it works in this story, that everyone is a shade of grey, some darker than others. But no one is pure. No one. It's all subjective.

For, the third time, you are entirely wrong about Nazi Germany. Articles 1 and 2 of the Reich Citizenship Law, 1935, designated the majority of German Jews as "subjects" as opposed to citizens.  It did not brand them as outlaws.  If you wish to assert that the Holocaust perpetrators were acting in accordance with the law, you'll need to quote chapter and verse, showing which laws they were carrying out.

If you're trying to argue that Ned Stark is the moral equivalent of Rudolf Hoss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Höss or Oskar Dirlewanger, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger you're both being extremely silly, and  completely misunderstanding this series.  There are very obviously characters who are much better, and much worse, than each other.

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by SeanF

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

Also, was it Will or Gared who was was executed by Ned? I thought Gared was the one who died by the Other..  

[Frey family reunion]

6 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

Also, was it Will or Gared who was was executed by Ned? I thought Gared was the one who died by the Other..  

Will was in the tree who watched Royce get slain by the Others and was then presumably killed when Royce rose.  Gared was the one who fled.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

Bran has a considerable interest in the Others, the supernatural, magic, etc., in large part thanks to Old Man's stories.  I'm sure that if Gared had mentioned anything about monsters or the like, Bran's ears would have perked up in a big way.  So I doubt anything of interest, even ravings, was said.

There was a clear conversation involving questions and answers and Bran simply doesn't recall.

Quote

There were questions asked and answers given there in the chill of morning, but afterward Bran could not recall much of what had been said. 

Unbroken Bran is no geek for magical stuff. He likes to climb and wants to be a knight. He is also into scary stories ... but they are just that for him at that time - scary stories. Bran is a very young child and there are weeks between his first chapter and his fall. And that deeply traumatized him. Why should he remember something he forgets right when he hears it?

The key issue there is that this execution thing really reflects very badly on Ned for obvious reasons. He must have been given some crucial puzzle pieces about the Others and in connection with his later sense of foreboding and him taking the wildlings threat seriously at least, his actual thoughts and actions make little sense. He should have known less or he should have acted differently. But he is written as a guy who is completely clueless about the Others. Which he shouldn't be.

11 hours ago, Nevets said:

As for the bad writing, I'm inclined to think it's a factor here.  It's the first book, and I doubt Martin was expecting it to be nearly the sensation it became.  There is a lot of sloppy writing in the early parts of the series; plenty of things that either don't stand up to close scrutiny or leave things unexplained that theorists then try to fill in. 

I think Gared's story is along those lines.  It's there to tell us that the Others are real and scary, introduce us to some main characters, and provide an excuse for the discovery of the wolf pups.  It does the job nicely, but if you try to analyze it like a real event, you can't.  You run into too many inconsistencies, as we've seen in this thread.  The author can't think of everything, and Martin wasn't making as much effort back then as he has more recently.  Which may be one of the reasons it's taking so long; inconsistencies and the like take time to find and eliminate, especially in something as complex as this.

George wrote the Bran chapter first. It was clearly a later thought to turn the guy Ned executes into a surviving member of Waymar's party. And it is not done convincingly like a lot of the Wall stuff in the first three books makes no sense (especially the non-existing call for help to Robb and the Lords of the North and their non-existing responses to threat at least the latter must have been aware of in ACoK and ASoS).

The wolf pups could have been found also during some hunting trip, etc. George wanted the execution scene there to show how hard and cold this world and their rulers were. That is a crucial part of that chapter and the story in general ... not so much the identity of the guy Ned actually beheads. That could have been anyone. I'm sure he thought it was a nice touch to use this as a little connection to the otherwise unconnected Prologue but it doesn't really work. For it to work I think the Gared character should have been a real turncloak who, say, ran away or killed Waymar or a member of his party before they actually encountered the Others. So he would just be a guy who went nuts because of an unspecified fear he felt. If he just believed there was something weird going on there, with him not actually seeing anything then it could have made sense he would be treated in the way he was. Even more so if he murdered someone and confessed it (and the Watch actually found their dead body).

[sifth]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

@Craving Peaches

@sifth

@kissdbyfire

They were outlaws under German law. This is what I'm getting at. Nobody is pure or nearly pure good or evil, not even victims of great suffering. The German state declared them threats to peace and social order, regardless of what citizenry status they held. Murderers are citizens too. Elsewhere, they were victims, but in Germany they were outlaws -- extreme ones.

So let's apply this to asioaf. People want to say Ned is "nearly pure good," and the people who knew him and (many of) his subjects in the north would agree. But Cersei and Jaime do not. They are the good ones in their own stories, and he is the interloper who would cast them down and steal the crown.

The same goes for Robb. Is he nearly pure good? Not to the people of the westerlands whose homes he burned and goods he plundered. He is evil, and they laud Tywin Lannister as nearly pure good for having destroyed him. There will probably be a statue of Tywin in downtown Lannisport soon.

So sorry, but it is a fool's game to try and label people as good or evil an any objective sense. Martin says that's not the way it works in this story, that everyone is a shade of grey, some darker than others. But no one is pure. No one. It's all subjective.

Martin also lies. His universe is filled with people who are pure evil; Gregor, Joff, Ramsay, The Brave Companions and so on. 

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

26 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Will was in the tree who watched Royce get slain by the Others and was then presumably killed when Royce rose.  Gared was the one who fled.

Ok you're, you're right. I must be thinking of the abomination then 

[Frey family reunion]

6 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

Ok you're, you're right. I must be thinking of the abomination then 

I think the tv show reversed it and had Will escape and get beheaded.

ETA: Oh, yea, the abomination.  LOL

Edited September 28, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[BalerionTheCat]

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

The impression I get is that GRRM has a general criticism of "honorable" characters, if they let their honor get in the way of a positive outcome.

100%

Barristan is the archetype of the guy doing what his honor requires. Irrelevant of whether it is good or not. He only served bad kings. And he did all it was asked without any (or very little) qualms. Even Joffrey was not fazing him.

But you are still responsible for your actions! Whatever the orders. Else you are just an accomplice in a criminal enterprise. Your honor or the Law is not the discharge of your conscience. If Ned had the Law for him,  it doesn't change, killing Gared was wrong. It was not an evil act. But is was not the act of a good, caring  person. The whole NW is a shame! At least half the recruits are cheated one way or another. Time it ends.

Edited September 28, 2023 by BalerionTheCat

[kissdbyfire]

11 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

100%

Barristan is the archetype of the guy doing what his honor requires. Irrelevant of whether it is good or not. He only served bad kings. And he did all it was asked without any (or very little) qualms. Even Joffrey was not fazing him.

But you are still responsible for your actions! Whatever the orders. Else you are just an accomplice in a criminal enterprise. Your honor or the Law is not the discharge of your conscience. If Ned had the Law for him,  it doesn't change, killing Gared was wrong. It was not an evil act. But is was not the act of a good, caring  person. The whole NW is a shame! At least half the recruits are cheated one way or another. Time it ends.

There is definitely enough in the story to make readers think about and question certain things. But I have a slightly different opinion. I don’t think it’s [true] honour that we’re supposed to question or even criticise, but rather duty.
And Barristan and many other KG are excellent examples, w/ Barristan being the best of all. I can’t think of a more dutiful character, but in fulfilling his duty so perfectly he dishonoured himself - time and again.
Sometimes characters use these words as if they have the same meaning, but they don’t. 
Barristan for all his dutifulness lacked honour in many occasions.
And it’s only “now” that he seems to realise it. Better late than never?

ADwD, The Queensguard

Barristan Selmy had known many kings. He had been born during the troubled reign of Aegon the Unlikely, beloved by the common folk, had received his knighthood at his hands. Aegon's son Jaehaerys had bestowed the white cloak on him when he was three-and-twenty, after he slew Maelys the Monstrous during the War of the Ninepenny Kings. In that same cloak he had stood beside the Iron Throne as madness consumed Jaehaerys's son Aerys. Stood, and saw, and heard, and yet did nothing.

But no. That was not fair. He did his duty. Some nights, Ser Barristan wondered if he had not done that duty too well. He had sworn his vows before the eyes of gods and men, he could not in honor go against them … but the keeping of those vows had grown hard in the last years of King Aerys's reign. He had seen things that it pained him to recall, and more than once he wondered how much of the blood was on his own hands. If he had not gone into Duskendale to rescue Aerys from Lord Darklyn's dungeons, the king might well have died there as Tywin Lannister sacked the town. Then Prince Rhaegar would have ascended the Iron Throne, mayhaps to heal the realm. Duskendale had been his finest hour, yet the memory tasted bitter on his tongue.

 

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

There is definitely enough in the story to make readers think about and question certain things. But I have a slightly different opinion. I don’t think it’s [true] honour that we’re supposed to question or even criticise, but rather duty.
And Barristan and many other KG are excellent examples, w/ Barristan being the best of all. I can’t think of a more dutiful character, but in fulfilling his duty so perfectly he dishonoured himself - time and again.
Sometimes characters use these words as if they have the same meaning, but they don’t. 
Barristan for all his dutifulness lacked honour in many occasions.
And it’s only “now” that he seems to realise it. Better late than never?

ADwD, The Queensguard

Barristan Selmy had known many kings. He had been born during the troubled reign of Aegon the Unlikely, beloved by the common folk, had received his knighthood at his hands. Aegon's son Jaehaerys had bestowed the white cloak on him when he was three-and-twenty, after he slew Maelys the Monstrous during the War of the Ninepenny Kings. In that same cloak he had stood beside the Iron Throne as madness consumed Jaehaerys's son Aerys. Stood, and saw, and heard, and yet did nothing.

But no. That was not fair. He did his duty. Some nights, Ser Barristan wondered if he had not done that duty too well. He had sworn his vows before the eyes of gods and men, he could not in honor go against them … but the keeping of those vows had grown hard in the last years of King Aerys's reign. He had seen things that it pained him to recall, and more than once he wondered how much of the blood was on his own hands. If he had not gone into Duskendale to rescue Aerys from Lord Darklyn's dungeons, the king might well have died there as Tywin Lannister sacked the town. Then Prince Rhaegar would have ascended the Iron Throne, mayhaps to heal the realm. Duskendale had been his finest hour, yet the memory tasted bitter on his tongue.

 

Of course, there was no good outcome at Duskendale.

He rescued Aerys, and an increasingly deranged king sat the Iron Throne.  Had he not rescued him, then Tywin would have put thousands of civilians to the sword.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Of course, there was no good outcome at Duskendale.

He rescued Aerys, and an increasingly deranged king sat the Iron Throne.  Had he not rescued him, then Tywin would have put thousands of civilians to the sword.

Unless Rhaegar managed to stop Tywin before somehow? Unlikely, I know. but Tywin being rid of Aerys could have seen it as his best interest to forge a good relationship w/ the new/future king? Tywin is more than capable, we all know that. But here he could have held back not only for the reason stated above, but also… the situation here is nothing like the one w/ the Reynes and Tarbecks and others, houses that slighted Tywin, defied him. Here he probably would want to give them a reward! 
 

At any rate, Barristan questioning himself and his decisions is about a lot more than just Duskendale… I mean, he has plenty other situations where he was dutiful and yet dishonourable. 

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

There is definitely enough in the story to make readers think about and question certain things. But I have a slightly different opinion. I don’t think it’s [true] honour that we’re supposed to question or even criticise, but rather duty.
And Barristan and many other KG are excellent examples, w/ Barristan being the best of all. I can’t think of a more dutiful character, but in fulfilling his duty so perfectly he dishonoured himself - time and again.
Sometimes characters use these words as if they have the same meaning, but they don’t. 
Barristan for all his dutifulness lacked honour in many occasions.
And it’s only “now” that he seems to realise it. Better late than never?

He wished things would be different. The world more fair to him,. So his oaths would be easier. Even if he questions it, in  any case, he would never consider what Jaime did: killing the king to save innocents.

Honor, honorable. Words needing definition. I prefer justice. Not Law, which as I understand is, at best blind and uncaring. But often made by the strong to protect his interests. What IMO is good: I believe in protecting the weak, the social justice... whatever. I believe serving this man, this king, this lord, will help me to achieve that. So I pledge my sword, my life, to him. But if later, I understand I made an error in serving this man (poor choice for me). Them, I have no obligation left for this man. Only an obligation to the cause I decided to follow initially. And only if I believe there is still a way to it. IMO, in this universe, you swear to the gods (your conscience). And you only answers to them (to it).

Edited September 28, 2023 by BalerionTheCat

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

He wished things would be different. The world more fair to him,. So his oaths would be easier. Even if he questions it, in  any case, he would never consider what Jaime did: killing the king to save innocents.

Honor, honorable. Words needing definition. I prefer justice. Not Law, which as I understand is, at best blind and uncaring. But often made by the strong to protect his interests. What IMO is good: I believe in protecting the weak, the social justice... whatever. I believe serving this man, this king, this lord, will help me to achieve that. So I pledge my sword, my life, to him. But if later, I understand I made an error in serving this man (poor choice for me). Them, I have no obligation left for this man. Only an obligation to the cause I decided to follow initially. And only if I believe there is still a way to it. IMO, in this universe, you swear to the gods (your conscience). And you only answers to them (to it).

That is basically what I’m saying. If you swear a vow and stick to it even when the person or entity you’re sworn to is committing atrocities, you're being dutiful, but not honourable.