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

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

Yes. But not just atrocities. Also going against preserving the life of Free Folks or commoners or anyone when possible. This kind of honourable is in very short supply  in Westeros and Essos. And Ned had just a tiny bit of it, only when it was concerning children.

Edited September 28, 2023 by BalerionTheCat

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes. But not just atrocities. Also going against preserving the life of Free Folks or commoners when possible. This kind of honourable is in very short supply  in Westeros and Essos. And Ned had just a tiny bit of it, only when it was concerning children.

Oh I know it’s not just atrocities. It’s anything that you know is wrong, anything, and still do because “vows”. And Martin not letting the editor cut some of the many, many “words are wind” in Dance was not for shits and giggles. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[SeanF]

41 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

Had Aerys been murdered *nothing* would have stopped the army killing every living thing in Duskendale.  Killing the King is like killing God.  

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Had Aerys been murdered *nothing* would have stopped the army killing every living thing in Duskendale.  Killing the King is like killing God.  

A mad God then.

What if Tywin (or anyone in command of the army) understood Rhaegar would have his head for murdering innocents? Which BTW would be the right thing to do.

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

A mad God then.

What if Tywin (or anyone in command of the army) understood Rhaegar would have his head for murdering innocents? Which BTW would be the right thing to do.

It would not happen.

In this world, a town that gets stormed gets sacked, in accordance with the conventions of war. And a town whose leader murdered a King would face terrible retribution.

By rescuing Aerys, Ser Barristan saved thousands of lives at Duskendale.  With hindsight, one could argue that the death of Aerys would still have saved lives overall, by avoiding two future civil wars, but that is being wise after the event.

Edited September 29, 2023 by SeanF

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

Hardly that.  Ned was kinder if you put him up against Tywin Lannister but don't forget the first chapter of volume 1.  He killed poor old Gared.  He knew it was wrong to send an assassin after Princess Daenerys Targaryen and he was going to let it happen. 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Hardly that.  Ned was kinder if you put him up against Tywin Lannister but don't forget the first chapter of volume 1.  He killed poor old Gared.  He knew it was wrong to send an assassin after Princess Daenerys Targaryen and he was going to let it happen. 

Anybody would have killed Gared, in that situation.

Every general in history, pre WW2,  executed deserters.

He resigned as Hand, rather than participate in the assassination.

[Kal-L]

19 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

What if Tywin (or anyone in command of the army) understood Rhaegar would have his head for murdering innocents? Which BTW would be the right thing to do.

That's the question, we know nothing about Rhaegar's character and his willingness to do what is right no matter the costs. Would he have had the balls to put Tywin Lannister to death had the latter pulled a "Tywin" ? Somehow I'm doubtful.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

That's the question, we know nothing about Rhaegar's character and his willingness to do what is right no matter the costs. Would he have had the balls to put Tywin Lannister to death had the latter pulled a "Tywin" ? Somehow I'm doubtful.

It’s more that it would never occur to anyone not to sack Duskendale, if Aerys were murdered there.

[kissdbyfire]

8 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Hardly that.  Ned was kinder if you put him up against Tywin Lannister but don't forget the first chapter of volume 1.  He killed poor old Gared.  He knew it was wrong to send an assassin after Princess Daenerys Targaryen and he was going to let it happen. 

How about we compare him to Mad Aerys who made it a habit of raping and beating his sister-wife whenever he had a hard on after burning someone alive? How does Evil Ned compare to Aerys? Aerys who viciously murdered the head of a major house and his heir, w/ exquisite cruelty, and who wanted to burn thousands of people - his people btw, out of pure spite?

[Odej]

12 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

He knew it was wrong to send an assassin after Princess Daenerys Targaryen and he was going to let it happen. 

Ned resigned as Hand because of this.

 

19 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

What if Tywin (or anyone in command of the army) understood Rhaegar would have his head for murdering innocents? Which BTW would be the right thing to do.

Sometimes the right thing to do isn't the most pragmatic. Tywin was a powerful man and if Aerys was killed and Rhaegar became king and married Tywin's daugther that would be a very strong ally. That's what Jon Arryn (who people say was a honorable man) did when Robert was crowned.

But, if Rhaegar decided to kill Tywin who besides the West would complain? Which one of the other great houses would raise objections against the new king 'cause of that? Tywin was not loved, at Aerys court people mocked him to gain Aerys favor, many would be glad seeing his elimination.

 

4 hours ago, Kal-L said:

That's the question, we know nothing about Rhaegar's character and his willingness to do what is right no matter the costs. Would he have had the balls to put Tywin Lannister to death had the latter pulled a "Tywin" ? Somehow I'm doubtful.

That's a thing. We also don't know how was Rhaegar and Tywin's relationship and what the prince thought about becoming his son-in-law. Did he want it? What was his position when his father and Tywin were constantly disagreeing with each other? Rhaegar spoke in favor of Tywin? Against? Did he remained neutral?

What do we know?

Edited September 29, 2023 by Odej

[SaffronLady]

23 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

And there will be no final armageddon battle between the forces of good and evil to decide the fate of the world.

I won't be so sure about this one myself.

23 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

If the PoVs were coming from the riverlands, few people would have anything nice to say about Robb, but they would laud Tywin.

They would be equally pissed about Tywin sending the Mountain that Rides - if not more pissed - into their lands. And Tywin's orders sent the Mountain on a path deliberately destroying the riverlands.

23 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

They commit evil acts, but they are still humans, and whether we call someone good or bad, there is nothing pure about anyone.

I could agree with this point, in abstract, within the context of ASOIAF.

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

Yes, they were all deemed enemies of the state, and since the Nazi's controlled the media, that's what the people believed. You and I can see them as victims, but at the time in Germany they were seen as criminals. 

This is what I'm talking about when trying to pin lables on people, either positive or negative ones. It's all subjective. If you want to call Ned pure or nearly pure, that's fine, but don't think that's a universal opinion. Most people in the south consider all northmen to be barely a step above savages, and Ned is both a fool and a hypocrite.

[John Suburbs]

22 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.

 

And yet these "citizen/subjects" were rounded up and gassed by the millions. Why do you think that is? And why did no one defend them, in court or otherwise? Because the state deemed them traitors and subversives. When you run the entire machinery of the state, including the media, the laws on paper are meaningless.

I'm not arguing that Ned is equivalent to anyone. I'm merely pointing out that desgnating him as pure or nearly pure is entirely subjective. Plenty of people in the south think all northerners are barely above savages, and that Ned is both a fool and a hypocrite.

And yes, there are characters who are better and worse than others. That's my whole point. But nobody is pure.

[John Suburbs]

22 hours ago, sifth said:

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

No. You're wrong. None of these people were babies in the crib formulating evil thoughts. None of them wakes up in the morning and thinks, "gee, what evil thing can I do today because I'm so purely evil."

Everybody justifies their actions, even Gregor, Joff, Ramsay, Vargo. Everyone.

Let's look at Jaime. He is nearly universally reviled as an oath-breaker and kingslayer, and he pushed a little by out a tower window. And yet he performed probably the most noble, honorable act in the book, saving half a million people from terrible deaths. He justified both actions as the right thing to do.

So Martin is not lying. Everyone in his tale is grey. No one is pure anything. That's the way life is.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

No. You're wrong. None of these people were babies in the crib formulating evil thoughts. None of them wakes up in the morning and thinks, "gee, what evil thing can I do today because I'm so purely evil."

Everybody justifies their actions, even Gregor, Joff, Ramsay, Vargo. Everyone.

Let's look at Jaime. He is nearly universally reviled as an oath-breaker and kingslayer, and he pushed a little by out a tower window. And yet he performed probably the most noble, honorable act in the book, saving half a million people from terrible deaths. He justified both actions as the right thing to do.

So Martin is not lying. Everyone in his tale is grey. No one is pure anything. That's the way life is.

I disagree completely there is no good or evil in the story;  that it's just a matter of subjective opinion, whether murdering Elia and her children, or feeding dwarves to bears, or castrating boys are evil things.  The fact that some people justify their evil deeds does not mean that such deeds cease to be evil. 

There was nothing wrong,  IMHO, about killing Aerys, but there was nothing honourable or noble either.  Jaime took no risks, and suffered no consequences, in killing him.  Jaime was sick of the man.  He certainly feels no guilt about the harm caused to others,  by his subsequent actions.  I'll tell you who was noble - Lord Chelstead, who defied Aerys, even when it meant suffering a dreadful death.

[John Suburbs]

29 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

I won't be so sure about this one myself.

They would be equally pissed about Tywin sending the Mountain that Rides - if not more pissed - into their lands. And Tywin's orders sent the Mountain on a path deliberately destroying the riverlands.

I could agree with this point, in abstract, within the context of ASOIAF.

That's what he says:

Quote

“The battle between good and evil is a legitimate theme for a Fantasy (or for any work of fiction, for that matter), but in real life that battle is fought chiefly in the individual human heart. Too many contemporary Fantasies take the easy way out by externalizing the struggle, so the heroic protagonists need only smite the evil minions of the dark power to win the day. And you can tell the evil minions, because they're inevitably ugly and they all wear black.

I wanted to stand much of that on its head.

In real life, the hardest aspect of the battle between good and evil is determining which is which.”

http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/intgrrm.htm

and 

Quote

“Much as I admire Tolkien, and I do admire Tolkien — he’s been a huge influence on me, and his Lord of the Rings is the mountain that leans over every other fantasy written since and shaped all of modern fantasy — there are things about it, the whole concept of the Dark Lord, and good guys battling bad guys, Good versus Evil, while brilliantly handled in Tolkien, in the hands of many Tolkien successors, it has become kind of a cartoon. We don’t need any more Dark Lords, we don’t need any more, ‘Here are the good guys, they’re in white, there are the bad guys, they’re in black. And also, they’re really ugly, the bad guys. It is certainly a genuine, legitimate topic as the core of fantasy, but I think the battle between Good and Evil is waged within the individual human hearts. We all have good in us and we all have evil in us, and we may do a wonderful good act on Tuesday and a horrible, selfish, bad act on Wednesday, and to me, that’s the great human drama of fiction. I believe in gray characters, as I’ve said before. We all have good and evil in us and there are very few pure paragons and there are very few orcs. A villain is a hero of the other side, as someone said once, and I think there’s a great deal of truth to that, and that’s the interesting thing. In the case of war, that kind of situation, so I think some of that is definitely what I’m aiming at.”

Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1791132-george-raymond-richard-martin-the-battle-between-good-and-evil-is-a-theme-of-muc/

There are others out there, but the theme is always the same: the evil Dark Lord and his evil minions are a worn out trope in fantasy literature, and he is not doing that in AsioaF. There may be some kind of conflict between humans and Others, but it won't be the final battle to decide the fate of the world.

 

 

Yes, the westerners would be pissed at anyone who disrupted their lives. But in the story, it was Robb who did this, not Tywin. So while Robb's family and friends and subjects might think he is the purest of the pure good, the westerners most definitely do not. That is my only point. No one is pure, and Martin has said this over and over again.

 

Sorry, but this is not in abstract. This is the driving philosophy behind Martin's vision. Here:

 

Quote

“You don't just have people who wake up in the morning and say, "What evil things can I do today, because I'm Mr. Evil?" People do things for what they think are justified reasons. Everybody is the hero of their own story, and you have to keep that in mind. If you read a lot of history, as I do, even the worst and most monstrous people thought they were the good guys. We're all very tangled knots.”

Quote

“Things are not always as they seemed, Much that may seem evil can be good.”

Quote

“As Faulkner says, all of us have the capacity in us for great good and for great evil, for love but also for hate. I wanted to write those kinds of complex character in a fantasy, and not just have all the good people get together to fight the bad guy.”

And on and on and on, over and over again. He could not be more clear on this point. Nobody is pure good or pure evil. Nobody.

[John Suburbs]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I disagree completely there is no good or evil in the story;  that it's just a matter of subjective opinion, whether murdering Elia and her children, or feeding dwarves to bears, or castrating boys are evil things.  The fact that some people justify their evil deeds does not mean that such deeds cease to be evil. 

There was nothing wrong,  IMHO, about killing Aerys, but there was nothing honourable or noble either.  Jaime took no risks, and suffered no consequences, in killing him.  Jaime was sick of the man.  He certainly feels no guilt about the harm caused to others,  by his subsequent actions.  I'll tell you who was noble - Lord Chelstead, who defied Aerys, even when it meant suffering a dreadful death.

There are good and evil acts in the story, but there are no good or evil people. Everybody is grey. Martin has been 100 percent clear on this. See the quotes I posted above.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

There are good and evil acts in the story, but there are no good or evil people. Everybody is grey. Martin has been 100 percent clear on this. See the quotes I posted above.

The text contradicts that.

The majority of villains in this tale are irredeemably evil.  Euron Greyjoy, Vargo Hoat, Rorge and Biter, Littlefinger, Ser Gregor, Ramsay and Roose Bolton, Walder Frey, Sybell Spicer, the Eastern Slavers, are not written to be grey characters at all, people whose hearts are in conflict with themselves.

There are indeed, more subtle, complex, grey characters, like Tyrion, Melisandre, Stannis, Jaime, but they are far outnumbered by the truly wicked.

[SaffronLady]

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

There may be some kind of conflict between humans and Others, but it won't be the final battle to decide the fate of the world.

As much as you quote GRRM's creative vision, him wrapping up the Others' plotline without a battle remains possible but not likely. Fire, in the form of dragons, and ice, in the form of the Others, are iirc also stated by GRRM to be "equally destructive". I like the notion of dragons and the Others somehow, peacefully, achieving the Song of Ice and Fire, but songs could still easily be a clash of elements.

And it being right there in the overarching title means the interaction of ice and fire would be the interaction that decides the fate of the world. So if it comes to war, it would be the war that decides the fate of the world.

Dragons and Others sitting in a circle singing kumbaya would still be a song of ice and fire, if a ridiculous one.

21 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Yes, the westerners would be pissed at anyone who disrupted their lives.

Oh, westerners. You typed riverlands in your last post.

22 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Nobody is pure good or pure evil. Nobody.

That's why "near" is right there in the thread title, for wiggle room.