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

[BalerionTheCat]

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.

I don't have the feeling anyone was caring for the old fool. Of course, plenty would kill their mother to get Aerys' favor. So why Jaime had no option but to kill him before anyone else was there.

But yes. When the fight starts, the beasts are loose. A custom or natural law more than a convention. It becomes a kind of feast day, where criminals of every shade in the armies are let loose. I believe commanders like Randyll Tarly could manage the assault without it to be a total slaughter house. But yes quite bloody.

Anyway, after Aerys is dead, all that matters is the next king. It's the next king to get favors from. Rhaegar could make an example of what it cost to kill your king. To follow daddy's mindset: Bring everyone with me in the grave. Or he could be like the one who knelt: Protect my people, rather than abuse them... Whatever the cost for me.

[sifth]

5 hours 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.

 

Everyone of those characters is 100% evil in the story, don't even pretend otherwise. You're not convincing anyone that Gregor or Joff are grey characters.

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by sifth

[Lee-Sensei]

24 minutes ago, sifth said:

Everyone of those characters is 100% evil in the story, don't even pretend otherwise. You're not convincing anyone that Gregor or Joff are grey characters.

Gregor has terrible migraines and he did let the cook that helped him at Harrenhal live. That's all that I've got.

[BalerionTheCat]

7 hours 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.

I fully agrree with your quotes.

Gregor is more stupid than evil. Not the same for Tywin. Anyway, some are so black it doesn't matter if they have some qualities or excuses. But the question is: why the kings, the overlords, whoever is in charge, let these bad people thrive and do their harm? Is it not as bad to lend your arm, your sword, to people like Tywin or Ramsay? To let Aerys in power while he was obviously unsuited? To be accomplice of their crimes? High or Low, everyone has a responsibility in this mess.

There is enough evil men, not enough good, that the story doesn't need an Armageddon battle between good Men and evil Others. There is an over abundance of evil men in GRRM's story. And next to nothing is known concerning the Others. I believe the final battle will be between men, with maybe the Others on one side. Not the bad men.

Edited September 29, 2023 by BalerionTheCat

[SaffronLady]

7 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

But the question is: why the kings, the overlords, whoever is in charge, let these bad people thrive and do their harm? Is it not as bad to lend your arm, your sword, to people like Tywin or Ramsay? To let Aerys in power while he was obviously unsuited?

Case studies I have done indicate, usually, when something is done about rulers unsuited for power, unsuited means "unable to defend himself from usurpers", not "manifestly tyrannic and a challenge to common morals". Sometimes the 2 briefly overlap - other times, which is most of the time, it doesn't.

If Ned could just impeach Aerys after he kills his father and brother, maybe Ned wouldn't need to rebel. But monarchies aren't that peachful even when you get an Edward VIII.

[BalerionTheCat]

10 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

But monarchies aren't that peachful even when you get an Edward VIII

Yes

Despite the realism of the story, and the depth of analysis of the Power gears (but I'm the absolute noob in this area), I believe GRRM is an idealist. And he intends to present us a fix to this kind of problem by the end of the story. Praying we will see it.

[Alester Florent]

On 9/29/2023 at 4:06 PM, 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.

I think it is easy to overstate the case on this.

In LotR, we have cosmic forces of Good and Evil with which the characters align and there is virtually no doubt at least in the LotR story itself as to which side each character is on. Some of them may have ancillary goals or character traits which make them work at odds to other people on their side (Boromir, Denethor, arguably Théoden to some extent) but there is little in the way of shades of grey. And the Evil characters are aligned with Evil because they have either been effectively created by Evil (all the orcs, trolls, etc.) or because they have been directly corrupted by its influence (Saruman, Smeagol, and among the "complicated" good characters, the same can be argued of all three above). There is a little more room for doubt in some of the legendarium (Feanor and his sons most obviously) but the essential truth of the cosmic division between absolute Good and Evil (in this instance Eru Iluvatar and Morgoth) remains. 

And this kind of thing remains very common in fantasy: indeed, the "alignment" system common to D&D and other RPGs operates on entirely the same principle. Some add additional points on the axis or replace Good/Evil with another one (Law/Chaos, most commonly) but the principle of the characters acting in accordance with some cosmic or supernatural force remains.

I think it's this that GRRM is most obviously and deliberately trying to move away from. Characters in his world are human. They act according to their own motivations and desires, and those motivations and desires are human ones. There is no objective moral standard to which their actions can be referred, and no associated higher power. And this certainly implies that the Others, say, are not in and of themselves a "cosmic evil" or acting on behalf of one, even if their appearances so far are suggestive of that. And the conflict driving the story will not be resolved by simply "killing the chief Other" or the like.

To the extent that GRRM says "no black, no white" this is, I think, because humans, being inherently fallible, are incapable of achieving the absolute extremes of cosmic, supernatural, Good and Evil as exists elsewhere in fantasy. This does not mean, however, that GRRM's characters are incapable of being fundamentally bad people with no redeeming features, just as people in real life are capable of the same. Such people are very unusual but they do exist, both IRL and in ASoIaF. And even more rarely, some people may genuinely be unambiguously good people. 

I don't think we're obliged to go looking for the good, or the "white", in characters like Ramsay or Gregor, or accept that it's there, just because we think GRRM only deals in shades of grey: rather that, even if we make the assumption that humans can't be completely black or white, such characters are nevertheless such a dark shade of grey that to the human eye it is indistinguishable from black, and since everyone including the author and readers is human, that's the same thing as black to any extent that matters. But that they are "black" is not because they are aligned with Evil, but because their characters or upbringings have led them to be cruel, selfish people with no redeeming features, like similar people in real life. 

(That's leaving aside how poor some of the arguments "mitigating" their crimes are. Gregor, for instance, gets migraines. Well, hooey. Is rape and murder the only thing that can make the migraines go away? Would we accept that argument from any migraine-sufferer IRL? Come off it. Even if it goes some way to explain his actions (to the extent that he's always angry, say), it doesn't in any way mitigate or justify them.)

There is, however, one character who seems to drive a bus through the whole "no cosmic evil" policy, and that's Euron, because by all appearances he is, or is acting on behalf of, precisely the kind of cosmic evil GRRM has said he's not using. This may turn out not to be the case, or it may be that GRRM has changed his policy at some stage. We'll have to wait and see. 

[SaffronLady]

My personal idea on the topic question is that, well, moral judgements are ultimately quite subjective, and by 21st century standards Ned is probably a personal who could be counted as "good, but not quite". I think people who espouse one of the 21st century's many strains of death-penalty abolishment ideas would give an even worse judgement.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

6 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

My personal idea on the topic question is that, well, moral judgements are ultimately quite subjective, and by 21st century standards Ned is probably a personal who could be counted as "good, but not quite". I think people who espouse one of the 21st century's many strains of death-penalty abolishment ideas would give an even worse judgement.

Well I'm anti-death penalty..however I still think Eddard could belong in the category. Hmmm. I guess because reformative justice is honestly probably impossible in Westeros as they don't really have an idea of mental health, psychology, etc; and having someone just sit in a prison cell forever probably just wouldn't work economically. I honestly think Ned should have had a longer conversation with that Night's Watch deserter though. He lets Biter and Rorge be taken to the wall, giving them a second chance....there is no way that deserter is less deserving of a second chance than Rorge. 

Honestly, just random thoughts, but Rorge should be on more of our lists of "very dark-grey characters", lol. He is freaking horrible, and could challenge the best of them. I can't think of anything Rorge does that isn't selfish, evil, or horrible in some way. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[Nevets]

7 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Well I'm anti-death penalty..however I still think Eddard could belong in the category. Hmmm. I guess because reformative justice is honestly probably impossible in Westeros as they don't really have an idea of mental health, psychology, etc; and having someone just sit in a prison cell forever probably just wouldn't work economically. I honestly think Ned should have had a longer conversation with that Night's Watch deserter though. He lets Biter and Rorge be taken to the wall, giving them a second chance....there is no way that deserter is less deserving of a second chance than Rorge. 

Honestly, just random thoughts, but Rorge should be on more of our lists of "very dark-grey characters", lol. He is freaking horrible, and could challenge the best of them. I can't think of anything Rorge does that isn't selfish, evil, or horrible in some way. 

The death penalty was standard practice everywhere historically until comparatively recently.  i don't think any real opposition came until the 1800s or so, at least for serious crimes.  There might have been earlier objection for things like theft though.  So I have a hard time condemning Ned for carrying out a punishment that no one in his world conceives of as being in any way wrong.

I don't think the deserter said anything.  There were four POVs present, and we have heard nothing at all about him saying so much as incoherent gibberish, much less anything understandable.  If we haven't heard by now, we aren't going to.

[Alester Florent]

8 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Well I'm anti-death penalty..however I still think Eddard could belong in the category. Hmmm. I guess because reformative justice is honestly probably impossible in Westeros as they don't really have an idea of mental health, psychology, etc; and having someone just sit in a prison cell forever probably just wouldn't work economically. I honestly think Ned should have had a longer conversation with that Night's Watch deserter though. He lets Biter and Rorge be taken to the wall, giving them a second chance....there is no way that deserter is less deserving of a second chance than Rorge.

The Wall is (presumably) Gared's second chance, though. That's the thing: it's where you go instead of being executed, so if you desert the Watch, there's nowhere left to send you. I'm not a fan of capital punishment myself, but taking it as a given within this society, I can understand the reasoning.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

3 hours ago, Nevets said:

The death penalty was standard practice everywhere historically until comparatively recently.  i don't think any real opposition came until the 1800s or so, at least for serious crimes.  There might have been earlier objection for things like theft though.  So I have a hard time condemning Ned for carrying out a punishment that no one in his world conceives of as being in any way wrong.

I don't think the deserter said anything.  There were four POVs present, and we have heard nothing at all about him saying so much as incoherent gibberish, much less anything understandable.  If we haven't heard by now, we aren't going to.

First, no it wasn't. If you had added "since the agricultural revolution" I might have been on  board, however, you did not. Many tribal societies either didn't have the concept of "death penalty" for crimes or it was only used in very rare cases. Banishment or compensation were more common forms of punishment in said societies. I know that this may seem like nitpicking, but as someone quite fond of history, I don't like when people over-generalize history to fit the narrative they want to push. 

Also, we agree. Why are you even arguing with me? We agree. I wrote the same things you are saying. 

Third, and finally. We know why Gared ran. We know he saw an Other. The gibberish he was speaking...was probably actual truth. So yes, I think Ned should have talked to him more. Give him time to calm down, give him a bit of food. I doubt Gared was threatening anyone (that was never mentioned). He wasn't a threat to anyone's safety, and they killed him without question. Yes, I think that is wrong. We can agree to disagree on that one, but I won't budge on that. I am still not judging Eddard Stark as evil for enacting that punishment, however I think a more understanding/caring person would hear Gared out. Heck, I think Jon Snow would have heard the deserter out. 

[Craving Peaches]

8 hours ago, Nevets said:

i don't think any real opposition came until the 1800s or so, at least for serious crimes. There might have been earlier objection for things like theft though.

I meant there were minor things like introducing the crime of embezzlement as an alternative charge to theft (which carried the death penalty).

Although, from what I've read, when the death penalty was abolished in the UK, at least part of the outcry was because innocent people were put to death, not because just because the idea of the death penalty was inhumane.

5 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

The gibberish he was speaking...was probably actual truth. So yes, I think Ned should have talked to him more. Give him time to calm down

Ned describes Gared as 'mad with fear', so he probably wasn't making much sense, also Gared did have time to calm down, he had the entire time between the attack and being executed to calm down, and if he really was capable of saying something coherent he had the opportunity for some last words but didn't take it. It is a sad situation but I don't think Ned can really be faulted much because he has no knowledge of PTSD or mental health or anything like that, he did what anyone else in his position from Westeros would do, probably more given he bothered to execute Gared himself and gave him an opportunity for some last words, and I think holding Ned to contemporary standards is unfair as it requires him to comprehend things he has no knowledge of.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

7 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

 I am still not judging Eddard Stark as evil for enacting that punishment, however I think a more understanding/caring person would hear Gared out. 

 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

 and I think holding Ned to contemporary standards is unfair as it requires him to comprehend things he has no knowledge of.

I mean…I literally said it. I repeatedly said I was not judging him by contemporary standards and that I didn’t judge him for the act. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[Craving Peaches]

28 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

 

I mean…I literally said it. I repeatedly said I was not judging him by contemporary standards and that I didn’t judge him for the act. 

I know it, it's this bit:

7 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

however I think a more understanding/caring person would hear Gared out

In order for there to be an opportunity for Ned to 'hear Gared out', Ned needs contemporary knowledge of society. So you are essentially saying that in order for Ned to be better he needs to know something it is not possible for him to know...

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I know it, it's this bit:

In order for there to be an opportunity for Ned to 'hear Gared out', Ned needs contemporary knowledge of society. So you are essentially saying that in order for Ned to be better he needs to know something it is not possible for him to know...

You cut out my bit where I said, "like Jon Snow" who is also of that society. Actually, I'll add another character that I think would hear him out : Daenerys. Probably Brienne. Other characters in universe who would give Gared more time to explain himself I think. 

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

You cut out my bit where I said, "like Jon Snow" who is also of that society. Actually, I'll add another character that I think would hear him out : Daenerys. Probably Brienne. Other characters in universe who would give Gared more time to explain himself I think. 

I think it's more like Ned lacks the necessary context of seeing the Others or seeing a wight to understand Gared is serious. Jon's fought wights and Dany has literally ressurrected dragons, both are more open and understanding of talks of magic.

[Nevets]

Guys, Gared said NOTHING.  We have four POVs present and no one has mentioned anything in 4+ books since then.  Not only am I not going to blame Ned for lack of awareness of modern ideas, I certainly am not going to blame him for something he didn't even do, i.e., not listening to Gared.  There was nothing to listen to.

[kissdbyfire]

45 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Guys, Gared said NOTHING.  We have four POVs present and no one has mentioned anything in 4+ books since then.  Not only am I not going to blame Ned for lack of awareness of modern ideas, I certainly am not going to blame him for something he didn't even do, i.e., not listening to Gared.  There was nothing to listen to.

AGoT, Bran I

Bran's father sat solemnly on his horse, long brown hair stirring in the wind. His closely trimmed beard was shot with white, making him look older than his thirty-five years. He had a grim cast to his grey eyes this day, and he seemed not at all the man who would sit before the fire in the evening and talk softly of the age of heroes and the children of the forest. He had taken off Father's face, Bran thought, and donned the face of Lord Stark of Winterfell.

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. Finally his lord father gave a command, and two of his guardsmen dragged the ragged man to the ironwood stump in the center of the square. They forced his head down onto the hard black wood. Lord Eddard Stark dismounted and his ward Theon Greyjoy brought forth the sword. "Ice," that sword was called. It was as wide across as a man's hand, and taller even than Robb. The blade was Valyrian steel, spell-forged and dark as smoke. Nothing held an edge like Valyrian steel.

[Nevets]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

AGoT, Bran I

Bran's father sat solemnly on his horse, long brown hair stirring in the wind. His closely trimmed beard was shot with white, making him look older than his thirty-five years. He had a grim cast to his grey eyes this day, and he seemed not at all the man who would sit before the fire in the evening and talk softly of the age of heroes and the children of the forest. He had taken off Father's face, Bran thought, and donned the face of Lord Stark of Winterfell.

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. Finally his lord father gave a command, and two of his guardsmen dragged the ragged man to the ironwood stump in the center of the square. They forced his head down onto the hard black wood. Lord Eddard Stark dismounted and his ward Theon Greyjoy brought forth the sword. "Ice," that sword was called. It was as wide across as a man's hand, and taller even than Robb. The blade was Valyrian steel, spell-forged and dark as smoke. Nothing held an edge like Valyrian steel.

I'm well aware of the quote.  There is nothing about Gared saying anything, or that whatever was said is in any way important to the story.  Even if Martin wanted to hold it back, he's had ample opportunity in the last 4+ books to tell us.  I can't imagine what difference it would make now.  

We are dealing with a work of pure fiction.  So I am reluctant to add material, or fill in gaps, for events we witness through a POV.   Ergo, Gared said nothing.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Nevets