Lady Stoneheart what are her bad deeds and why?

[David Selig]

Exactly. There is no evidence that Ned ever threatened Theon with execution.

Ned didn't say it to Theon, but everyone knew what the situation was. The moment Balon rebels, Theon would be executed. That's why Theon lived in fear of Ned and his sword for years.

[LordStoneheart]

Exactly. There is no evidence that Ned ever threatened Theon with execution.

Not explicitly, but his presence at Winterfell was essentially a threat on his life to Balon. Theon knew this. GRRM says so in a video.

[Alhazred]

Not explicitly, but his presence at Winterfell was essentially a threat on his life to Balon. Theon knew this. GRRM says so in a video.

You'll have to find me that link. But your wording sounds consistent with my views of the situation. If it was his mere "presence" in Winterfell that represented the "threat", then Ned himself never threatened anything. The mere fact that Theon was present in Winterfell meant that Balon (if he cared about Theon's life) would have second thoughts about attacking.

But if Balon did attack, there was no reason to suppose that Ned would then feel "honor bound" to keep his promise and murder a child. There was no such promise. As to whether Ned would in fact have done such a thing, I see no basis for speculation.

[Alhazred]

Ned didn't say it to Theon, but everyone knew what the situation was. The moment Balon rebels, Theon would be executed. That's why Theon lived in fear of Ned and his sword for years.

"Everyone knew" that Theon's presence in Winterfell was intended to deter an attack by Balon. Which it would naturally do, with or without an explicit promise by Ned to commit child murder.

But if you believe that "everyone knew" for a fact that Ned would indeed have committed child murder, and moreover were correct in knowing that Ned would in fact do this, then I have not seen that evidence yet.

The distinction is important, since Ned is being accused of immorality. I do not think it was immoral to demand that Balon send Theon as a ward, as a condition of the peace, in order to deter future attack.

[LordStoneheart]

I suppose it should be noted that he was speaking in general about hostages, not specifically Theon, but Theon is the only case we've seen really. Besides Sansa, but that's still a lot different.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Sufficient proof only by their standards, which are pliable to say the least. Brienne tried to give her story, of which the reader knows to be true, but Lady Stoneheart didn't believe her. While I enjoy Lady Stoneheart immensely, I don't believe her reasoning to be enough to deem someone guilty or not. Especially when she allows her hatred to become her rationale. But, then again, that seems to be the embodiment of Lady Stoneheart.

Brienne's story is about as believable as the Nigerian Widow Scam.

Hell, it's "Jaime's a good guy because he has dreamy eyes"-level. While threatening to trebuchet Cat's nephew, kill the entire Tully garrison of Riverun and raze it.

[Alhazred]

I suppose it should be noted that he was speaking in general about hostages, not specifically Theon, but Theon is the only case we've seen really. Besides Sansa, but that's still a lot different.

Well he WAS specifically speaking about Theon, as well as generally. But I see nothing inconsistent with my view that Ned never promised to murder a child, nor is there any indication that he would necessarily have done such a thing.

What "everybody knows" according to GRRM is that (1) wards like Theon are really hostages; and (2) that if there is any treason by, for instance, Balon, the hostage MAY (GRRM's word) pay with their lives. His mere presence at Winterfell, and the chaos and hard feelings that result from war, and the fact that many Ned himself may die in the conflict and lose control of the situation, suggests this possibility. There is no need for an explicit promise by Ned that he would murder a child; nor an explicit understanding by anyone else that he would necessarily do such a thing.

If I were in Ned's shoes, I would also take Theon hostage. But I would not murder a child, nor even make an explicit promise or threat to do such a thing. So you can see how (from my perspective) I am going to be slightly hard to convince. You are trying to convince me that because Ned did something I would have done, he would have also done something I would not have done.

[LordStoneheart]

There was a topic about this before. It was by Nephenee, so the validity varies, but basically a lot of people agreed that had it come to that Ned would've begrudgingly killed Theon and that was possibly why he was distant to him. But I don't think it would lessen Ned's honor.

[Alhazred]

There was a topic about this before. It was by Nephenee, so the validity varies, but basically a lot of people agreed that had it come to that Ned would've begrudgingly killed Theon and that was possibly why he was distant to him. But I don't think it would lessen Ned's honor.

Theon probably assumes Ned would have murdered him. But Theon merely projects his own values. Theon, after all, is a child murderer.

Like I said, if I were in Ned's shoes, I too would have taken Theon hostage. But I would not have murdered him for his father's acts.

But if you all agreed that this would not have lessened Ned's honor, perhaps you all merely projected your own values as well. You, like Theon (and like Balon) merely anticipated that Ned would do what you would have done in his place.

[WhineHaus]

Brienne's story is about as believable as the Nigerian Widow Scam.

Hell, it's "Jaime's a good guy because he has dreamy eyes"-level. While threatening to trebuchet Cat's nephew, kill the entire Tully garrison of Riverun and raze it.

Excuse me?

Mind you, I'm talking about Brienne's story, not Jaime's. Because she had Oathkeeper and carried a writ bearing the seal of Tommen, nobody would listen to her. When she told them she was looking for Sansa, they assumed Brienne was going to take her back to "Cersei's dungeon." When Brienne tried reasoning with Lady Stoneheart, she was ignored completely. The BWB and Lady Stoneheart collected evidence without testimony. In my opinion, that's not enough grounds to deem somebody guilty of treason.

I think we can all agree that Brienne's intentions for Sansa were true. That she'd "protect her" and "bring her somewhere safe."

[MikeDC]

Honestly I do not really get it, what makes people think she is that bad.

It kind of confuses me. I keep thinking that I might have missed chapters or something of the sort.

But if I but up her behaviour against what any leader in her situation would do, well I do not find ANYTHING which would not be justified.

Well, a first point is that she doesn't seem to have any legitimate claim to leadership in the first place, as I understand how things are supposed to work in a feudal culture. Leadership derives from liege relationships brought together under the "King's Peace". The King could authorize a person to lead some effort, but that doesn't necessarily transfer. For example, Lord Beric was authorized to go out and hunt down Gregor and the Lannister soldiers who were breaking the King's Peace in the Riverlands.

But when he dies, that authority doesn't automatically pass to LS or anyone else.

Espacially if I would compare her to todays world leaders.

Does she commit any sort of warcrime?

Does she kill non-combatants?

Yes and yes. There are "laws of war" (which implicitly one must believe in if there's to be such a thing as a "war crime"). She was a victim of a breach of the laws of war, but two wrongs don't make a right. The reason there are laws of war is to allow for peace afterward. If there are to be no rules, then it's a fight to utter extermination, which intuitively neither side would want. So both sides should obey some basic rules. Among them, not hanging people you lured under the guise of a prisoner exchange (Merritt Frey, for example), and not killing children (Pod) who aren't really combatants.

Basically, this all comes back to a really simply morality. The justification I keep reading for LS is that she had immoral acts done to her. I agree. But that doesn't excuse her subsequent immoral acts. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Alhazred]

Except that Brienne is proven to be a traitor and Lannister combatant. And Pod complicit in that treason and a Lannister combatant as well.

What's that to me? I already told you what my rationale is based on. And the murder of Pod does not fall within "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Whether you can stretch it to fall within some ultra-broad definition of the "enemy combatant" justification, or the "judicial killing" justification, is neither here nor there to me. Those ideas only work if confined within certain limits. And that is not done here.

Here, the "enemy combatant" and the "judicial execution" doctrine are merely being used as a justification for hate-killings.

[Minsc]

Like I said, if I were in Ned's shoes, I too would have taken Theon hostage. But I would not have murdered him for his father's acts.

Then Ned would have successfully demonstrated that both himself and Robert are weak and don't keep their word. If Ned would have been too principled to perform the necessary execution then he would have never been given Theon by Robert and Jon.

Gared was guilty as charged. What makes you suppose he did not get due process? Even in modern courts, one does not get a trial when one pleads guilty.

Everyone that LS has tried besides Brienne has been guilty as charged and Brienne later finds herself equally guilty thus she is still batting the same average as Ned.

[MikeDC]

Then Ned would have successfully demonstrated that both himself and Robert are weak and don't keep their word. If Ned would have been too principled to perform the necessary execution then he would have never been given Theon by Robert and Jon.

There would be plenty of ways to make the hostage a credible threat without outright executing him. The first one that pops to mind would be that, if Balon invaded, Ned could have ordered Theon to be on the front line in whatever counter attack there would eventually be, thus not killing him, but creating a situation where Balon would be very likely to have him killed himself.

[wreckloose]

Hmm. . .hanging brienne for . . doing what cat told her to do (deliver jaime to king's landing). no she didn't bring back her daughters but that's because neither of them are at king's landing. hanging pod for . . . being a squire for tyrion? leader or no she could have let them go . . . she just wants the lannisters and anyone associated with them to bleed whether they've done wrong or no . .i guess you don't have to all that evil but it's at the very least pretty messed up

[Alhazred]

Then Ned would have successfully demonstrated that both himself and Robert are weak [...]

By not killing a child? You have a strange idea of "strong".

and don't keep their word.

Since he never gave his word that he would murder any children, this is simply not an issue.

If Ned would have been too principled to perform the necessary execution then he would have never been given Theon by Robert and Jon.

??? As far as I know, Jon and Robert never promised they would murder Theon either.

Everyone that LS has tried besides Brienne has been guilty as charged and Brienne later finds herself equally guilty thus she is still batting the same average as Ned.

Except she's not a judge performing a regretable-but-necessary task in order to maintain the stability and wellbeing of a community. She is just an outlaw looking for a justification for her acts of hate.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

A little tidbit gets lost when people lament how much better the BWB is under Beric. Beric is the one responsible for the existence of LS. He resurrected a three day old corpse. I think it was three days. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not that the character of Lady Stoneheart isn't dark and disturbing. It is. My fantasy is that she has a lighter purpose too, after she gets her vengeance on more. I hope she and Arya meet and Arya realizes that she doesn't want to be all about revenge.

[Minsc]

By not killing a child? You have a strange idea of "strong".

Since he never gave his word that he would murder any children, this is simply not an issue.

??? As far as I know, Jon and Robert never promised they would murder Theon either.

Besides that being the entire point of taking child hostages is just that. Unless you have direct proof that Ned, Robert, and Jon Arryn were different from how Westeros society normally operates. Otherwise, Theon lived under the threat of Ned's blade just the same as how LS threatened Pod to force Brienne compliance.

Except she's not a judge performing a regretable-but-necessary task in order to maintain the stability and wellbeing of a community. She is just an outlaw looking for a justification for her acts of hate.

Her actions are performing a greater justice then Ned's did in how they punishing the Lannisters and Freys for their atrocities in the Riverlands and their treasons.

[Alhazred]

A brief look at actual medieval hostage-taking confirms what already seemed obvious - that willingness to take a child as a hostage/ward did not usually equate to willingness to murder the child - even in extreme situations. That some might do so only shows that some people are more unscrupulous than others.

In other words, it the medieval analogy is the basis, there is no basis for simply assuming that Ned would have murdered a child.

[Alhazred]

Besides that being the entire point of taking child hostages is just that.

Historically false. I'm not sure what GRRM's ideas are, but judging by history, this is JUST NOT TRUE.