I believe it was Stannis who proposed that deal when he wanted Jon to take Winterfel and give him the support of the North. Either way, it seems like there are definitley ways around oaths.
Yeah, remember at that point Robb was a king, there was probably very little that was illegal for him to do.
My recollection of the books is worse than foggy .. does Martin ever describe the relationship of laws and the ruling classes? Are/were they theoretically bound by them or considered beyond any forcible rule? Are there differences among the “kingdoms” and does a body of law exist throughout the Seven Kingdoms that overrides local law and the authorities?
I am not talking about law by force, obviously, but socially accepted standards that might have existed for a long time or were developed as a result of the Targaryen .. capriciousness.
There’s not a lot of discussion of laws. There are taxes and prohibitions of rape, murder, and theft (we see those people at the wall). However, as far as I can tell is that if you have a grievence you just take it to your lord and he decides what to do. We see Ned doing this for Robert quite often. When he sends Beric and co. out after Gregor it’s because they came and complained, not because there was any formal law he broke.
Pity. I’m sure I’ve forgotten a lot but I remember that one of the aspects that disappointed me while reading the books was an absence of answers to a question that always interests me: “How does x work?”
Local lords in Westeros seem to have a lot of discretion in keeping the King’s peace. In one of the later books, Brienne visited a sea-town lord who was meting out justice to various low-level thieves and crooks as he sat down at the wharf. He was able to order fingers chopped off and money to change hands pretty much as he saw fit.
And kings have, since time immemorial, had the power to pardon. If Jon could get some king to pardon him - either Stannis or Robb - for leaving his post at the Wall, or issue a proclamation releasing him from his vows to the Night’s Watch, I can’t see anyone making a stink about it. Esp. if, as **HazelNutCoffee **said, a hundred men took his place.
Speaking of Brienne, Elendil’s Heir, was she the other “good” adult character you were thinking of in the unspoiled thread?
Ooh, I hadn’t thought of Brienne. I stand corrected on that one.
And I don’t count Eddard because he’s not in “the books.” He died before the first book was even over. I mean, yeah, we can get technical and say he was a good adult character, BUT we didn’t get to watch him get challenged through all the crap that happens in the series. He gets out early - and his final act is to basically forswear himself completely. So, yeah. In my mind, he doesn’t count.
In regards to the non-spoiler thread I’m going to assume that EH was referring to Brienne, who I’ll admit I forgot about.
I thought he might have been referring to Stannis, in which case I would argue it. The man is a robot who refuses to go against his programming. A good man he ain’t.
-Joe
One might discount Eddard too, because he either a) had a bastard son or b) lied about having a bastard son, even to his wife. (depending on which theory you believe).
Including the kids, I think you have Brienne, Sam, Jon, & Bran who are “pure good”. If you want to include Rickon, you might as well include Myrcella and Tommen. They’re too young and too minor to really get a good read on.
I think Myrcella is going to end up being twisted by what’s happened to her in Dorne. Rickon, I kind of thought (based on Shaggydog’s wildness) could end up as a fairly crazy person - rage issues if nothing else.
-Joe
Uh, Sam and Jon? Really? There was an awful lot of vow-breakin’ and fornicatin’ going on there. Not to mention stealing Gilly’s baby on Jon’s part. I wouldn’t call either of them “pure” good, though admittedly Sam’s closer, especially if you’re going to hold the circumstances of Jon’s birth (whatever they are) against Eddard.
One could argue that Davos is a “good” character, too.
Stealing Gilly’s baby was done to prevent that baby from being thrown onto a pyre, right?
-Joe
Yes, but I’m not going to argue in favor of stealing a woman’s baby against her will and leaving THAT baby in danger instead.
After all, why should Melissande believe Jon when he says “Oh, snap. This isn’t even Raydar’s baby, I swapped them!” And what’s to keep them from tossing that baby on the pyre anyway just in case, and to punish Jon?
There is no “pure good” then, by those standards Gandhi wouldn’t have made it. Jon and Sam are what any realistic person would call good. I would add Davos Seaworth to the list also.
I’m not the one who brought “pure” good into it. I said good adult characters, to which I only admit Brienne and Tyrion.
But if you’re going to disqualify Eddard based on whatever Jon is (broken vow/appearance of and upset of his wife) then you can’t admit Jon and Sam into it because they literally and on-page broke their vows, while Eddard probably didn’t.
I’ll admit Sam in though. I don’t think he really has enough agency to be bad >.<
Too bad he works for one of the biggest pricks ever.
Anyway, I agree with you. Fact of the matter is that you’re only going to find characters that qualify as good through these standards on shows like “Care Bears”.
“Good” people need to make the choice between two evils sometimes. Choosing the lesser doesn’t make someone evil.
-Joe
Yes, indeed, as I’ve argued in other GoT discussion threads. She’s valiant, humble, good-hearted, does her best to be true to her oath, and tries to do the right thing under all circumstances. She’s a far better knight, and truer to the chivalric ideal, than most of her male counterparts. Her fate is something I’m particularly interested in finding out in the next book.
Of course, that’s the irony of Brienne’s situation. She actually believes in all the chivalric virtues and ideals, though she can’t (lawfully) become a knight, while the actual knights seem to be, by and large with some exceptions, loutish thugs for whom their knighthood is just an excuse to treat everyone badly.