The Starks are Not the Good Guys: Morality and Game of Thrones
by Benjamin Studebaker
I’m a big Game of Thrones fan (both the books and the show), but there’s something that sets me apart from other fans–I hate the Starks. It’s my view that they are without question the most villainous family in Westeros, far worse than the Lannisters. This is a controversial view, but hear me out. I think I have a pretty strong case.
Now, before we begin in earnest, a disclaimer: I am not going to discuss any material from the current season of Thrones, nor am I going to make reference to any material from the books that has not yet been included in the show. I will exclusively reference the first four seasons (or roughly the first three books, if you’re a reader), so if you’re not that far along, you may not wish to proceed further. It’s up to you–I will provide a little bit of background if you’re purely interested in the moral cases.
Let’s start with a brief overview of the history of Westeros (if you’re a Thrones expert and don’t need this, skip to “the case against the Starks” section in bold). Westeros was initially seven independent kingdoms that were united by Aegon I Targaryen:
On the map, we have:
- The North (grey), ruled by House Stark
- The Eyrie (white and blue), ruled by House Arryn
- The Riverlands (light blue), ruled by House Tully
- The Iron Islands (yellowish orange), ruled by House Grejoy
- The Westerlands (red and gold), ruled by House Lannister
- The Reach (green), ruled by House Tyrell
- The Stormlands (yellow), ruled by House Baratheon
- Dorne (orange and red), ruled by House Martell
- The Crownlands (blood red), ruled directly by House Targaryen
Skip ahead a few hundred years, and Westeros is ruled by Aerys II Targaryen, the “Mad King”. Aerys has a son, Prince Rhaegar, who is wed to Elia Martell. Rhaegar grows dissatisfied with Elia and becomes infatuated with Lyanna Stark, who was to wed Robert Baratheon. Rhaegar kidnaps Lyanna and possibly rapes her (accounts seem to differ). This prompts Brandon and Rickard Stark to demand Lyanna’s release. Aerys has both executed. Aerys then demands that Jon Arryn hand over his ward (Ned Stark). Instead, houses Arryn, Baratheon, and Stark revolt against house Targaryen, ultimately defeating Rhaegar and slaying him at the Battle of the Trident. Once the Targaryen army is defeated in the field, Tywin Lannister tricks Aerys into allowing his army to enter the capital, whereupon the Lannisters sack the city, have Aerys executed by Jaime Lannister (a member of Aery’s personal guard), and kill Elia Martell and her children. Two Targaryens survive and go into exile–Viserys and Daenerys. Robert Baratheon is installed as king and married to Tywin’s daughter, Cersei Lannister.
Cersei Lannister engages in an incestuous affair with her brother Jaime, and all three of her children are born of incest–this remains unknown to the public. The first son, Prince Joffrey, is cruel and merciless. The second, Prince Tommen, is kind and a bit soft. In the meantime, Robert Baratheon wastes a great deal of Westeros’ wealth on unnecessary tournaments, feasts, and other entertainments, putting Westeros deep into debt (Aerys, to his credit, had left the treasury overflowing with gold). Robert names Jon Arryn “hand of the king” (essentially prime minister). Jon Arryn eventually discovers that the princes are born of incest, but before he can reveal this knowledge he is killed by the Lannisters. This prompts King Robert to name Ned Stark hand. Ned eventually discovers what Jon had discovered. When Robert dies, Ned exposes Joffrey’s illegitimacy. Ned is arrested and negotiates a plea deal with the Lannisters, but King Joffrey refuses to abide by the terms of this arrangement and has Ned executed anyway. This produces a chain of events:
- Robb Stark (Ned’s son) revolts against Joffrey and declares the north independent.
- Stannis Baratheon (Robert’s older brother) declares himself king.
- Renly Baratheon (Robert’s young brother) declares himself king.
- Tywin Lannister goes to war against all of these parties on behalf of Joffrey.
Stannis uses dark magic to kill his brother Renly. Stannis attacks the capital and is defeated by Tywin at the Battle of the Blackwater. Stannis goes north to defend the north from an invasion by the wildings, a group of barbarians from beyond the wall. Robb inflicts a series of defeats on the Lannisters, but while he is marching south, the north is invaded by house Greyjoy. The Lannisters conspire with the Freys and the Boltons (lesser houses) to have Robb and his mother Catelyn killed at the infamous Red Wedding, and the Boltons expel the Greyjoys from the north, seizing it for themselves. The Lannisters plan to consolidate their gains by marrying Joffrey to Margaery Tyrell. The Tyrells become aware that Joffrey is cruel, and they have him poisoned. The act is pinned on Tyrion Lannister, Joffrey’s uncle. Jaime does not believe that Tyrion is guilty–he frees Tyrion. Tyrion kills his own father Tywin for imprisoning him (and for a variety of other reasons). He flees.
In the meantime, Viserys Targaryen tries to find a foreign army to help him regain the throne. To that end, he marries his sister Daenerys to Khal Drogo, a barbarian. At their wedding, Daenerys receives dragon eggs as presents. Viserys is culturally insensitive and impudent, and eventually Daenerys and Drogo kill him for it. Drogo is eventually himself killed, and Daenerys has spent the last several seasons and books wandering around using her dragons and her penchant for freeing slaves to acquire armies and followers.
So that’s the broad outline–needless to say, there are many things that are not included here, and if we need them we will reference them.
The Case Against the Starks
In both the show and the books, we learn about what is happening in Westeros from the perspectives of the various noblemen and noblewomen involved in the conflict. This is deeply misleading (and perhaps deliberately so)–in any feudal society, the nobility comprises only a very small portion of the total population of the realm, most of which consists of peasants. George R.R. Martin, the author and master of the world, claims that Westeros is home to 40 million people. In medieval Europe, the nobility comprised somewhere between 1 to 2% of the population, which means that Westeros likely has 680,000 nobles of varying ranks and more than 39 million ordinary people. Consequently, it’s nonsense to talk about the decisions these characters make abstract from the effects those decisions have on the peasants.
In the short-term, the conquest of Westeros by the Targaryens was no doubt bloody and awful, but in the long-term it did something very wonderful for the peasants–by uniting the seven kingdoms, it put a stop to centuries of endemic war between and among them, war that was very destructive to the lives of the population as a whole. Before the Targaryens, the seven kingdoms existed in an anarchic state of nature where the strong took what they could and the weak suffered what they must. By ending that anarchy and creating a unitary sovereign, the Targaryens did the people of Westeros a huge favor.
Every time a lord of Westeros revolts against the king, that lord or group of lords is endangering the entire population by creating conditions where civil strife is once again possible and forcing many thousands of families to send people to war. At the same time, that lord or group of lords is weakening the entire kingdom and making it vulnerable to external threats. This can only be justified if the revolt aims to drastically improve the way Westeros is governed for the entire population as a whole.
Two times the Starks have revolted against the throne. On both of these occasions, the Starks start the rebellion to get even with the reigning house for executing some number of Starks, but these revolts have nothing to do with the interests of the people.
In the first revolt, the Starks fight to replace Aerys with Robert Baratheon. Aerys was paranoid and liked to execute nobles he mistrusted, but the kingdom was well-run by his government–in the books, it is emphasized on numerous occasions that under Aery’s hand the kingdom’s finances were well-managed and its people prosperous. The Starks put Robert on the throne, who squanders the economic gains made under Aerys, wasting all of Westeros’ reserves on lavish events for the entertainment of himself and his fellow wealthy nobles. While all shared in the prosperity under Aerys, Robert shows no concern at all for the people, ignoring the kingdom’s infrastructure and using the peasants’ tax money for private gain.
In the second revolt, the Starks insist on letting everyone know that the new king is born of incest, inciting a variety of claimants to rise up against the throne. This effectively returns Westeros to the state of nature–no one claimant is strong enough uphold the rule of law throughout Westeros, so all the claimants begin committing or permitting a variety of abominable acts, creating an immense amount of destruction and death (or what Martin calls “a feast for crows”). Much attention is paid to individual acts of cruelty by the Lannisters, but what the Starks do is much worse on a macro-level:
- They declare independence from the realm–if successful, this would permanently weaken the realm and partially return it to anarchy, permanently increasing the risk of future instability and war.
- They march tens of thousands of soldiers south, ultimately to their deaths at the hands of the Freys and Boltons.
- It is implied that the Freys participate in the deception at the Red Wedding (killing the aforementioned soldiers) because they are insulted by Robb Stark’s broken promise to marry a Frey, another case in which the Starks risk the population to serve their own interests.
- They leave the north defenseless and abandon it to a parade of marauders–first the Greyjoys, then the Boltons, and potentially Stannis or whoever (or whatever) is north of the wall, subjecting those they did not march to their deaths to endless raping and pillaging.
- By plunging Westeros into endless civil war, the Starks disrupt the harvest and leave Westeros perilously short on food, with winter still coming.
Neither of these revolts have produced any stunning improvement in the way Westeros is run. They have brought the realm only ruin and death. As far as we can tell, none of the remaining living Starks seem to feel any remorse for this–Arya Stark goes so far as to be obsessed with seeking further revenge on those her father needlessly antagonized, repeating their names before bed every night like some kind of crazy person. At every step of the way, the Starks put their own interests ahead of the realm’s and expose the people of Westeros to untold horrors all in service of their bizarre sense of honor and duty. This sense of honor and duty seems to have nothing to do with protecting the interests of Westeros’ little people whatsoever, so what good is it?
What about the other houses? The Lannisters are often pilloried for conspiring with the Freys and Boltons to murder Robb Stark and his mother, but for the realm as a whole, this is a merciful act. By killing Robb, the Lannisters avoid killing many more people in subsequent battles and the resultant raping and pillaging. Aside from this, the Lannisters act primarily to defend the extant king and prevent the realm from collapsing into chaos, ultimately unsuccessfully. We can freely criticize Jaime and Cersei for engaging in the incestuous relationship to begin with, but it was the Starks who chose to publicize this and the lead Lannister (Tywin) was ignorant of this fact and clearly not responsible for it.
As for the Targaryens, while they have a legitimate gripe about having been deposed unjustly, restoring them will likely expose Westeros to even more violence and death, assuming any other claimants remain to resist them. That said, if the civil war has weakened Westeros so severely that the white walkers are able to overrun the country, the Targaryens may be able to unite the realm and rescue everyone with their dragons, which would put them in a heroic light.
If there is a family to be rooted for right now, it’s the Tyrells. Why? The Tyrell strategy has been to attempt to marry Margaery to whichever young king is the strongest and most likely to provide Westeros with the stability and prosperity it needs. Initially they opt for Renly, and after he is killed they show no qualms about switching teams and opting for Joffrey. The only person killed by the Tyrells to this point in the show has been Joffrey, and this act did the entire realm a tremendous mercy. Tommen is a compassionate person, and if the Tyrells can separate Tommen from his mother he may become quite capable with time. Margaery Tyrell has also shown significant generosity toward the people, aiding the poor and the dispossessed. To the extent that there is any true hero in Game of Thrones, it’s her, not the Starks.
It seems to me all your saying is “Whoever is ruling, should be ruling.” But then it would seem that militant agitation is never morally warranted. And that seems a stretch to me. Surely executing Westorosi people without a trial morally warrants some form of disobedience, be it militant or peaceful, right? Perpetuating the status quo can only perpetuate injustice in this case.
Also, the Starks, Ned and Robb at least, were perfectly willing to change the system itself to benefit as many people as possible. Whereas the houses Targaryen, Lannister, Barratheon, etc were and are perfectly content with the present arrangement, excluding Dany perhaps. Fair trials (remember Jaime), equal applicability of the law (remember Rickard Karstark), fair trade, better treatment of the marginalized and criminal, and so forth were all things the Starks were willing change, at least if the books are any indication, for the betterment of all of Westeros.
Robb even seemed to care very little about old rules of Westeros nobility given his choice in wife, which could’ve only been a good thing for the underpriviliged in Westeros I would think.
I think that’s a bit of a straw man account–see this bit:
“Every time a lord of Westeros revolts against the king, that lord or group of lords is endangering the entire population by creating conditions where civil strife is once again possible and forcing many thousands of families to send people to war. At the same time, that lord or group of lords is weakening the entire kingdom and making it vulnerable to external threats. This can only be justified if the revolt aims to drastically improve the way Westeros is governed for the entire population as a whole.”
I’m clearly not saying that revolt is always impermissible–the question is where is the drastic benefit for the entire population as a whole. I’m not seeing it. We have no reason to believe that the Starks (who do not believe in the 7 but instead in the old gods) could have successfully dominated the south, so the most they could have done was achieve independence, which would result in endemic war between the north and south for generations and the north having to face the white walkers alone. That’s not good for anybody. As it happened the consequences were far worse than that for the aforementioned reasons (getting the army killed by the Freys and Boltons, leaving the north to be overrun by the Greyjoys and Boltons, creating mass starvation, weakening the entire realm in the advance of a possible white walker invasion, etc.)
I would also gripe with a couple of the claims you made about law and order under the Starks–Catelyn’s trial of Tyrion was no fairer than Tywin’s, and many other characters from many other houses have shown concern for those principles. There is nothing special about the Starks in that respect–we have seen Stannis, the Tyrells, the Martells, Tyrion, and many other characters from many other houses express concern for justice beyond the purely retributive sense. Assassinating Joffrey would have been sufficient and would have spared everyone all the awfulness (and the Tyrells did that). Also, in the books, Lady Stoneheart is remarkably indiscriminate and unjust, much moreso than most of the other characters. And we never hear Arya discuss “fair trials” for anyone on her list.
Ahh, I must have missed that sentence. Mea culpa.
I agree that the Starks could not have ruled the South but they could have ruled the North in a much fairer way than under a Lannister king, I think. And I see no reason to think that war between north and south would go on for generations after the war was finished. If the North won, then the North would allow someone to rule the South that picked the right side, so to speak.
By Starks I mean Ned and Robb. I may not have made that clear, although I thought I did. And I agree that many houses have shown respect for those principles but I doubt you could find two characters who lived it as clearly as Ned and Robb. Stannis and Tyrion are good examples but they are rather paradoxical on that front, I think. Stannis was OK with killing, in cold blood and for personal gain or pure revenge, his brother and Tyrion his father for similar reasons.
As for assassinating Joffrey, I agree that it was better for the kingdom but was it just? Catelyn and Arya and Sansa would be OK with it, but I doubt Ned or Robb or even that Snow kid would. I think Ned and Robb get blamed for some sort of moral absolutism here, but I think the opposite is in fact true–they are much more appreciative of the ambiguity in these instances. Killing someone has to be done as a last resort and with great care because no one is God, so to speak. Really I think they are more utilitarian than, perhaps many realize, it is just that honor acts as a sort of guiding principle for them.
One final point, Lady Stoneheart is not Catelyn Stark anymore, I’m afraid.
Is there any evidence that the king ordinarily interferes heavily in matters of local justice within the seven kingdoms? Most ordinary people living in the north are not likely to be targeted by the Lannisters. The Starks probably already enjoy wide latitude.
Do we really believe that the king of the remaining six kingdoms would never subsequently try to retake the north? I very much doubt this, given the history of Martin’s world and the large advantage in manpower the south has over the north. It’s sort of like the US civil war–even if the confederacy had gained independence, I very much doubt that would have been the end of it. There would have been subsequent efforts to reunite the country so long as the union retained significant material advantages over the confederacy. Many countries throughout history have frequently tried to retake lost territories, often leading to centuries of bloodshed (e.g. the 100 Years War, Byzantine invasions of Africa and Italy, etc.)
Stannis, Tyrion, Daenerys, and Margaery are all more pragmatic than Ned and Robb, who put strict adherence to their principles ahead of the interests of the people as a whole. Justice isn’t just about enforcing the same set of rules consistently–it’s also about knowing when and how to adjust the rules to changing circumstances. The Starks are remarkably rigid, and it frequently gets them and their people into trouble. And this brings us to the Joffrey case–clearly we can get a much more just outcome for everyone in the realm by getting rid of Joffrey, but because getting rid of Joffrey requires murder, Ned and Robb would likely have been too rigid to do this. I don’t think strict adherence to a code of honor is indicative of good character, particularly when this code is placed ahead of the interests of the people one is meant to protect. I think using an honor code in this way is no more noble than being overly concerned with one’s personal legacy (Tywin) to the detriment of everyone else. It’s just a different deontology to which one is enslaving oneself.
Ahh, just burn them all! Every last one of them! Why did jaime just not take the Iron Throne for himself. As King, he could then dictate his own set of standards including the existing marital rules.
Criticizing a mythic, quasi-medieval society from a modern perspective depends on contemporary norms that don’t exist in that fictional world and excludes other norms that do. It doesn’t mean such criticisms aren’t valid. However, the causal explanations tend to be weak if you screen out the reasons that matter to the characters themselves. I’ll leave that open.
I like Varys. He’s pretty much the only character whose decisions, while never totally clear in motivation, seem to be based on something like the common good that you’re describing. His support for Daenerys is becoming more apparent, and his reasons for this, as he presents them to Tyrion, is that she could unify the kingdom, put the nobles in their places, and possibly defeat the snow zombies with her dragons.
I believe that all people believe that they are doing good and have good intentions based on the set of beliefs that they have socially acquired, but I don’t see how this matters when we are assessing whether or not the actions, beliefs, and ideas themselves are good, i.e. have good consequences for the set of beings we as evaluators take to be morally relevant. So I would draw a sharp distinction between judging the actions, beliefs, and ideas of the Starks (very possible and fruitful work) with judging the Starks as beings independent of those things (impossible and inevitably arbitrary). So insofar as I appear to be saying “the Starks are bad”, what I really mean is that the things they do are bad and the their beliefs and ideas are bad insofar as those things cause them to act as they do. I could not and would not blame the Starks for the fact that they have acquired the beliefs and ideas they have acquired–ultimately, there are firm limits to responsibility.
They are all puppets to Varys and Littlefinger anyway.
I see your point but even cersei and joffrey dont care for peasents cersei even asked janos slynt to shut the gates to peasents and joffrey is a vicious and idot king to use tyrion’s words he wanted to kill them all. I believe danerys should be made queen as she is sympathetic to peasents and even locks her own dragons for them. Also varys too thinks for the realm and so does tyrion and they should rule together as far as the starks are concerned i believe their rule of north was good because maester luwin teaches bran to listen to the problems of people. I haven’t r3ad the books yet so i am basing it all from the show
I’m very late to this discussion, so I doubt you’re even going to read this but I feel like posting it anyways.
I agree with some of what you said but not all of it. Infact, I think Robb is really the only “bad” Stark
Jon, being a Stark, he is not bad. Say what you want, but he is right. The realm needs as many people as possible if they want a chance at fighting off the white walkers.
Ned. Alright, you can make a case that him trying to expose Cersci and Jamie was wrong for the realm, but in some way it was right for the realm though he didn’t know it. Joffery was a terrible King and did not deserve to sit up there. I’m not sure if Stannis(Atleast Show Stannis) deserved the Throne either, but he would have been a far better king then Joffery. But fine, if you still want to say that his action was bad, he did bend the knee to Joffery. I don’t think what Ned did was bad at all.
Robb on the other hand I would completely agree with you.
Robb is the issue. Look, I don’t agree with war, but I can see why he did it but you are right, Declaring independence was stupid. It would have actually been better if he just decided to go for the iron throne instead.What did he think was going to happen? He would kill Joffery and then what? The New Southern King (Aka Tomen aka Cersi) Wouldn’t want the North to be ruled by it’s own King.
Now I’m going to argue one of your points
“They march tens of thousands of soldiers south, ultimately to their deaths at the hands of the Freys and Boltons.” Ultimately yes, but he didn’t know that they we’re going to backstab him. I’m sure if he was 100% positive he wouldn’t have went. However the only reason this happened anyways was because he wouldn’t marry the Frey Daughter which WAS sellfish. What I don’t understand is why he couldn’t have just married her and divorced her later or had an affair on her with the women he truley loves. Either of these options would have been fine, though I understand why wouldn’t do the latter, as his honor probably wouldn’t allow him to.
Arya, well yeah, she’s not a good person anymore,
Catlynn, I feel most of he actions were reasonable, though I’d agree that hey probably don’t benifit the realm to much.
Sansa…Well I’d actually argue that nothing she has done has really effected the realm too much(At least not in the shows)
Looking at it, I’d argue that on;y 2 of them had made bad decisions that negatively effected the realm which would be Robb and to a much lesser extent Cat. I’d argue that what Ned did didn’t really effect the realm too negatively UNLESS you count bringing Stannis into the war, but he would have probably tried to take the throne anyways. Not to mention Stannis being on the Throne would have been better then Joffery or Tomen anyways, especially with how bad Joffery was and how the Lanister Adults still had most of the control anyways, so I’d argue that while this had a somewhat bad outcome, it was still a good decison because unlike the ones Robb made, i this had worked itd benifit the Kingdom greatly.
Ok so starks are based guys not really any more so than the other houses. For starters Ned didn’t actually expose certificate and Jamie’s secret that was Stannis. All Ned did was tell Cersi her knew to give her the chance to get away and escape the potential wrath of Robert..his reward for that is locked in a dungeon under false pretences and his head chopped off. Catelyn is more at fault for starting the war as she kidnapped tyrion under the belief he tried to kill Bran…and by that argument Jamie started it by shoving Bran out the window.
Robb didn’t ask to be King in the north his banner man decided it for him and please remember he was only 14 at the time..do we really expect him to have any more sense than Joffery. He is expected to rule at a young age. Joffery was killed by the Queen of Thornes so the tyrells are no better cause I doubt they killed him for the better of the realm..more to keep margery safe.
The only character who really thinks for the realm is Vary slightly as he has said a couple of times. Tyrion has tried to do his best but with his surname being lannister who would believe it. Even Dany only wants the throne as she believes it is hers by right.
The starks are no better or worse than any other house in the book and only Martin knows who are truly the bad guys as it is his world and he wrote the rules for them.
Nonsense.
You’re essentially arguing that the Starks are in the wrong because of inevitable collateral damage. It’s war, people are going to die regardless. There is nothing inherently evil about participating in a war, that depends directly on your motivations, methods and mindset when you fight.
Nothing to do with the interests of the people? Aerys just picked a fight with four of the seven kingdoms without just cause. It is not in the interest of any self-respecting people to tolerate tyranny. Overthrowing Aerys was a good thing at the time. Robert’s screw-ups don’t retroactively justify the Mad King’s antics.
Eddard Stark only revolted against the Iron Throne after the Crown Prince kidnapped his sister and then his brother and father were murdered by the Mad King. And then there’s that little detail about Aerys demanding that he and Robert be handed over to be executed even though they didn’t do anything wrong.
One could make the argument that Brandon Stark didn’t make matters better by demanding that “Rhaegar come out and die”. But that wouldn’t have been uttered if Rhaegar hadn’t kidnapped his sister. So the lion’s share of blame falls squarely on the Targaryens for the Rebellion.
Joffrey was not the rightful king and Eddard knew that. Even then, it wasn’t in the interest of Westeros’ people to follow the Lannisters, otherwise why are there four total kings declaring independence or challenging Joffrey? Robb may not have been acting in “The Iron Throne’s interests”, but he was acting in the interests of the North and the Riverlands who made him king. Renly was acting in the interests of the Tyrells and Stormlanders who initially followed him. Joffrey/Tywin was acting in the interests of House Lannister and based on the detail atrocities and horrors that Tywin inflicts on the people of the Riverlands, that’s not a good precedent for the rest of the kingdom.
It’s also not a good precedent to have the king get cuckolded by so that none of his trueborn children have a shred of legit royal blood, but are in fact bastards of incest. The truth hurts, but lies kill.
PS -Stannis is the one who sent letters to all of Westeros proclaiming Joffrey’s true parentage. Eddard was going to send a letter to Stannis, but that got intercepted
Blaming Robb for the Red Wedding and Bolton’s betrayal is an objective fallacy. He had no way of knowing that Roose would betray him or that Walder Frey would use treachery and deception in response to a relatively petty insult. One which Robb was making amends for by offering his Uncle, Lord of the Riverlands, to marry one of Frey’s daughters.
There’s a long list of people responsible for the Civil War and all of them bare more responsibility than the Starks. The most prominent for me would be Baelish for poisoning Jon Arryn, lying to Catelyn and betraying Ned (possibly convincing Joffrey to execute Lord Stark according to a popular theory…it certainly fits his personal interests); Tywin for overreacting and invading the Riverlands to protect his family’s reputation (he hates Tyrion, remember?); and Joffrey for executing Ned against his council’s advice and breaking any chance for peace with the North or Riverlands (even Tywin admits this).
The last point especially made the North fed up with the political backstabbing of the South to where they rightfully chose to strike out on their own. But of course this wasn’t going to be peaceful. Per US history, making yourself independent isn’t going to make the war end immediately, you still have to solidify that independence by forcing the other party to acknowledge your independence and leave you alone.
So Robb continued the war to gain independence, justice or both since peace was no longer an option. He attacks the Westerlands to draw Tywin into a trap where he could be captured and the war ended as quickly as possible. Though we don’t have many details, it’s inevitable that smallfolk suffered in the West and that sucks. That’s why war is hell and even then, we have nothing to confirm that Robb treated Tywin’s people as badly as Tywin treated the Riverlanders.
Also I love how you leave out the good things that the Starks did or at least made a clear effort to do:
– Ned was the only person who actually tried to help Robert out of love and duty. Varys himself comments that Eddard is the only one in King’s Landing whom Robert would be able to count on against his unseen enemies. Sadly, Ned was out of his element and already set-up to fail by Littlefinger. However, Eddard was such a fair and just ruler that many vassals of the North still resist the Boltons and Freys in his name. (Look up the “North Remembers” speech and the Great Northern Conspiracy)
– Jon Snow saves the Night’s Watch from being devastated by Mance Rayder at the cost of his honor by infiltrating them and warning his brothers about Rayder’s plans. He later turns down Stannis’ offer for Winterfell and lets thousands of wildlings escape the clutches of the Others while having hundreds of them man the undermanned Wall. He also gives helpful advice to Stannis which allows Stannis to cleanse the North of the last major Ironborn forward command post and even capture the Greyjoy princess. He and his direwolf also rediscover one of the only possibly two weapons capable of beating the Others in the form of dragon-glass.
– Arya protects Mikken from being wrongly abused by Joffrey. When she overheard Varys and the Cheesemonger, she tried to warn her father about what she thought was a plot against Ned and her brother, Jon. She saves three men from burning alive and recruits one of them to kill off 2 human monsters and help her liberate Harrenhal. Did I mention that he also assists in liberating Harrenhal from the Lannisters? Thereby depriving them of an essential base for their campaign of destruction, plunder and rape. Granted, she had no control over the fact that Roose Bolton would be the one commanding the North host that would takeover Harrenhal.
– Robb rescues his uncle and the Riverland capital from the Lannister invasion and later forces Tywin to try and return West…which would have freed the Riverlands and alleviated them if Edmure hadn’t screwed things up. He also executes one of his vassals for murdering two boys and had killed Riverland/Stark guards to get to the boys to uphold justice.
They’ve made mistakes, they’ve even done things that can be rightly judged as wrong or evil…but you’ll never win the argument that the Starks are worst than the Lannisters unless you can point out where Eddard had one of his son’s wives gang-raped and then lied that the poor girl was a whore so that makes it all okay.
In conclusion, your assertions that the Starks are somehow more villainous are wildly off-base and flatly wrong. Feel free to re-read the books if you think I’m just a “Stark fanboy”, but either way you’ll do proper research with which to make a more fair judgement on the situation.
Here, let me educate you on an objectively better list of people more villainous and evil than the Starks. Re-read the books if you think I’m lying, they’ll validate me:
Petyr Baelish
Tywin Lannister
Cersei Lannister
Joffrey Baratheon
Roose and Ramsey Bolton
Walder Frey
Slavers in Slavers Bay
Lysa Arryn
Gregor Clegane
All of the Greyjoy brothers with Euron being the worst
Craster
The Nights Watch Mutineers
The Brave Companions
The Average Dothraki khal/warrior
Renly Baratheon (yes, this is the truth.)
What this guy said lol
Whose morality are we applying here? That of 21st century USA (assuming that there is a shared morality there, which is highly dubious) or that of Westeros (assuming we can even know what that is) or that of 15th-century Europe? Your case seems to be based on effects, not intentions. In other words, if an act has a bad effect, it is bad, regardless of intentions; if it has a good effect, it is good, regardless of intentions. I can see you have a point. In these books, it is often the noblest of intentions that produce the worst outcomes. Two examples: 1) Ned Stark delays telling Robert about Joffrey’s true parentage, out of “mercy” to Cersei’s children. This delay results in Robert’s death, Ned’s, Robb’s, Catelyn’s and great misery for his other children. 2) Dany insists on freeing slaves, beginning with Mirr Mazz Durr. This noble intention results in Drogo’s death, her unborn child’s, and (in Slaver’s Bay) many more deaths. So yes, I see your point about good intentions miscarrying. But that is part of Martin’s point in these books (good intentions do not guarantee universal happiness) and one of the reasons they have such emotional power. One can nevertheless concede all of this and still maintain that the Starks (and Dany) are more humanly lovable than the Lannisters and Littlefinger (and Boltons and others). It is a paradox at least as old as Macchiavelli that the noblest is not always the wisest course or the one that leads to most happiness for most people. At least not in the short term. The jury is still out about the long term, both in GoT and in real life.
Like someone above pointed out here all you’re saying is that whoever is in the throne should remain there as it is for the best interest of the realm. But this is not true. Whoever is ruling should be kept on their toes so that they can prove they’ll be better rulers than whoever is revolting against them. That’s how each house would gain support of the public- by proving to them that they’ll be a better King/Queen than the existing one. The Starks have proved time and again that they would be better at ruling than any Lannister or a fake Baratheon. If Robb tried to declare the North independent it’s because his people believed they would be better off so. Unlike Danaerys who simply wants the throne because she’s a Targaeryen, Robb earned his popular support. The Lannisters who didn’t care for the support he received killed him and therefore insulted the people who wanted him as the King of the North. If there’s any house which only cares for themselves, it’s clearly the Lannisters. All they do is brag about their huge stockpile of gold and indulge in whatever pleasure they can (and as much as I like Tyrion, he falls into this category too).
I’m only making the case for Robb Stark here. He’s the truly just person. He executed his own bannerman, the Karstark for doing something that was not right. Danaerys on the other hand whom people consider the real rightful ruler is asking the Dothrakis to fight for her simply because Khal Drogo promised her the iron throne. She’s dragging them into a fight that’s not theirs and is willing to sacrifice their lives for her purpose. She doesn’t even offer anything in return to the Dothrakis for fighting with her. At least Jon Snow is offering the wildlings safety and homes in the South.
If I read this as if it is your opinion it is well written but seems to cherry pick information that would benefit your case. Just as if someone were to make the same argument for pro-stark. Essentially you are just playing devil’s advocates and trying to find every shred of indifference (instead of hatred) towards the Lannisters.
If I read this in a different light though if I read it as if you are a fictional character yourself charged with painting the Lannister’s in a warm glowing light as their PR spokesperson. Issuing your press releases to the citizens of Westeros with your reasons why the Lannister’s ruling the kingdom is a good thing. Even dissuading you are a plant of the Lannisters by saying Tyrell is really who should rule.
You are telling the citizens hey I know the Tyrell would be preferred over the Lannister’s but look our king is going to marry her so then it will Tyrell run too!
Then that makes this a brilliant read. You would just have to eliminate the bit about Joffrey being poisoned by the Tyrell’s and you would do great PR work for the Lannisters.
As for me. I am not for any of the houses at all I am for the characters most of which are Stark though Tyrion and Danaerys are the favorites neither of which are Stark. Oh and we can’t forget that the entire series game of thrones is just Varys and Littlefinger playing chess.
What you’re also not mentioning at all are the decades and centuries before Aegons conquest that the Starks were Kings in the North. And the north was pretty isolated from the rest of your “anarchic state”the other kingdoms are in. The north was stable for years before Aegons conquest and many lesser peasants and mountain clans loved the Starks.
You said because the events of the Red Wedding, the Lannisters saved everyone from raping and pillaging?
Have you forgotten that Tywin Lannister set loose the Mountain and his bannermen loose in the Riverlands to do exactly that- rape and pillage? Eddard, as hand, charged Lord Beric Dondarrion and Thoros of Myr to quell these atrocities, and continue to do so to this day long after Ned’s execution, as the Brotherhood Without Banners. In their eyes, their mission isn’t over.
Very weak point you put forth. The Lannisters have committed atrocities of their own in the second rebellion.
As a basis and as a whole, your argument is rooted on the belief that the productivity and prosperity of the realm as a whole is paramount to the peoples’ overall freedom. I understand the angle and I think that is a noble perspective, and I realize that you are entitled to criticize the Starks, but from a 21st-century upraising I simply cannot agree.
Regarding the conquest of Westeros, the Targaryens’ take-over was brutal and bloody, indeed, but there’s nothing else to be expected of in times of war. Under Targaryen rule, the peasants may have prospered, but at what cost? Rather than actually uniting the 7 Kingdoms, as Robert Baratheon had achieved, what the Targaryens had done was forcibly bind the unwilling kingdoms together through sheer display of force. The cost to the people, as is with every dictatorship, is their freedom; to their credit, Aerys II Targaryen and his blood did allow the realm to prosper and their banks to fill. Now, I did mention that Robert Baratheon actually managed in uniting the 7 Kingdoms, which also goes to disprove one of your other points. Eddard Stark had a stern set of principles, one that I admire, although I do believe flexibility to it is necessary. But, the amicable relationship between Robert and himself allowed for the Northmen’s independence. On the surface the Starks pledged their allegiance to the reigning house, but Ned did so with the understanding that there would be no tyranny on part of Robert Baratheon. The truth to the matter though, was that Ned wanted a united realm, a prevailing reason with his bending the knee. There was nothing about forcible submission. The north and the south were equals.
“The price of freedom is high, but it’s a price I’m willing to pay.” Do you recognize that quote? Probably not, but I’ll garner someone out there does, for those are the words Captain America said before destroying three helicarriers capable of sniping terrorists anywhere in the world. Or anyone, for that matter. Sound familiar? Those helicarriers symbolize the Targaryens and their power, their dragons. They had absolute control over the kingdoms, like the helicarriers would have, and although for the most part they were responsible with the power, the only thing they achieved was keeping the people on leashes in order to keep “peace.” It’s prosperity, sure. But above all, it’s not freedom – it’s fear. It’s fear, death, and tyranny. Of course, you could argue that the Targaryens still did well, but that’s scaling economic success against the peoples’ human rights. That’s an entirely different moral argument, but in our present world it would be absolutely disdained.
Now, in relation to the opening quote, it is the mindset which the Starks, and presumably many other houses had heading into battle against the tyrant’s forces. Can you blame them? Seated on the top was a mad king, a sadistic king, and below him were discontent people who could not stand his reign. Could you still say the quality of life can be purely measured by economic success? If that’s so, you would need a very convincing essay to explain why wealthy men are almost never content men. The Starks were simply willing to pay the price, and if they had remained stable without an unfit ruler like Joffrey, and to an extent, Robert Baratheon, generations of northmen and more would thank him. The only criticism is that the peace did not hold. And here you present a weak argument – external threat. As far as we know, the free cities across the Narrow Sea have never raised a hand against the 7 Kingdoms, and the Dothraki are incapable of crossing the Poison Ocean. It’s fine and dandy, but in the context of Westeros and Essos, it is invalid. White Walkers? You’re right, but the Night’s Watch hadn’t reported any sightings, and we know that the Wall would hold long enough for things to be organized back in the bulk of the land. Remember though, the thought of White Walkers never crossed the realmsmen’s minds, much less being taken into consideration. Men like Eddard Stark don’t hold lives to such petty regard.
As for the Starks’ rebellions, both times were to overthrow a tyrant, which just so happened to be proven both times by the beheading of Stark men. If someone cut down men without any cause for reason, is that not wrong? As well, remember that the Starks were not the only ones responsible. During the first war, the Lannisters and the Baratheons also joined forces for their freedom. Is that to no one’s interest? During the second rebellion, every house in the north (the Karstarks, the Umbers, and Boltons, etc…) were outraged, and they were not the only ones who were mad. Even the Lannisters disapproved of such actions. And think about it, was the cause for Ned Stark’s provocation unwarranted? In a time where blood was of utmost value, wouldn’t you say that Cersei, who is an obvious antagonist, was in the wrong? Even now incest is mocked, so could you criticize our society as a whole if you are to blame Ned Stark? The honourable Lord Eddard Stark was known to all as a man of honour and of principle, something that inspired respect from everyone. Would you blame a man for enforcing the principles which chivalry and the realm was set upon? If anything, he was the leading role model in Westeros. Everyone who knew him weeped. It’s hard to say that for many characters.
However, I won’t disagree that Robert was a terrible king. He said so himself. Does that weaken the rebellion’s cause though? The kingdoms sought to overthrow a tyrant ruler and that is enough. The people would sure like to be prosperous, but again, freedom versus economy. The debts is another matter, though. 3 million to Tywin Lannister, who has been patient enough to reclaim the debt. Tens of millions though, to the Iron Bank of Braavos. The problem with that is that the Iron Bank would fund the realm’s enemies, but who is that exactly? The free cities? The Dothraki? Daenarys, whom they’ve rejected? White Walkers? Wildlings? It is a terrible thing to be in debt, but like America, there is no immediate danger to the kingdoms even so.
Then we have the Stark’s cause for independence. They wish to govern themselves, to not be subject to potential southern failures-as-kings. Is that wrong? Canada separated from Britain because it wished to be independent, but it didn’t cause the countries to go to war, or for Canada to fall in depression. They can still be mutually beneficially, and separation doesn’t mean eternal war if both sides can be understanding. On that part, you can put absolutely no blame on the North.
Then, unless the realms had a prophet, which I understand they did not, how could Robb Stark know he was going to end up as he did? Rewatching the series now, I can hardly believe that Robb’s most-trusted advisor was Roose Bolton, who seemed to have served Robb perfectly. Walder Frey was a treacherous, perverted little cunt, and the Boltons were simply sadists. Would you, for example, not want to overthrow Walder Frey since he perverses his daughters? Robb was young and he made a fatal mistake, wedding another, but that’s attributed to youth and stupidity, not the Starks’ failure as a house. However, the North was certainly subject to raids and attacks as most of the men were fighting down south. Again, though, the betrayals could not have been foreseen as he had trusted Theon and trust the Boltons – personal mistake, not the Stark name’s. Lastly, your reasoning that the Starks plunged Westeros into war is flawed beyond reason. If someone provoked you endlessly with pins and needles, would you not eventually break and say, “Stop it!” Your blaming the Starks for standing up against tyranny, something that cannot be offset by mere economical prosperity, is ignorant of human rights.
You don’t believe that the causes have anything to do with improving the peoples’ lives, but I beg to differ. You see the realm as one unit, but I see it as divided kingdoms in which the average score does not speak for everyone. What I find interesting as well, is that you say the Lannisters were merciful in killing Robb Stark discretely, but who is it in the interest of? The sinful house whose shadow resides over the Iron Throne? You believe that what a house does right offsets a great deal of what it is wrong in – the end justifies the means. It is an endless debate, but for an evil house and an evil ruler to have made such decisions blatantly paints the Lannisters with a criminal’s sign.
The single most ridiculous thing about this though, is that you argue that Ned Stark was in the wrong for revealing the incestuous relationship between Cersei and Jaime, all the while supporting that the Targaryens have a rightful claim to the throne. If you support their claim that blood is of great importance, then what possesses you to say that Joffrey’s parentage shouldn’t be published? It is the right thing to do, according to the set of beliefs in Westeros. If you have the best interests of the people of Westeros in mind, then wouldn’t you agree that the people can’t be kept in the dark about something like the king’s false claim? You would sacrifice the right thing in order to keep things under wraps, as is with absolutely all of your arguments, but how long before the “future consequences” you discuss explode? If the Stark’s division, which would be of less consequence than the throne’s rightful ruler, is as dangerous as you speak, than it would only tear Westeros apart more in the future.
I think for you, you don’t know what you have until it’s gone. I don’t think you know what it’s like to have a dictator forced unto you, to not have the freedom our modern world provides. You have a more world-as-a-whole-sacrifice kind of mindset, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. For the sake of their freedom, the Starks certainly don’t.
No way are the Starks villains.
When Brandon Stark went to King’s Landing to demand Rhaegar to face him, he was arrested. Did the Starks call their banner men and rebel? No? Richard Stark even went to King’s Landing himself, to fight in his son’s trial by combat. The Starks didn’t immediately start a war once things went south. Only when their leader was killed, along with his heir, by a madman who chose fire as his champion in a trial by combat.
Westeros was only successful during Aerys’ reign, as for most of that time, Tywin was Hand. He was replaced when Aerys became jealous of his success. I believe his successor wasn’t as good as him, and Aerys was known for having lavish and unreasonable pursuits. So the kingdom may have started to go downhill anyway.
For the second rebellion, again, the Starks didn’t automatically declare war once things went south. When Ned was arrested, Joffery was the one who demanded Robb show himself at King’s Landing. With this, he really had no choice but calling his banner men, as going to King’s Landing by himself would almost certainly have resulted in a similar fate like his grandfather. If he refused, that would also be treason. So should really have gone have got himself killed? I’m sure the commonfolk of the North would have understood the situation. And its not as if the Starks lived all lavishly. They seemed quite humble to me.
Finally, when Ned discovered Cersei’s secret, why should he have kept his mouth shut? From his POV, it was the right thing to do. In fact, it was the right thing to do. If he hadn’t told Littlefinger of his plans, there most likely would have been no war, and Cersei and Jaime would have been reprimanded. If anyone’s to blame, it’s Baelish.
Bottom line is, the Starks are most certainly not villains.
I m not a Stark lover but this is straight bs my friend, you said that they started 2 rebellions but that is so far from the truth. When Lyanna was abducted Starks didn’t go to war, her brother Brandon went to King’s Landing and demanded justice, when he and his father Rickard were killed by Aerys, Starks still didn’t go to war, it was John Arryn who started the rebellion when Aerys demanded heads of Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark. Second time, Robb didn’t summon his bannermen because Joffrey was a bastard but because his father was put in chains. Wouldn’t you do the same?
The comment i was looking for! Yeah this is full bs. Also the fact that Stannis spread the fact about the Incest. I wonder if Benjamin has even read the books. -_-
[…] The Starks are Not the Good Guys: Morality and Game of Thrones (April 21, 2015, 10,636 hits) […]
Great article, but I see you seem to get alot of flame and “let me educate you”- nonarguments from the leghumpers of everything black and white here in the comment section.
You are a very brave man!
BARATHEONS RULE.
that is true . baratheons are the best house of westeros.
THE THINGS YOU ARE DESCRIBING HERE IS OF SUBMISSIVE NATURE. ITS THINKING LIKE THIS THAT GETS PEOPLE TO BE DOMINATED. YOU GOTTA STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT. YOU GOTTA KILL OR GET KILLED. 3 WORDS” FTF” “FIGHT TO FINISH.”
[…] out think pieces about prestige programs. Often it’s some big critical hit on HBO like Game of Thrones, or an edgy Netflix original series like House of Cards. These are thought to be the important […]
I understood your argument.
Starks are not good because they started a war for injustice and stupid northeners followed them. They should have rather assassinated their enemies by hiring Faceless Men.
Their morality is at fault for the injustice that always finds them. So, they should change their very nature.
According to your argument, Dornish should be the best of them all. They kill with poison most times. Tyrells used it once only to the best of my knowledge.
No, they are not worse than the Lannisters. I think that you simplify things. For example, Tywin was ignorant of his children incest relation, but he was the one who was teaching them you can do anything you want if you are of “better name”. He didn’t realize, to the very end, you can’t select what other people can or can’t do.
I see you try to blame Starks because of the batterfly effect of their actions. Well, here’s one: Cercei lied to the whole world (fictional of course) about her children’s true father, so:
– They killed The King’s hand to bury the truth
– They killed The King’s hand (Ned Stark) to bury the truth, again.
And, then the war already started. So, when you say ordinary people suffered because of the Starks, it’s not true. They were typicall medieval noble family, like the rest of them. They were all ruthless and bloodthirsty. The Hound was right on this one.
GOT is not about good or bad family houses. It’s about chosen (for a reason) individuals who will survive at the end, if creators’ plan is to let someone survive at all. Or at least I see it that way.
Obviously a little late, but you had a decent point prior to mentioning Arya. Of course she’s obsessed with revenge. She has basically everything taken from her and is subject or witness to numerous atrocities. Of course the only thing she has to fall back on is revenge, and it’s not like any of the people she names don’t deserve death.
Furthermore, you neglect to mention the fact that Tywin Lannister singlehandedly did more to fuck Westeros over than basically everyone. He raped, pillaged, and burned the Riverlands, which are extremely populous and are one of the two primary sources of much of Westeros’s food (other than the Reach). Oh, in addition, he did the same exact thing to King’s Landing when he sacked it.
Meanwhile, you blame the Starks for revealing Joffrey’s incestual origins as if them allowing Joffrey to pose as the rightful king would have been a good thing. Joffrey was a disgusting human with no regard for anyone besides himself, and had he been allowed to rule as the rightful king for the duration of his long life (70 years or some shit), the realm would have gone to shit. Them revealing that he was born of incest is their attempt to get a better king for the realm.
Meanwhile, you somehow claim that Robert was a worse king than Aerys. While he spent much of the realms money, yes, he kept it extremely peaceful and happy and prosperous for his entire reign bar the greyjoy rebellion; which he ended in a short time before the smallfolk came to much harm and didn’t much punish them for doing so. On the other hand, Aerys’s plan at the end was to burn the entirety of King’s Landing down. He, like Joffrey, was a ticking time bomb, and if anything the rebellion is the fault of Rhaegar and Lyanna for stealing away in the first place, and the fault of Aerys for demanding the heads of Ned and Robert in the second place instead of ending it with Brandon and Rickard. Aerys should have been removed as king a long time ago, and Jon Arryn’s reaction was completely justified.
You’re just playing shitty moral relativism and blaming some characters for stuff they had no way of knowing would happen (e.g. The Ironmen invasion of the north or the coming of the Others) for the sake of a contrarian point of view.
Oh the tyrells are okay except they completely destabilized the realm by not following stannis and then putting a boy on the throne, effectively allowing it to be ruled by a council of fools and leading it further into ruin.
I know this is old but I wanted to have a say whether I get a reply or not. I’ll try to keep my details within the first 4 seasons.
– Rob goes to battle to savehis father and his sisters but continues his fight after Ned’s death because he knows Joffrey is not the heir.
– Rob Stark is proclaimed King of the North by his bannermen, he only accepts.
– Even though it’s tragic, the common people always get the worse of any situation. This is true throughout history to the modern day.
With your logic of thinking, no war would ever be waged.
– Where have you read that Targaryen rule brought any peace? They brought death and very little change. The Targaryens themselves had one of the biggest wars within their 300 year rule. The Dance of the Dragons saw plenty of death since both sides had dragons and, in general, it was a fight between 2 people for the crown.
– The King of the land has a HUGE impact on the population, mostly the common people. As seen with Joffrey, the people in Kings Landing were starving and almost revolted against him because he didn’t care for them. A lot of them would have gladly took up arms against him.
– The Lannisters went to battle for Tyrion before the Starks went to war, so the idea that they only fought for the good of the realm goes out the window.
– You say it was a mercy to the realm that Joffrey died, which I agree, but you also say that the realm shouldn’t know that he’s not the son of King Robert?
The Starks send word of the incest between Jamie and Cersei for this reason, not to spread gossip.
Im sure I could go on, but that’s enough for now.
Wait what? Lyanna Stark was wed to Robert Baratheon? You mean betrothed, promised or engaged. Ok, I figured this would have to be an attempt to come up with something totally new. I was like “yeah, go for it! Let’s see what you got.” Then not even barely into the article, you throw that out? Well, let’s see what else you twist here..
The biggest hole in your argument is you say that the Targaryens brought peace to the kingdom and ended the warfare between the different locations. Looks at all the battles and fights in the books and movies and the ones that occur prior to the stories. Er, no, no they did not. They failed to establish an actual lasting peaceful system.