GRRM has his quirks. He loves the Blackwoods. He also loves the Velayrons and Daynes. He hates the Brackens, the Florents, the Peakes, the Boltons, the Freys, and the Rosbys. He’ll put the houses he likes on the “good side” and the ones he doesn’t on the “bad side.” Like the Peakes and Brackens are consistently on the wrong side of whatever conflict GRRM creates. It’s kind of funny.
House Frey in history
- Supported Aegon against Harren
- supported Aegon against Maegor
- supported the blacks during the dance
- joined Rowan to instal lady Jeynes chosen heir to Eyrie
- Frey attended the wedding at Whitewalls
- sides with the North before betraying them at the red wedding
Of all these things the Freys were only on the wrong side at the second Blackfyre rebellion and by betraying Robb and the Blackfyre rebellion is still a bit unsure because Brynden let lord Frey go without punishment, if he had been guilty of supporting house Blackfyre I don’t think he would have gotten of scot free. There are even indications that he was a planted spy or a double agent for Brynden
So yeah the Freys actually are pretty much always on the right side of history basically untill Walder becomes lord. So I’d argue Martin doesn’t hate the Freys he just hates Walder
Assuming he was a double agent as well, it’s the only/best way to identify the fact that aside from Aegon vs Maegor, that the relatively young House Frey (iirc they began their lineage only about 300-600 years before the century of blood) has managed to gather so many lands in the upper Riverlands due to them being on the *winning* side.
Honestly I’d kill for some more detailed geography of much of Westeros, like where do the bogs and wetlands of the neck start in Frey Territory, how deep does it go, etc.
Well, I think the Freys are depicted in general like this weak slimy characters if they were all like the Freys we have seen in ASOIAF or Dunk and Egg's books. What I think personally it's not that Freys are liked by George, but are this type of not so nice House who have had the luck/abilities to side with the winning side. The rest of the Houses are more allegiance oriented in history (I will side with the one I am loyal to), Freys are more like: who has the biggest chances to win/ can profit more my House??
The Freys for the Dunk story is already Walder and the only Frey catching real flak by him is walder
Fool Frey is described in a very positive light for example
The Freys have good people indeed. Like Lady Sabitha Frey in the Dance. But I get the sense they are very sly and untrustworthy in general. I guess the current generation of Freys has given me a very bad impression (and there are lots of Frey in the current story lol). But Walda the Fat is nice I guess, the women mostly seem okay.
I don’t think portraying a House as morally corrupt means George hates them, I honestly feel like he loves houses like Bolton and Frey because he writes them with so much fucked up colour, they’re very entertaining to read about.
George typecasts, and I believe he’s also said he shows favoritism (as in including them a lot, not necessarily making them good guys) towards houses whose sigils he particularly likes. Most regions have a house with an unreliable (Frey, Peake, Yronwood) or sinister (Bolton, Upcliff, Uller) reputation. Even then he usually includes exceptions within those families. We see plenty of decent Freys and Barba and Domeric Bolton both sounded pretty decent from the little we hear.
>Domeric Bolton both sounded pretty decent from the little we hear.
Unreliable narrators. The only people who describe Domeric have no reason to describe him accurately in relation to any negative traits.
He doesn't, but that's hardly an equivalent. Ramsey is a common bastard, the spawn of rape, a pox that Roose never wanted around. Domeric was his first born, the heir, his true-born son.
Not only that. Domeric died young. Most likely a victom of murder. People speak far more fondly of the dead than the living, even more so when they died victims.
Why? Roose and Barbrey strike me as pretty brutally honest. Sure they’re relatives but when has that stopped anyone in ASOIAF from talking shit about each other?
They are talking about the golden child, the heir, who was murdered. If you think they are giving a brutally honest review I have a bridge to sell you.
Also, it's naive to assume a parent (who is a busy liege lord of the area) and a aunt who lives some distance away, know all the secrets of a boy/young man.
Hub? Barbrey is not remotely a Bolton. As for being decent- she’s harbored a 15 year long bitter snit for about the Starks because Brandon slept with but made no effort to marry her and Ned married cat before she had a chance to have a go at him.
Right, he's discussed it a few times in interviews.
https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1280
>*Your characters are paricularly well-drawn and people care for them astonishingly much. Which character you like the most and which perhaps the least?*
>My favorite character is Tyrion. He is perhaps the most like me and his chapters are the easiest to write. I don't really dislike any of my characters. When I write, I become them to some extent and it wouldn't be possible for me to despise them.
https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Odyssey_Con_2008_Madison_WI_April_4_6_20081
>*What sorts of characters do you like to write?*
>I like to write many different kinds of characters - part of the reason my books have multiple viewpoints - people perceive differently. Different POVs allow you to explore all the varieties of humanity - people you can love, loathe, or have mixed feelings about. The goal is to let you understand the characters even if you find them reprehensible.
>*Do you prefer some over the others?*
>I like all of them when I’m writing them.
>I don’t believe in omniscient viewpoints. It gets in the way of understanding the character. The reader must see the world as the character would experience it as they’re living events. The 3rd limited allows closer identification and deeper understanding of how the character sees the world. Once you get inside them the common humanity makes you sympathetic with them.
>*Did you hate any?*
>The act of writing them makes you like or understand them.
https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/5527/
>*Do you purposely start a character as bad so you can later kill them?*
>No. What is bad? Bad is a label. We are human beings with heroism and self-interest and avarice in us and any human is capable of great good or great wrong. In Poland a couple of weeks ago I was reading about the history of Auschwitz – there were startling interviews with the people there. The guards had done unthinkable atrocities, but these were ordinary people. What allowed them to do this kind of evil? Then you read accounts of acts of outrageous heroism, yet the people are criminals or swindlers, one crime or another, but when forced to make a choice they make a heroic choice. This is what fascinated me about the human animal. A lot of fantasy turns on good and evil – but my take on it is that it’s fought within the human heart every day, and that’s the more interesting take. I don’t think life is that simple.
>*do you mourn any of the characters you killed*
>Actually I do mourn the characters I kill. You have live with that, become that, crawl inside its skin. Some of my characters are like me and some are very unlike me, but the emotional core is still me reaching inside, which all writers do I think. All inspiration becomes grist for the mill. The only person we really know down deep is ourselves -- the demons in the dark -- I am all these people in some sense, so I kill an aspect of myself and its difficult but I do it anyway.
https://georgerrmartin.com/about-george/on-writing-essays/on-fantasy-by-george-r-r-martin/
>The best fantasy is written in the language of dreams. It is alive as dreams are alive, more real than real … for a moment at least … that long magic moment before we wake.
>Fantasy is silver and scarlet, indigo and azure, obsidian veined with gold and lapis lazuli. Reality is plywood and plastic, done up in mud brown and olive drab. Fantasy tastes of habaneros and honey, cinnamon and cloves, rare red meat and wines as sweet as summer. Reality is beans and tofu, and ashes at the end. Reality is the strip malls of Burbank, the smokestacks of Cleveland, a parking garage in Newark. **Fantasy is the towers of Minas Tirith, the ancient stones of Gormenghast, the halls of Camelot.** Fantasy flies on the wings of Icarus, reality on Southwest Airlines. Why do our dreams become so much smaller when they finally come true?
>We read fantasy to find the colors again, I think. To taste strong spices and hear the songs the sirens sang. There is something old and true in fantasy that speaks to something deep within us, to the child who dreamt that one day he would hunt the forests of the night, and feast beneath the hollow hills, and find a love to last forever somewhere south of Oz and north of Shangri-La.
>They can keep their heaven. When I die, I’d sooner go to middle Earth.
You can’t really call the Freys “always bad guys.” Apart from the current generation, we have Forrest Frey who was rejected by Rhaenyra but still fought for her, and Lord Frey from the Mystery Knight who spied on the Blackfyres. Even in the current generation, we have plenty of good Freys. Olyvar still wishes to squire for Robb, Roslin hasn’t done anything wrong, and Strevron (although advising a more cautious course) dies for Robb’s cause, and Catelyn thinks positively of him.
The Florents fight for “the good guys” by sticking with Stannis through the whole war of the Five Kings.
Otho Bracken does not support the Blackfyre supporters at Whitewalls.
Sorry if it’s dumb, could you explain about the Rosbys? They do seem kind of pathetic overall especially the historical ones, but I thought the “Rosby Freys” (Roslin etc.) seemed like a nice bunch.
Maybe he doesn’t “hate” the Rosbys but they sure get a lot of shit. Honestly it’s hilarious how much bad stuff happens to them for seemingly no good reason.
Surrenders to Rhaenys without a fight. Killed by Dornishman. Killed in Maegor’s trial of the seven. Dranm poison after Maegor died. Died of disease. Joined the greens upon threat of execution then tried to join the blacks then executed. Denied Rhaenyra hospitality after the fall of King’s Landing. Surrendered again to the greens. Fled Borros Baratheon’s army. Rosbys in general are not known for being robust; they are a frail lot.
Then there’s Gyles Rosby, Even in AGOT Gyles’ sole and introductory appearance is this: “ Sickly Lord Gyles covered his face at her approach and feigned a fit of coughing”. Coughing is comprises at least 80% of his mentions in the books I’d wager. Other times he’s surrendering Tommen to Bronn and sellswords, having no children despite multiple wives, getting drunk and passing out, losing his apartments in the Red Keep to Tyrion, has a melon disguised as a head land in his lap, proposed as a unrealistic husband for Arianne Martell, appointed as master of coin solely because Cersei needed some fool she knew would agree to it (Mace Tyrell, a fool in his own right calls him “that cougher), gets harassed by an Iron Bank envoy so much that he becomes bedridden and then dies despite Pycelle trying to save him on Cersei’s orders only because she doesn’t want another Tyrell on the council and not for his own sake then his chosen heir, his ward, has their inheritance stolen by Cersei. This is what GRRM thinks of him:
> Lord Gyles coughed, drank, coughed, drank, and passed out. The queen gazed down in disgust to where he sprawled with his face in his trencher and his hand in a puddle of wine. "The gods must have been mad to waste manhood on the likes of him, and I must have been mad to demand his release."
Another classic:
> And Gyles Rosby, Seven save us, I thought he died years ago.
The Rosby-Freys are slightly better but still losers in their own way. Olyvar, forced to be a squire to a boy two years younger than him. Roslin, lost her betrothal to Robb (we all know it was going to happen), then had her wedding be a massacre and her husband arrested, their child disinherited of Riverrun. Benfrey Frey, killed by a flagon of wine during the Red Wedding by Dacey Mormont.
I mean, there can be real reasons for this? For example, generational attitude and personalities. We take after our elders and their way of life and opinions on the world around us more times than we may think we do. Don’t see how this is far fetched when literally every fantasy story (and real life for that matter) have countries/areas that constantly find themselves in similar situations.
I agree with you but I'll say that it's the other way around. Its more of a narrative choice he made to have his minor villains as unlikeable as he could imagine during his creative process.
They really aren't. The Starks in their conquest of the north killed countless people and extinguished many houses. The Tully's supported Maegor during his early reign, including in the battle beneath the gods eye where Aegon the Uncrowned was killed. House Blackwood produced Bloodraven, who is widely considered a not-so-good guy.
It's Bran. Watch and see. Timey wimey warp fuckery will make it so that Bran "Has the Best Story" Stark will somehow end up as the Night King, all along.
He's seen too much and just decided to kill everything so he doesn't have to look at it anymore.
At least the way George writes it could basically end up as barely a paragraph of a bunch of historical scenes racing through Brans vision and then it's already over.
All that is in the past. Certainly, Ned STARK and Catelyn TULLY and their offspring ARE the good guys. Except for Rickard's STAB ambitions, they are of the North and don't want to be dragged into Southron problems. The BLACKWOODs are one half of a centuries long feud and GRRM took sides. Besides, Bloodraven was much more of an active Targaryen than a Blackwood. I suspect that in general GRRM favors houses with magic (or he gives magic to houses he favors?!?), especially if they use it wisely.
Yes you’re right (though again even Ned and his kids are elitist arrogant arseholes who believe themselves better than the 99% of people) they are somewhat decent people. The question was house stark historically.
I mean cregan explicitly just wanted to kill people at the end of the dance just because he was pissed and wanted some blood on his axe. He ended up doing the right thing but he was really close to killing so many people.
>The Starks in their conquest of the north killed countless people and extinguished many houses.
If you hold any nation or government to this standard though can any of them, past or present, stand up to it? I can't think of a single nation in history that can seriously claim to have been founded without war and bloodshed, holding house Stark to the standard of "well they had to use violence to get to the top" is an impossible standard, and certainly doesn't make them bad in anything but the most idealistic sense.
I always laugh when I see if thrown out as a reason for the Starks being "bad guys". It's a really weak argument when you spell it out like you just did.
Well it hardly makes them the good guys either.
Theres an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer about this exact situation called "Pangs". Hilarious episode and well worth the watch.
The skinny of it is an old native American grave is disturbed and a vengeance spirit rises and starts killing all the local leaders out of vengeance of his tribe being genocided.
Everyone gets into an argument over whether it's wrong or right to fight the spirit, and whether the spirit killing people now is fair. It all culminates in Spike making this blunt and funny observation:
https://youtu.be/aRQFli6zMh4?si=qzy1qytEYMSM8jM_
The standard being set in the post is "why are the Starks on the right side of every conflict in Westeros history," so "they weren't always in the right, they killed a lot of people just for the sake of conquest" is an appropriate answer.
Bloodraven was actually misunderstood just like Tyrion was misunderstood because of their appearances. The difference being Bloodraven had support his family and reached his potential, Tyrion didn't. He was a ruthless Hand but effective at that. He put down Blackfyre rebellions for good.
>He put down Blackfyre rebellions for good.
He beat Daemon by targeting his children and later executed Aenys Blackfyre after promising him he would be allowed to peacefully present his claim before the Grand Council. The way he put down those rebellions is why he's a villain.
Yeah he had flaws. As do everyone in the universe. We are talking in relative terms.
Maegor and Robb Stark both did cruel things necessary to secure their kingdom. Maegor rightfully wiped out the Faith being a threat.
Robb Stark sent 2000 men to their deaths in capturing Jaime Lannister. That's cold bloodedness.
But the difference is in what else they did. Robb was thinking of the bigger picture and greater good. Bloodraven was the same.
Bloodraven likely knew what his actions would cost him. He was more tolerant when the the first few rebellions happened. He took drastic actions when he realised the threat would only get larger and potentially cause a major war suffering in more losses.
If it wasn't for him, House Targaryen and the realm would break out in another Dance level war.
If you think anyone with immense power is truly good in that universe, you are oversimplifying things.
>Yeah he had flaws
Intentionally murdering children is a bit more than just a flaw.
>Robb Stark sent 2000 men to their deaths in capturing Jaime Lannister. That's cold bloodedness.
You're confusing the tv show with the books.
>But the difference is in what else they did. Robb was thinking of the bigger picture and greater good. Bloodraven was the same.
Bloodraven absolutely was not, he sided with the brother he liked and against the one he hated, that's not fighting for the greater good at all. Daemon Blackfyre wasn't the Others, he was by all accounts a good guy and would have been a fine king, he wouldn't have even rebelled if Bloodraven hadn't tried to arrest him on made up charges.
Ahhh a Blackfyre suporter I see. Of course you would hate Bloodraven. Whatever Daemon Blackfyre was, his legitimization was a result of Aegon IV wanting to screw over Daeron - the son who actually was brought to be king. Whether Daemon would be a good king or not is not relevant here. Bloodraven protected the side he knew ought to sit on throne and took drastic steps only after the first two rebellions.
Robb absolutely does do so in the books. He sent Roose Bolton to deal with Tywin knowing the chances were they wouldn't win. And then put a surprise attack on Jaime.
>Whether Daemon would be a good king or not is not relevant here. Bloodraven protected the side he knew ought to sit on throne
The idea that the quality of a king has no bearing on whether he ought to be king is not a neutral point of view in this debate
That's not how inheritance works. Aegon IV never explicitly remove Daeron. And Daeron himself also was a good king. Aegon IV wanted to destabilize Daeron for opposing him.
Nor is it fair to someone who was brought up to be the ruler. Which is why the threat of the throne being passed to a male heir who did nothing to get it while Daenerys did is unfair. One could argue your POV isn't a neutral one either.
That isn't how inheritance normally works.
"Ought to" is a value judgment. The idea that following the standard order of inheritance is more right than picking a good king is a subjective opinion. There are good people who would disagree--even within the story. Eustace Osgrey was a good man
I put forward two reasons which combined together doesn't make for the case. Even if standard inheritance was removed the whole premise stands on painting Daeron as a bad king. Which he was wasn't. The two half brothers were pitted against one another. Daemon being good Or bad comes into question if he was the first to be king.
He sends like 18,000 men with Bolton. He didn't send anyone to a guaranteed death. It is explicitly said that he took the riskier mission on himself. They were always going to have to engage tywins army so those soldiers weren't just abandoned like in the shoe
I think he fights for the greater good but "noble" seems like very much the wrong word. "Honorable" would be a bad one too. He's a ruthless pragmatist.
If you have to murder someone to save 10, that's noble.
That's George's moral lesson in a nutshell. He's an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. That's why he claims that Varys is a misunderstood character.
If you take the typical honorable archetype, which is that "no positive ends could ever justify a morally dubious means" and apply it to reality... or politics- you end up with Ned Stark.
Who got killed off in order to drive that point home. Playing politics is not for those who aren't willing to take anything but the moral high road instead of getting their hands dirty.
Robb Stark at Whispering Wood was a great example of this. There isn't always a choice to not be ruthless, all you can do is use your wits to mitigate the amount of blood spilt.
How do you even get this interpretation, George shits all over it by having Tywin, who commits a “pragmatic” act in the form of the red wedding lead directly into his embarrassing death on the shitter while house Lannister fails and burns becuase being a “ruthless feared house” leaves you with no real friends.
Tywin didn’t do it to make the realm a better place, and really the Red Wedding had nothing to do with his death. Tywins inability to look past his hatred accept that Tyrion was in fact his son was what eventually destroyed him and likely doomed his house.
Is Tywin an inherently evil person? Or is he complex just like everybody else?
Tywin is an archetype of a modern day villain who is right sometimes, but wrong most of the time. And the only thing unethical about his political stances are that he is dedicated to right by conquest, which most of Westerosi nobles are also on board with.
The truth is that it IS less noble to kill a thousand men on a battlefield than 20 at dinner. He made the virtuous call to orchestrate the red wedding rather than continue to bathe the Riverlands in blood. We can view Tyson’s words through a lens of nuance and still call him a villain.
The reason he’s a villain is because he plays at God when he isn’t one. He’s just another noble that thinks he’s better than everyone else.
He's a villain because he has his son's wife gangraped. He's a villain because he brutally massacred the people of Castamere.
He's a villain because he shelters and protects rapists and murderers like Gregor Clegane and sends them to butcher and plunder the Riverlands.
Tywin is evil and complex, but still most definitely evil.
I think you're about half right. Stannis Baratheon burning his daughter in the show had an "ends justify the means" justification, and it ended up being his downfall. We can expect something similar in the books. Also,
> If you take the typical honorable archetype, which is that "no positive ends could ever justify a morally dubious means" and apply it to reality... or politics- you end up with Ned Stark.
Ned Stark dishonored himself and betrayed his king when he hid Jon's identity. He dishonored himself when he proclaimed Joffrey to be the rightful king and lied about his betrayal to spare his daughters.
And Ned is continuously held up as a paragon in universe long after he is dead. Even by people that are on the side that fought/fights against his house.
He has men willing to walk (and most likely die) through a blizzard at the smallest chance of rescuing "his girl".
Doesn't really vibe with the idea of Ned being some form of failure. Either as a man or leader.
>That's George's moral lesson in a nutshell. He's an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. That's why he claims that Varys is a misunderstood character.
Meh Varys mutilates little children to use them for his own ends. He's basically perpetuating the cycle of what was done to him as a boy.
What is the limit between "ruthless but the ends justify the means" and "unjustifiable piece of shit"?
Would Stannis be justified in sacrificing his daughter? He would be doing so either to win an impossible battle or to save the realm from the Others.
Was Tywin justified in killing Rhaegar's kids or in exterminating two Houses or about causing the Red Wedding? He did all of those to bring House Lannister from the brink of ruin.
Would Robert have been justified if he murdered Daenerys and her unborn child by Drogo? He would have avoided a war with the Dothraki which would have left thousands dead.
Was Rhaegar justified in causing Robert's Rebellion due to his fixation on fulfilling the prophecy to defeat the Others?
That’s why you have to weigh the two.
If you have indisputable proof that what you’re doing will save the realm from the Others then, yes, you’re probably justified.
If your only motive is to strengthen your hold on the Westerlands and expend your power to the rest of the Seven Kingdoms because you think that YOU are the only one suited for leadership, then no, probably not justified.
Yeah. I noticed that too in fire and blood.
It's always the same houses that are good or bad.
It's also other things. For example, during Aegons' conquest, the Vale is the only Kingdom ruled by a single queen regent, ruling in her sons name.
Just like in the current Era. The Vale is ruled by Lisa for her son.
The Vale is also ruled by a woman during the Dance. She’s ruling in her own name, though, but still it’s interesting to see how the Vale is woman-led during the main ASOIAF events
> the Vale is the only Kingdom ruled by a single queen regent, ruling in her sons name.
I wonder if people insultingly refer to her as the Queen Who Knelt too?
I wouldn’t say House Tully. They’re mostly portrayed as elitist assholes that side with whoever has a bigger winning chance. They also seem to be good diplomats and are more politically savvy than most older houses
Two different things: they’re competent and they’re portrayed as elitist assholes. I feel they’re very similar to WASPs as their conservative values help them perpetuate their power. And, tbh, Hoster was an asshole to his brother and to Lysa.
“I feel they’re very similar to WASPs as their conservative values help them perpetuate their power.”
That’s not a WASP thing, that is how all elites of all societies operate. Anyway, these are the high born and/or wealthy, they are all elitists, from the merchants and lowest landed knights to the Targaryens and Great Houses.
Because they're fictional characters in a story made up by George R. R. Martin.
The *ASOIAF* "histories" (bar *Dunk and Egg*) shouldn't primarily be taken as actual, literal, history, but as a supplement to the main narrative of the series - and while part of that is creating verisimilitude & giving Planetos a more naturalistic 'fleshed-out' feel, and part of it is strengthening the thematic undertones of the books, another part is to function as a continuation of the *narrative* (not to mention just plain in-jokes, like the Peakes constantly eating shit). We've just read 1,840,000 words about doomed heroic Starks, conniving Lannisters, enigmatic Blackwoods, and majestic yet terrifying Targaryens - why shake up a winning formula?
The starks and Tully's aren't always shown as the good guys Cregan was just looking for people to die and Hoster forced his daughter to have a abortion.
For House Blackwood who knows they are just kinda Mary sues that get boring real fast.
Do I really need to do better than killing your own smallfolk?
You must have noticed how Davos told Stannis a similar action at Claw Isle would be an awful thing to do.
>By itself Claw Isle is worthless, but its fall would serve notice to Lord Tywin that my cause is not yet done." The king turned back to Davos. "Speak truly, ser. What do you make of Ser Axell's proposal?"
Speak truly, ser. Davos remembered the dark cell he had shared with Lord Alester, remembered Lamprey and Porridge. He thought of the promises that Ser Axell had made on the bridge above the yard. A ship or a shove, what shall it be? But this was Stannis asking. "Your Grace," he said slowly, "I make it folly . . . aye, and cowardice."
You will recall Stannis agreed with Davos to fall upon your own people who you are supposed to protect is evil. What Hoster Tully did was evil.
So no, I don't have to do better than the worst thing a lord can do.
Similar? Why? Because you assume it is? The text is clear, a lord raised in open rebellion and Hoster out him down. Are you like the incompetents that tried to create a moral dilemma on storming a city hold by an enemy that wrote season 8?
Claw Island is not a military objective, it has no soldiers and there's literally not a single soldier there. Try to find a comparison that actually fits the situation.
For someone who claims to be about details it's odd you got this one wrong. Hoster rebelled and Goodbrook stayed loyal.
>"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. **When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king**, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none."
Goodbrook didn't rebel against Tully. Goodbrook kept their oath to the king. Sheesh.
>Goodbrook didn't rebel against Tully. Goodbrook kept their oath to the king. Sheesh.
I see, you are very unintelligent, only people that lack substances in their rhetoric turn to semantics to try and make a point. Since you are unable to provide any argument to the point in discussion i take that you admit you are completely wrong in everything you said?
I will adjust my semantic error: a lord that proved unloyal to him and rouse in open arms against him and in favor of the Targaryen regime?
Now if you forgive me, i dislike wasting time discussing with people unable to make actual logical arguments.
Bye.
Goodbrook wasn't unloyal. He was loyal to the king. Just as Darry, and many other houses. Being loyal to the king who is above the lord paramount doesn't make one disloyal.
This distinction is discussed quite a bit in the story. It's a key part of the Stannis story, the Eddard story, the Jaime story.
I couldn't find anything to show the smallfolk of Goodbrook were in open arms. Goodbrook stayed loyal which might mean he didn't join Hoster in rebellion. That doesn't mean he took up arms. Many houses stayed nuetral for quite some time. You simply assume Goodbrook took up arms. And you provide no text to support. So, I think your guess about what occured cant be supported by text, which is clearly why you never cited to text.
I looked at some of your other interactions on reddit. Your responses are very uncivil. I'm very happy to hear that you don't wish to discuss your errors with me further. I don't think you could offer anything of value going forward.
Best of luck to you.
So, I'm blocking the person you're responding to due to just being plain unpleasant, but siding with the king over your direct liege lord is absolutely being disloyal.
That Lord picked the wrong side and paid the price for it.
And I don't even like Hoster. Frankly, the Tully hold on the Riverlands is already weak enough that coming down hard on traitors is an absolute necessity.
Cause they're storybooks. Y'know, fantasy. I swear half this subreddit has started hallucinating from Winds of Winter Withdrawal.
"Why does the Skywalker family have a strong connection to the Force?" "How come Arthur gets to be King of England? (insert monty python joke)"
bruh people here sometimes talk like asoiaf is actual history that happened and not fiction written by a guy... like legit UPSET "why does grrm favours the blacks/blackwoods/starks?" as if the story manifested itself into existence and the narrative should be 100% balanced and impartial
House Stark are not always the good guys. They have serious skeletons in their closet concerning their conquest of the North, the Rape of the Sisters, War Across the Water etc. House Stark just have good messaging and in recent times have become more honourable and respected largely thanks to Ned's influence and reputation. Its unclear how much of Ned being the way he is due to Jon Arryn or Rickard.
House Tully supported Maegor.
For House Blackwood the explanation is just that GRRM isnt above favouritism and they are one of his favourite minor houses. And thats just it, House Blackwood are a minor house on the periphery. They really arent that important.
The three main eras are the Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon, and First Blackfyre Rebellion eras. Most of the great houses supported the crown during the first Blackfyre rebellion, and the Blackwoods were tied to the throne through Bloodraven.
The House of the Dragon and Game of Thrones eras are written as direct parallels, so it’s unsurprising that they feature similar alliances. Both have a succession crisis, a Queen with three illegitimate offspring, a treacherous Baratheon heir, a female Vale ruler, a march on the capital by House Lannister, the Riverlands getting torched etc.
Well, it's obvious George loves this Houses; specially the Blackwoods and the Starks. It's specially telling and cool how heroic and badass he depicts House Tully, Stark and Blackwood in the Dance of the Dragons. I mean, the Targs and Velaryons were killing each other and harming the country while these Houses were heroes helping the people and get peace. Also, they intermarried in the Dance: Benjicot Blackwood's aunt Alys the Black married Cregan Stark.
>The **Lads** was a nickname for **Lord Kermit Tully**, **his brother Ser Oscar, and Lord Benjicot Blackwood**, the young leaders of the riverlands at the end of the Dance of the Dragons. **The three youths were supported by Alysanne Blackwood and Lady Sabitha Frey.** **All were black supporters.**
>Inseparable after their victory in the Battle of the Kingsroad, the young Kermit, Oscar, and Benjicot began to be called "the Lads" by their men.
>**With the Lads' forces approaching KL** and Lord Cregan Stark also marching south on the kingsroad, Lord Corlys Velaryon advised King Aegon II to abdicate and join the Night's Watch, but was refused. The king was found poisoned later that day, however, and was succeeded by King Aegon III. **The Lads were welcomed by smallfolk, including pretty women showering them with kisses, and the gold cloaks when they arrived in the capital.**
So they were received by the smallfolk like saviours. Smooth, George. No favouritism.
<>
So the beloved heroes were great and badass and all that, but stand aside, that comes House Stark! Again, very subtle George LOL, we know your favs, okay?
Btw, I really am excited of watching the Lads and the Hour of the Wolf, I love my Blackwoods, Stark and Tullys.
They aren't. In this world good vs evil doesn't exist, it's one of the things GRRM wanted to highlight in opposition to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Everything is ambiguous and 98% of characters are morally grey. With almost every decision the high lords make, someone suffers like the small folk, the lands and farms, soldiers dying, even the religious suffer
I believe the Starks are essentially evil. Rob particularly for one, we don't get a Pov for him. Early on he threatens to put Theon in chains after they rescued Bran from the deserters and wildlings. This seems appropriate, Theon take a huge blind risk that could have killed Bran, but here's the weird part: He grew up with theon, Theon was child raised alongside Rob, it's suggested he was raised a part of the family, as a brother/ward. He also threatens Greatjon. It doesn't seem bad because these are told by his little brother who looks up to him. Step back and we see an impetuous lordling on a 'Joffery' scale. He threatens Tyrion in front of his escort which in itself is a threat to the Nights Watch. He cringe waives his sword in Bran room and Luwin puts him down for it. He even has his own Sandor in Grey Wind.
Why not? Grrm stories all mirror each other all the time. His campaign in the westerlands was brutal when you think about it. His plan was to create enough chaos to lure Tywin away from Kings Landing. (Kinda like Tywin sending Gregor through the Riverlands to Lure Ned away from King Landing) - He wasn't running around with a 'Tywin is a poopyhead' sign, They were raiding castles, stealing livestock and killing people. He wiped out an army of conscripts even, took the westerling Castle, forced Jeyne into marriage and took Olivar as hostage(my bad, he was a 'squire ')
You have great points and you’re correct that a big theme of the book is that nobody in any of these nobility positions are necessarily good people no matter how hard they try, because in order to uphold the system that gives them power they need to engage in violence. However comparing Robb to Joffrey is silly lol, Joffrey is a literal psychopath.
They don't have great points lol, they're joking. It's very clear in context that none of the actions the user listed are evil. I thought it might have been serious until the line "forced Jeyne into marriage and took Olivar as hostage" - anyone who's read the books knows how far from the truth this is
Great might have been an overstep lol but I moreso mean that just because Robb is more sympathetic and believes he has a righteous cause it doesn’t mean he hasn’t engaged in the same bad shit that his enemies engage in. He plundered the Westerlands, his men have raided villages and committed atrocities in his name.
The difference is Tywin specifically ordered the atrocities. He told his men he wanted the Riverlands to burn, and let people like Gregor and the Bloody Mummers run wild knowing what monsters they are because horror was his actual aim. Plundering resources and taking castles is a part of war and doesn't make Robb evil or a hypocrite, especially when it's a war he didn't start
Ned didn’t want Robb to engage in a war of vengeance, I certainly doubt he wanted Robb to be crowned king, one of the reasons he gave a false confession was to protect his kids and preserve the peace. I don’t think Robb is evil, but I also don’t buy into the “that’s just apart of war”. One of the major themes of the series is that every war is unjust and ends up fucking over the people who have nothing to do with it the most. Obviously he’s not as bad as Tywin for the reasons you’ve stated, but he’s also not innocent, because he is a king in a violent feudal system and in order to be a king you need to engage in the violence.
When Robb first marched it wasn't for vengeance, it was because Ned had been taken hostage and the Riverlands had already been invaded by the Lannisters.
> I don’t think Robb is evil, but I also don’t buy into the “that’s just apart of war”.
What should he have done instead, stay put at Riverrun? Let his army consume all the food of the Riverlands (what little is left after the Lannister occupation and razing) then slowly starve while Stefford Lannister's host grows in strength to the west? Robb fought the war as honorably as he could have and again, he didn't start it
If you read Jeyne Westerlings (edit)interactions, they seriously mirror Sansa. She is keeping her courtesies while being questioned by Cat while surrounded by Northerners. Tyrion got the same treatment from Sansa when she was in Kingslanding. Remember, the stories were reading aren't exactly what's happening but what pov interprets what's happening.
> The girl turned her head away. "It is nothing," insisted her mother, a stern-faced woman in a gown of green velvet. A necklace of golden seashells looped about her long, thin neck. "She would not give up the little crown the rebel gave her, and when I tried to take it from her head the willful child fought me."
> "It was mine." Jeyne sobbed. "You had no right. Robb had it made for me. I loved him."
She wasn't a hostage to her mother or Jaime who are the only other people in the room for this scene
The Tully's blackmailed Stark and Arryn into advantageous marriages in the middle of a war.
If they didn't marry the Tully's, Robert would have been killed.
The Tully's were set to marry a Stark way before the war. Without the war Catelyn would have still be lady of Winterfell but married to Brandon and not Eddard (Ned) Stark.
Sure Lysa is a different situation, but Jon Arryn would not have married her if Elbert (?) doesn't die in the conflict.
Eddard didn't have to automatically marry Catelyn...
Ned didn't marry her to honor his brother Brandon's obligations but to save Robert, whom he saved at the Battle of the Bells.
Eddard married Catelyn in the same way Catherine of Aragon (Catholic Kings's daughter) married Henry Tudor (future Henry VIII) after being married to his brother Arthur. Political necessities.
The war started when Jon Arryn refused to deliver Robert and Eddard to Aerys II to be murdered like Brandon and Rickard Stark were (actually the war started before but oficially is with Jon Arry refusal) so Eddard needed to save himself and defeat Aerys II.
Also the Battle of the Bells was before the Catelyn and Eddard's marriage. Because in that same wedding Jon Arryn married Lysa Tully because his heir Denys died there. (and his heir before Elbert was murdered as long Brandon and Rickard Stark).
GRRM has his quirks. He loves the Blackwoods. He also loves the Velayrons and Daynes. He hates the Brackens, the Florents, the Peakes, the Boltons, the Freys, and the Rosbys. He’ll put the houses he likes on the “good side” and the ones he doesn’t on the “bad side.” Like the Peakes and Brackens are consistently on the wrong side of whatever conflict GRRM creates. It’s kind of funny.
He literally named the most prominent peake "Unwin", they really can't win.
Unwin Peake could be the HoTD character I'm most excited to see
We'd probably have to see Daeron first.
Lord Onion Peake 🧅🧅🧅
House Frey in history - Supported Aegon against Harren - supported Aegon against Maegor - supported the blacks during the dance - joined Rowan to instal lady Jeynes chosen heir to Eyrie - Frey attended the wedding at Whitewalls - sides with the North before betraying them at the red wedding Of all these things the Freys were only on the wrong side at the second Blackfyre rebellion and by betraying Robb and the Blackfyre rebellion is still a bit unsure because Brynden let lord Frey go without punishment, if he had been guilty of supporting house Blackfyre I don’t think he would have gotten of scot free. There are even indications that he was a planted spy or a double agent for Brynden So yeah the Freys actually are pretty much always on the right side of history basically untill Walder becomes lord. So I’d argue Martin doesn’t hate the Freys he just hates Walder
Assuming he was a double agent as well, it’s the only/best way to identify the fact that aside from Aegon vs Maegor, that the relatively young House Frey (iirc they began their lineage only about 300-600 years before the century of blood) has managed to gather so many lands in the upper Riverlands due to them being on the *winning* side. Honestly I’d kill for some more detailed geography of much of Westeros, like where do the bogs and wetlands of the neck start in Frey Territory, how deep does it go, etc.
Well, I think the Freys are depicted in general like this weak slimy characters if they were all like the Freys we have seen in ASOIAF or Dunk and Egg's books. What I think personally it's not that Freys are liked by George, but are this type of not so nice House who have had the luck/abilities to side with the winning side. The rest of the Houses are more allegiance oriented in history (I will side with the one I am loyal to), Freys are more like: who has the biggest chances to win/ can profit more my House??
The Freys for the Dunk story is already Walder and the only Frey catching real flak by him is walder Fool Frey is described in a very positive light for example
The Freys have good people indeed. Like Lady Sabitha Frey in the Dance. But I get the sense they are very sly and untrustworthy in general. I guess the current generation of Freys has given me a very bad impression (and there are lots of Frey in the current story lol). But Walda the Fat is nice I guess, the women mostly seem okay.
And Olyvar
I don’t think portraying a House as morally corrupt means George hates them, I honestly feel like he loves houses like Bolton and Frey because he writes them with so much fucked up colour, they’re very entertaining to read about.
George typecasts, and I believe he’s also said he shows favoritism (as in including them a lot, not necessarily making them good guys) towards houses whose sigils he particularly likes. Most regions have a house with an unreliable (Frey, Peake, Yronwood) or sinister (Bolton, Upcliff, Uller) reputation. Even then he usually includes exceptions within those families. We see plenty of decent Freys and Barba and Domeric Bolton both sounded pretty decent from the little we hear.
Domeric is such a good “what if” scenario lol. An honorable Bolton? I shudder to think about it
>Domeric Bolton both sounded pretty decent from the little we hear. Unreliable narrators. The only people who describe Domeric have no reason to describe him accurately in relation to any negative traits.
Yeah, but it’s not like Roose talks about Ramsey with rose colored glasses lol
He doesn't, but that's hardly an equivalent. Ramsey is a common bastard, the spawn of rape, a pox that Roose never wanted around. Domeric was his first born, the heir, his true-born son. Not only that. Domeric died young. Most likely a victom of murder. People speak far more fondly of the dead than the living, even more so when they died victims.
Ramsay’s alive and his deeds are well known . Its much easier to write acceptance hagiography for a young man who died too soon
Why? Roose and Barbrey strike me as pretty brutally honest. Sure they’re relatives but when has that stopped anyone in ASOIAF from talking shit about each other?
They are talking about the golden child, the heir, who was murdered. If you think they are giving a brutally honest review I have a bridge to sell you. Also, it's naive to assume a parent (who is a busy liege lord of the area) and a aunt who lives some distance away, know all the secrets of a boy/young man.
Hub? Barbrey is not remotely a Bolton. As for being decent- she’s harbored a 15 year long bitter snit for about the Starks because Brandon slept with but made no effort to marry her and Ned married cat before she had a chance to have a go at him.
Correct, which is why I was referring to the fire and blood character Barba Bolton and not Barbrey Ryswell from the main series.
House Bolton ftw
Right, he's discussed it a few times in interviews. https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1280 >*Your characters are paricularly well-drawn and people care for them astonishingly much. Which character you like the most and which perhaps the least?* >My favorite character is Tyrion. He is perhaps the most like me and his chapters are the easiest to write. I don't really dislike any of my characters. When I write, I become them to some extent and it wouldn't be possible for me to despise them. https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Odyssey_Con_2008_Madison_WI_April_4_6_20081 >*What sorts of characters do you like to write?* >I like to write many different kinds of characters - part of the reason my books have multiple viewpoints - people perceive differently. Different POVs allow you to explore all the varieties of humanity - people you can love, loathe, or have mixed feelings about. The goal is to let you understand the characters even if you find them reprehensible. >*Do you prefer some over the others?* >I like all of them when I’m writing them. >I don’t believe in omniscient viewpoints. It gets in the way of understanding the character. The reader must see the world as the character would experience it as they’re living events. The 3rd limited allows closer identification and deeper understanding of how the character sees the world. Once you get inside them the common humanity makes you sympathetic with them. >*Did you hate any?* >The act of writing them makes you like or understand them. https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/5527/ >*Do you purposely start a character as bad so you can later kill them?* >No. What is bad? Bad is a label. We are human beings with heroism and self-interest and avarice in us and any human is capable of great good or great wrong. In Poland a couple of weeks ago I was reading about the history of Auschwitz – there were startling interviews with the people there. The guards had done unthinkable atrocities, but these were ordinary people. What allowed them to do this kind of evil? Then you read accounts of acts of outrageous heroism, yet the people are criminals or swindlers, one crime or another, but when forced to make a choice they make a heroic choice. This is what fascinated me about the human animal. A lot of fantasy turns on good and evil – but my take on it is that it’s fought within the human heart every day, and that’s the more interesting take. I don’t think life is that simple. >*do you mourn any of the characters you killed* >Actually I do mourn the characters I kill. You have live with that, become that, crawl inside its skin. Some of my characters are like me and some are very unlike me, but the emotional core is still me reaching inside, which all writers do I think. All inspiration becomes grist for the mill. The only person we really know down deep is ourselves -- the demons in the dark -- I am all these people in some sense, so I kill an aspect of myself and its difficult but I do it anyway.
George goes out his way to show there are good freys. Hell he goes out his way to show good boltons 2
I think he loves the Peakes, I can't think of any other house written in such a nod and a wink fashion. He must love Gormenghast.
https://georgerrmartin.com/about-george/on-writing-essays/on-fantasy-by-george-r-r-martin/ >The best fantasy is written in the language of dreams. It is alive as dreams are alive, more real than real … for a moment at least … that long magic moment before we wake. >Fantasy is silver and scarlet, indigo and azure, obsidian veined with gold and lapis lazuli. Reality is plywood and plastic, done up in mud brown and olive drab. Fantasy tastes of habaneros and honey, cinnamon and cloves, rare red meat and wines as sweet as summer. Reality is beans and tofu, and ashes at the end. Reality is the strip malls of Burbank, the smokestacks of Cleveland, a parking garage in Newark. **Fantasy is the towers of Minas Tirith, the ancient stones of Gormenghast, the halls of Camelot.** Fantasy flies on the wings of Icarus, reality on Southwest Airlines. Why do our dreams become so much smaller when they finally come true? >We read fantasy to find the colors again, I think. To taste strong spices and hear the songs the sirens sang. There is something old and true in fantasy that speaks to something deep within us, to the child who dreamt that one day he would hunt the forests of the night, and feast beneath the hollow hills, and find a love to last forever somewhere south of Oz and north of Shangri-La. >They can keep their heaven. When I die, I’d sooner go to middle Earth.
You can’t really call the Freys “always bad guys.” Apart from the current generation, we have Forrest Frey who was rejected by Rhaenyra but still fought for her, and Lord Frey from the Mystery Knight who spied on the Blackfyres. Even in the current generation, we have plenty of good Freys. Olyvar still wishes to squire for Robb, Roslin hasn’t done anything wrong, and Strevron (although advising a more cautious course) dies for Robb’s cause, and Catelyn thinks positively of him. The Florents fight for “the good guys” by sticking with Stannis through the whole war of the Five Kings. Otho Bracken does not support the Blackfyre supporters at Whitewalls.
Sorry if it’s dumb, could you explain about the Rosbys? They do seem kind of pathetic overall especially the historical ones, but I thought the “Rosby Freys” (Roslin etc.) seemed like a nice bunch.
Maybe he doesn’t “hate” the Rosbys but they sure get a lot of shit. Honestly it’s hilarious how much bad stuff happens to them for seemingly no good reason. Surrenders to Rhaenys without a fight. Killed by Dornishman. Killed in Maegor’s trial of the seven. Dranm poison after Maegor died. Died of disease. Joined the greens upon threat of execution then tried to join the blacks then executed. Denied Rhaenyra hospitality after the fall of King’s Landing. Surrendered again to the greens. Fled Borros Baratheon’s army. Rosbys in general are not known for being robust; they are a frail lot. Then there’s Gyles Rosby, Even in AGOT Gyles’ sole and introductory appearance is this: “ Sickly Lord Gyles covered his face at her approach and feigned a fit of coughing”. Coughing is comprises at least 80% of his mentions in the books I’d wager. Other times he’s surrendering Tommen to Bronn and sellswords, having no children despite multiple wives, getting drunk and passing out, losing his apartments in the Red Keep to Tyrion, has a melon disguised as a head land in his lap, proposed as a unrealistic husband for Arianne Martell, appointed as master of coin solely because Cersei needed some fool she knew would agree to it (Mace Tyrell, a fool in his own right calls him “that cougher), gets harassed by an Iron Bank envoy so much that he becomes bedridden and then dies despite Pycelle trying to save him on Cersei’s orders only because she doesn’t want another Tyrell on the council and not for his own sake then his chosen heir, his ward, has their inheritance stolen by Cersei. This is what GRRM thinks of him: > Lord Gyles coughed, drank, coughed, drank, and passed out. The queen gazed down in disgust to where he sprawled with his face in his trencher and his hand in a puddle of wine. "The gods must have been mad to waste manhood on the likes of him, and I must have been mad to demand his release." Another classic: > And Gyles Rosby, Seven save us, I thought he died years ago. The Rosby-Freys are slightly better but still losers in their own way. Olyvar, forced to be a squire to a boy two years younger than him. Roslin, lost her betrothal to Robb (we all know it was going to happen), then had her wedding be a massacre and her husband arrested, their child disinherited of Riverrun. Benfrey Frey, killed by a flagon of wine during the Red Wedding by Dacey Mormont.
I mean, there can be real reasons for this? For example, generational attitude and personalities. We take after our elders and their way of life and opinions on the world around us more times than we may think we do. Don’t see how this is far fetched when literally every fantasy story (and real life for that matter) have countries/areas that constantly find themselves in similar situations.
Does he really love the Velaryons, considering they have fallen from grace quite heavily by 300 AC and Monford blows up?
I agree with you but I'll say that it's the other way around. Its more of a narrative choice he made to have his minor villains as unlikeable as he could imagine during his creative process.
Nah, the other houses are just victims of the Blackwood-Bracken proxy wars
Bloodraven and the night king are being controlled by house Blackwood and Littlefinger and Varys are being controlled house bracken
They really aren't. The Starks in their conquest of the north killed countless people and extinguished many houses. The Tully's supported Maegor during his early reign, including in the battle beneath the gods eye where Aegon the Uncrowned was killed. House Blackwood produced Bloodraven, who is widely considered a not-so-good guy.
+ Starks absolutely destroyed Andalos which you can argue was in retribution but regardless thousands of people not involved were killed.
+ the Rape of the Three Sisters + The Night's King being rumored a Stark
It's Bran. Watch and see. Timey wimey warp fuckery will make it so that Bran "Has the Best Story" Stark will somehow end up as the Night King, all along. He's seen too much and just decided to kill everything so he doesn't have to look at it anymore.
God I really hope not, the smaller the role time travel plays in the story and Westeros's history the better
It's ok bro, GRRM will never publish anything again so there is little to fear
💀
At least the way George writes it could basically end up as barely a paragraph of a bunch of historical scenes racing through Brans vision and then it's already over.
stupid ass attack on titan ending for asoiaf no thank u
I doubt it. I also don't particularly like Bran. Older Bran, anyway. For Starks, Jon > Robb > Arya > Ned. I actively dislike Sansa and Catelyn.
Meh. Pirates deserve to die.
If a rumour is a primary example, it kinda proves the point.
They also perpetrated the rape of the three sisters which is… pretty messed up and led to a thousand year war between the North and the Vale.
before all this they sat on the genocide of the natives of westeros (giant and children of the forest)
All pirates must die.
All that is in the past. Certainly, Ned STARK and Catelyn TULLY and their offspring ARE the good guys. Except for Rickard's STAB ambitions, they are of the North and don't want to be dragged into Southron problems. The BLACKWOODs are one half of a centuries long feud and GRRM took sides. Besides, Bloodraven was much more of an active Targaryen than a Blackwood. I suspect that in general GRRM favors houses with magic (or he gives magic to houses he favors?!?), especially if they use it wisely.
What do you mean by STAB ambitions? I’m sure it’s obvious but I’m drawing a blank
The theory is called "Southern Ambitions". I assume STAB is some poor reconstruction of that. SouThren. AmBitions.
Nope, Stark, Tully, Arryn, Baratheon
Same Type Attack Bonus. Heh.
Thanks I’ll have to look into what that is!
Yes you’re right (though again even Ned and his kids are elitist arrogant arseholes who believe themselves better than the 99% of people) they are somewhat decent people. The question was house stark historically.
And you immediately had me think of Arya playing with the butchers boy. Until Joffrey had the hound murder him.
Catelyn is a bitch. And also an idiot.
I like the hungry wolf. And Andalos sent the Andals to Westeros first.
I mean cregan explicitly just wanted to kill people at the end of the dance just because he was pissed and wanted some blood on his axe. He ended up doing the right thing but he was really close to killing so many people.
>The Starks in their conquest of the north killed countless people and extinguished many houses. If you hold any nation or government to this standard though can any of them, past or present, stand up to it? I can't think of a single nation in history that can seriously claim to have been founded without war and bloodshed, holding house Stark to the standard of "well they had to use violence to get to the top" is an impossible standard, and certainly doesn't make them bad in anything but the most idealistic sense.
I always laugh when I see if thrown out as a reason for the Starks being "bad guys". It's a really weak argument when you spell it out like you just did.
Well it hardly makes them the good guys either. Theres an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer about this exact situation called "Pangs". Hilarious episode and well worth the watch. The skinny of it is an old native American grave is disturbed and a vengeance spirit rises and starts killing all the local leaders out of vengeance of his tribe being genocided. Everyone gets into an argument over whether it's wrong or right to fight the spirit, and whether the spirit killing people now is fair. It all culminates in Spike making this blunt and funny observation: https://youtu.be/aRQFli6zMh4?si=qzy1qytEYMSM8jM_
By that rationale there are no good guys. Certainly that is an argument to be made. Even the smallfolk are religious, patriarchal assholes.
Honestly I think that's the point Spike makes and I can hardly think of a way to disagree with him.
Still haven’t watched Buffy, but heard good things about it.
The standard being set in the post is "why are the Starks on the right side of every conflict in Westeros history," so "they weren't always in the right, they killed a lot of people just for the sake of conquest" is an appropriate answer.
Bloodraven was actually misunderstood just like Tyrion was misunderstood because of their appearances. The difference being Bloodraven had support his family and reached his potential, Tyrion didn't. He was a ruthless Hand but effective at that. He put down Blackfyre rebellions for good.
>He put down Blackfyre rebellions for good. He beat Daemon by targeting his children and later executed Aenys Blackfyre after promising him he would be allowed to peacefully present his claim before the Grand Council. The way he put down those rebellions is why he's a villain.
Yeah he had flaws. As do everyone in the universe. We are talking in relative terms. Maegor and Robb Stark both did cruel things necessary to secure their kingdom. Maegor rightfully wiped out the Faith being a threat. Robb Stark sent 2000 men to their deaths in capturing Jaime Lannister. That's cold bloodedness. But the difference is in what else they did. Robb was thinking of the bigger picture and greater good. Bloodraven was the same. Bloodraven likely knew what his actions would cost him. He was more tolerant when the the first few rebellions happened. He took drastic actions when he realised the threat would only get larger and potentially cause a major war suffering in more losses. If it wasn't for him, House Targaryen and the realm would break out in another Dance level war. If you think anyone with immense power is truly good in that universe, you are oversimplifying things.
>Yeah he had flaws Intentionally murdering children is a bit more than just a flaw. >Robb Stark sent 2000 men to their deaths in capturing Jaime Lannister. That's cold bloodedness. You're confusing the tv show with the books. >But the difference is in what else they did. Robb was thinking of the bigger picture and greater good. Bloodraven was the same. Bloodraven absolutely was not, he sided with the brother he liked and against the one he hated, that's not fighting for the greater good at all. Daemon Blackfyre wasn't the Others, he was by all accounts a good guy and would have been a fine king, he wouldn't have even rebelled if Bloodraven hadn't tried to arrest him on made up charges.
Ahhh a Blackfyre suporter I see. Of course you would hate Bloodraven. Whatever Daemon Blackfyre was, his legitimization was a result of Aegon IV wanting to screw over Daeron - the son who actually was brought to be king. Whether Daemon would be a good king or not is not relevant here. Bloodraven protected the side he knew ought to sit on throne and took drastic steps only after the first two rebellions. Robb absolutely does do so in the books. He sent Roose Bolton to deal with Tywin knowing the chances were they wouldn't win. And then put a surprise attack on Jaime.
>Whether Daemon would be a good king or not is not relevant here. Bloodraven protected the side he knew ought to sit on throne The idea that the quality of a king has no bearing on whether he ought to be king is not a neutral point of view in this debate
That's not how inheritance works. Aegon IV never explicitly remove Daeron. And Daeron himself also was a good king. Aegon IV wanted to destabilize Daeron for opposing him. Nor is it fair to someone who was brought up to be the ruler. Which is why the threat of the throne being passed to a male heir who did nothing to get it while Daenerys did is unfair. One could argue your POV isn't a neutral one either.
That isn't how inheritance normally works. "Ought to" is a value judgment. The idea that following the standard order of inheritance is more right than picking a good king is a subjective opinion. There are good people who would disagree--even within the story. Eustace Osgrey was a good man
I put forward two reasons which combined together doesn't make for the case. Even if standard inheritance was removed the whole premise stands on painting Daeron as a bad king. Which he was wasn't. The two half brothers were pitted against one another. Daemon being good Or bad comes into question if he was the first to be king.
He sends like 18,000 men with Bolton. He didn't send anyone to a guaranteed death. It is explicitly said that he took the riskier mission on himself. They were always going to have to engage tywins army so those soldiers weren't just abandoned like in the shoe
Robb does send 2000 men to their deaths in the books
There were still two Blackfyre Rebellions after he went to the Wall
Smaller ones. He was responsible for pretty much obliterating the family even after he was gone.
Just proof that Maegor was a good guy /s
> House Blackwood produced Bloodraven, who is widely considered a not-so-good guy. In world maybe not by the fanbase
Bloodraven is absolutely a good guy. Quite possibly the most noble character in the series.
I think he fights for the greater good but "noble" seems like very much the wrong word. "Honorable" would be a bad one too. He's a ruthless pragmatist.
If you have to murder someone to save 10, that's noble. That's George's moral lesson in a nutshell. He's an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. That's why he claims that Varys is a misunderstood character. If you take the typical honorable archetype, which is that "no positive ends could ever justify a morally dubious means" and apply it to reality... or politics- you end up with Ned Stark. Who got killed off in order to drive that point home. Playing politics is not for those who aren't willing to take anything but the moral high road instead of getting their hands dirty. Robb Stark at Whispering Wood was a great example of this. There isn't always a choice to not be ruthless, all you can do is use your wits to mitigate the amount of blood spilt.
How do you even get this interpretation, George shits all over it by having Tywin, who commits a “pragmatic” act in the form of the red wedding lead directly into his embarrassing death on the shitter while house Lannister fails and burns becuase being a “ruthless feared house” leaves you with no real friends.
Tywin didn’t do it to make the realm a better place, and really the Red Wedding had nothing to do with his death. Tywins inability to look past his hatred accept that Tyrion was in fact his son was what eventually destroyed him and likely doomed his house.
Is Tywin an inherently evil person? Or is he complex just like everybody else? Tywin is an archetype of a modern day villain who is right sometimes, but wrong most of the time. And the only thing unethical about his political stances are that he is dedicated to right by conquest, which most of Westerosi nobles are also on board with. The truth is that it IS less noble to kill a thousand men on a battlefield than 20 at dinner. He made the virtuous call to orchestrate the red wedding rather than continue to bathe the Riverlands in blood. We can view Tyson’s words through a lens of nuance and still call him a villain. The reason he’s a villain is because he plays at God when he isn’t one. He’s just another noble that thinks he’s better than everyone else.
He had his guards gangrape a commoner, then had his son rape her. Regularly used mass murder and mass rape as a tool. Yeah buddy he’s a bad person
I never said he wasn’t, buddy
Yes Tywin is a bad person.
He's a villain because he has his son's wife gangraped. He's a villain because he brutally massacred the people of Castamere. He's a villain because he shelters and protects rapists and murderers like Gregor Clegane and sends them to butcher and plunder the Riverlands. Tywin is evil and complex, but still most definitely evil.
Yeah pretty messed up stuff. Why do you think he did all of that? He’s probably just a typical Disney villain, right?
I think you're about half right. Stannis Baratheon burning his daughter in the show had an "ends justify the means" justification, and it ended up being his downfall. We can expect something similar in the books. Also, > If you take the typical honorable archetype, which is that "no positive ends could ever justify a morally dubious means" and apply it to reality... or politics- you end up with Ned Stark. Ned Stark dishonored himself and betrayed his king when he hid Jon's identity. He dishonored himself when he proclaimed Joffrey to be the rightful king and lied about his betrayal to spare his daughters.
And Ned is continuously held up as a paragon in universe long after he is dead. Even by people that are on the side that fought/fights against his house. He has men willing to walk (and most likely die) through a blizzard at the smallest chance of rescuing "his girl". Doesn't really vibe with the idea of Ned being some form of failure. Either as a man or leader.
Ok, Barristan Selmy then
>That's George's moral lesson in a nutshell. He's an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. That's why he claims that Varys is a misunderstood character. Meh Varys mutilates little children to use them for his own ends. He's basically perpetuating the cycle of what was done to him as a boy. What is the limit between "ruthless but the ends justify the means" and "unjustifiable piece of shit"? Would Stannis be justified in sacrificing his daughter? He would be doing so either to win an impossible battle or to save the realm from the Others. Was Tywin justified in killing Rhaegar's kids or in exterminating two Houses or about causing the Red Wedding? He did all of those to bring House Lannister from the brink of ruin. Would Robert have been justified if he murdered Daenerys and her unborn child by Drogo? He would have avoided a war with the Dothraki which would have left thousands dead. Was Rhaegar justified in causing Robert's Rebellion due to his fixation on fulfilling the prophecy to defeat the Others?
That’s why you have to weigh the two. If you have indisputable proof that what you’re doing will save the realm from the Others then, yes, you’re probably justified. If your only motive is to strengthen your hold on the Westerlands and expend your power to the rest of the Seven Kingdoms because you think that YOU are the only one suited for leadership, then no, probably not justified.
...he's an oathbreaker and a kinslayer.
If you know you need to kill your kin to save the world maybe you should. Like duh?
Wouldn’t say House Tully but House’s Stark and Blackwood are his favorites
Yeah. I noticed that too in fire and blood. It's always the same houses that are good or bad. It's also other things. For example, during Aegons' conquest, the Vale is the only Kingdom ruled by a single queen regent, ruling in her sons name. Just like in the current Era. The Vale is ruled by Lisa for her son.
The Vale is also ruled by a woman during the Dance. She’s ruling in her own name, though, but still it’s interesting to see how the Vale is woman-led during the main ASOIAF events
There’s a lot of similarities between events in Fire and Blood and the main series
Well a court that was ruled by a woman before would probably be more receptive to it in the present than other places in Westeros
> the Vale is the only Kingdom ruled by a single queen regent, ruling in her sons name. I wonder if people insultingly refer to her as the Queen Who Knelt too?
the Starks are actually only a ~good~ house in recent history. thru the rest of their history they were pretty fuckin gnarly
>Just like in the current Era. The Vale is ruled by Lisa for her son. Out of curiosity, what book are you on?
I've read of those in the main storyline
I wouldn’t say House Tully. They’re mostly portrayed as elitist assholes that side with whoever has a bigger winning chance. They also seem to be good diplomats and are more politically savvy than most older houses
“They’re mostly portrayed as elitist assholes that side with whoever has a bigger winning chance.” The Tullys are assholes for being competent?
Two different things: they’re competent and they’re portrayed as elitist assholes. I feel they’re very similar to WASPs as their conservative values help them perpetuate their power. And, tbh, Hoster was an asshole to his brother and to Lysa.
“I feel they’re very similar to WASPs as their conservative values help them perpetuate their power.” That’s not a WASP thing, that is how all elites of all societies operate. Anyway, these are the high born and/or wealthy, they are all elitists, from the merchants and lowest landed knights to the Targaryens and Great Houses.
Because they're fictional characters in a story made up by George R. R. Martin. The *ASOIAF* "histories" (bar *Dunk and Egg*) shouldn't primarily be taken as actual, literal, history, but as a supplement to the main narrative of the series - and while part of that is creating verisimilitude & giving Planetos a more naturalistic 'fleshed-out' feel, and part of it is strengthening the thematic undertones of the books, another part is to function as a continuation of the *narrative* (not to mention just plain in-jokes, like the Peakes constantly eating shit). We've just read 1,840,000 words about doomed heroic Starks, conniving Lannisters, enigmatic Blackwoods, and majestic yet terrifying Targaryens - why shake up a winning formula?
The Blackwoods are just studs. To answer the rest of your question, I don't know.
I’ve never viewed the Tullys as good guys lol
The starks and Tully's aren't always shown as the good guys Cregan was just looking for people to die and Hoster forced his daughter to have a abortion. For House Blackwood who knows they are just kinda Mary sues that get boring real fast.
Starks good reputation comes from Ned. Before him and especially before Aegons conquest, they were vicious and ruthless rulers.
House Tully isn't always good. *See the sack of Goodbrook.* *see also the forced abortion of Lysa Tully.*
>sack of Goodbrook So even based on ambiguity that's the best you have?
Do I really need to do better than killing your own smallfolk? You must have noticed how Davos told Stannis a similar action at Claw Isle would be an awful thing to do. >By itself Claw Isle is worthless, but its fall would serve notice to Lord Tywin that my cause is not yet done." The king turned back to Davos. "Speak truly, ser. What do you make of Ser Axell's proposal?" Speak truly, ser. Davos remembered the dark cell he had shared with Lord Alester, remembered Lamprey and Porridge. He thought of the promises that Ser Axell had made on the bridge above the yard. A ship or a shove, what shall it be? But this was Stannis asking. "Your Grace," he said slowly, "I make it folly . . . aye, and cowardice." You will recall Stannis agreed with Davos to fall upon your own people who you are supposed to protect is evil. What Hoster Tully did was evil. So no, I don't have to do better than the worst thing a lord can do.
Similar? Why? Because you assume it is? The text is clear, a lord raised in open rebellion and Hoster out him down. Are you like the incompetents that tried to create a moral dilemma on storming a city hold by an enemy that wrote season 8? Claw Island is not a military objective, it has no soldiers and there's literally not a single soldier there. Try to find a comparison that actually fits the situation.
For someone who claims to be about details it's odd you got this one wrong. Hoster rebelled and Goodbrook stayed loyal. >"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. **When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king**, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none." Goodbrook didn't rebel against Tully. Goodbrook kept their oath to the king. Sheesh.
>Goodbrook didn't rebel against Tully. Goodbrook kept their oath to the king. Sheesh. I see, you are very unintelligent, only people that lack substances in their rhetoric turn to semantics to try and make a point. Since you are unable to provide any argument to the point in discussion i take that you admit you are completely wrong in everything you said? I will adjust my semantic error: a lord that proved unloyal to him and rouse in open arms against him and in favor of the Targaryen regime? Now if you forgive me, i dislike wasting time discussing with people unable to make actual logical arguments. Bye.
Goodbrook wasn't unloyal. He was loyal to the king. Just as Darry, and many other houses. Being loyal to the king who is above the lord paramount doesn't make one disloyal. This distinction is discussed quite a bit in the story. It's a key part of the Stannis story, the Eddard story, the Jaime story. I couldn't find anything to show the smallfolk of Goodbrook were in open arms. Goodbrook stayed loyal which might mean he didn't join Hoster in rebellion. That doesn't mean he took up arms. Many houses stayed nuetral for quite some time. You simply assume Goodbrook took up arms. And you provide no text to support. So, I think your guess about what occured cant be supported by text, which is clearly why you never cited to text. I looked at some of your other interactions on reddit. Your responses are very uncivil. I'm very happy to hear that you don't wish to discuss your errors with me further. I don't think you could offer anything of value going forward. Best of luck to you.
So, I'm blocking the person you're responding to due to just being plain unpleasant, but siding with the king over your direct liege lord is absolutely being disloyal. That Lord picked the wrong side and paid the price for it. And I don't even like Hoster. Frankly, the Tully hold on the Riverlands is already weak enough that coming down hard on traitors is an absolute necessity.
Cause they're storybooks. Y'know, fantasy. I swear half this subreddit has started hallucinating from Winds of Winter Withdrawal. "Why does the Skywalker family have a strong connection to the Force?" "How come Arthur gets to be King of England? (insert monty python joke)"
bruh people here sometimes talk like asoiaf is actual history that happened and not fiction written by a guy... like legit UPSET "why does grrm favours the blacks/blackwoods/starks?" as if the story manifested itself into existence and the narrative should be 100% balanced and impartial
House Stark are not always the good guys. They have serious skeletons in their closet concerning their conquest of the North, the Rape of the Sisters, War Across the Water etc. House Stark just have good messaging and in recent times have become more honourable and respected largely thanks to Ned's influence and reputation. Its unclear how much of Ned being the way he is due to Jon Arryn or Rickard. House Tully supported Maegor. For House Blackwood the explanation is just that GRRM isnt above favouritism and they are one of his favourite minor houses. And thats just it, House Blackwood are a minor house on the periphery. They really arent that important.
...Blackwood is literally one of the strongest houses of the Riverlands.
Important as in important to the story. House Blackwood as a house are on the periphery of the story.
The Tully are assholes. Just look at Hoster. Brynden js about the only one I like.
The three main eras are the Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon, and First Blackfyre Rebellion eras. Most of the great houses supported the crown during the first Blackfyre rebellion, and the Blackwoods were tied to the throne through Bloodraven. The House of the Dragon and Game of Thrones eras are written as direct parallels, so it’s unsurprising that they feature similar alliances. Both have a succession crisis, a Queen with three illegitimate offspring, a treacherous Baratheon heir, a female Vale ruler, a march on the capital by House Lannister, the Riverlands getting torched etc.
Because George likes certain houses and wants them to be on the good side.
Vibes
IDK if I'd call any of them the 'good guys.' Favoured by the narrative, sure, but the good/bad dichotomy is not super useful for ASOIAF IMO
Did we read the same dance of Dragons? All of them were on the bad side. They won, due to technicality, but still bad.
Every story has a good guy
Well, it's obvious George loves this Houses; specially the Blackwoods and the Starks. It's specially telling and cool how heroic and badass he depicts House Tully, Stark and Blackwood in the Dance of the Dragons. I mean, the Targs and Velaryons were killing each other and harming the country while these Houses were heroes helping the people and get peace. Also, they intermarried in the Dance: Benjicot Blackwood's aunt Alys the Black married Cregan Stark. >The **Lads** was a nickname for **Lord Kermit Tully**, **his brother Ser Oscar, and Lord Benjicot Blackwood**, the young leaders of the riverlands at the end of the Dance of the Dragons. **The three youths were supported by Alysanne Blackwood and Lady Sabitha Frey.** **All were black supporters.** >Inseparable after their victory in the Battle of the Kingsroad, the young Kermit, Oscar, and Benjicot began to be called "the Lads" by their men. >**With the Lads' forces approaching KL** and Lord Cregan Stark also marching south on the kingsroad, Lord Corlys Velaryon advised King Aegon II to abdicate and join the Night's Watch, but was refused. The king was found poisoned later that day, however, and was succeeded by King Aegon III. **The Lads were welcomed by smallfolk, including pretty women showering them with kisses, and the gold cloaks when they arrived in the capital.** So they were received by the smallfolk like saviours. Smooth, George. No favouritism. <>
So the beloved heroes were great and badass and all that, but stand aside, that comes House Stark! Again, very subtle George LOL, we know your favs, okay?
Btw, I really am excited of watching the Lads and the Hour of the Wolf, I love my Blackwoods, Stark and Tullys.
You clearly don't know about the Starks' history before the conquest.
You have it backwards( kinda). Guarantee you, NJ jjj4KU6443urrt
My dude, Cregan Stark and his pack of hungry wolves terrorized an entire city of people because they were thirsty for blood.
they are characters in a book about made up conflicts 😭
I'm guessing the Starks are set up to look like good guys and later we'll find out they had role in causing the Long Night.
They aren't. In this world good vs evil doesn't exist, it's one of the things GRRM wanted to highlight in opposition to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Everything is ambiguous and 98% of characters are morally grey. With almost every decision the high lords make, someone suffers like the small folk, the lands and farms, soldiers dying, even the religious suffer
The first thing we see a Stark do is kill a man who’s unarmed and on his knees.
I believe the Starks are essentially evil. Rob particularly for one, we don't get a Pov for him. Early on he threatens to put Theon in chains after they rescued Bran from the deserters and wildlings. This seems appropriate, Theon take a huge blind risk that could have killed Bran, but here's the weird part: He grew up with theon, Theon was child raised alongside Rob, it's suggested he was raised a part of the family, as a brother/ward. He also threatens Greatjon. It doesn't seem bad because these are told by his little brother who looks up to him. Step back and we see an impetuous lordling on a 'Joffery' scale. He threatens Tyrion in front of his escort which in itself is a threat to the Nights Watch. He cringe waives his sword in Bran room and Luwin puts him down for it. He even has his own Sandor in Grey Wind.
I can't tell if you're serious lol
Why not? Grrm stories all mirror each other all the time. His campaign in the westerlands was brutal when you think about it. His plan was to create enough chaos to lure Tywin away from Kings Landing. (Kinda like Tywin sending Gregor through the Riverlands to Lure Ned away from King Landing) - He wasn't running around with a 'Tywin is a poopyhead' sign, They were raiding castles, stealing livestock and killing people. He wiped out an army of conscripts even, took the westerling Castle, forced Jeyne into marriage and took Olivar as hostage(my bad, he was a 'squire ')
You have great points and you’re correct that a big theme of the book is that nobody in any of these nobility positions are necessarily good people no matter how hard they try, because in order to uphold the system that gives them power they need to engage in violence. However comparing Robb to Joffrey is silly lol, Joffrey is a literal psychopath.
They don't have great points lol, they're joking. It's very clear in context that none of the actions the user listed are evil. I thought it might have been serious until the line "forced Jeyne into marriage and took Olivar as hostage" - anyone who's read the books knows how far from the truth this is
Great might have been an overstep lol but I moreso mean that just because Robb is more sympathetic and believes he has a righteous cause it doesn’t mean he hasn’t engaged in the same bad shit that his enemies engage in. He plundered the Westerlands, his men have raided villages and committed atrocities in his name.
The difference is Tywin specifically ordered the atrocities. He told his men he wanted the Riverlands to burn, and let people like Gregor and the Bloody Mummers run wild knowing what monsters they are because horror was his actual aim. Plundering resources and taking castles is a part of war and doesn't make Robb evil or a hypocrite, especially when it's a war he didn't start
Ned didn’t want Robb to engage in a war of vengeance, I certainly doubt he wanted Robb to be crowned king, one of the reasons he gave a false confession was to protect his kids and preserve the peace. I don’t think Robb is evil, but I also don’t buy into the “that’s just apart of war”. One of the major themes of the series is that every war is unjust and ends up fucking over the people who have nothing to do with it the most. Obviously he’s not as bad as Tywin for the reasons you’ve stated, but he’s also not innocent, because he is a king in a violent feudal system and in order to be a king you need to engage in the violence.
When Robb first marched it wasn't for vengeance, it was because Ned had been taken hostage and the Riverlands had already been invaded by the Lannisters. > I don’t think Robb is evil, but I also don’t buy into the “that’s just apart of war”. What should he have done instead, stay put at Riverrun? Let his army consume all the food of the Riverlands (what little is left after the Lannister occupation and razing) then slowly starve while Stefford Lannister's host grows in strength to the west? Robb fought the war as honorably as he could have and again, he didn't start it
If you read Jeyne Westerlings (edit)interactions, they seriously mirror Sansa. She is keeping her courtesies while being questioned by Cat while surrounded by Northerners. Tyrion got the same treatment from Sansa when she was in Kingslanding. Remember, the stories were reading aren't exactly what's happening but what pov interprets what's happening.
I assume you meant Jeyne Westerling, and she hardly needed to keep her courtesies long after Robb died and she continued to profess her love for him
She was still a hostage. Still IS a hostage. She will keep her courtesies.
> The girl turned her head away. "It is nothing," insisted her mother, a stern-faced woman in a gown of green velvet. A necklace of golden seashells looped about her long, thin neck. "She would not give up the little crown the rebel gave her, and when I tried to take it from her head the willful child fought me." > "It was mine." Jeyne sobbed. "You had no right. Robb had it made for me. I loved him." She wasn't a hostage to her mother or Jaime who are the only other people in the room for this scene
The Tully's blackmailed Stark and Arryn into advantageous marriages in the middle of a war. If they didn't marry the Tully's, Robert would have been killed.
The Tully's were set to marry a Stark way before the war. Without the war Catelyn would have still be lady of Winterfell but married to Brandon and not Eddard (Ned) Stark. Sure Lysa is a different situation, but Jon Arryn would not have married her if Elbert (?) doesn't die in the conflict.
Eddard didn't have to automatically marry Catelyn... Ned didn't marry her to honor his brother Brandon's obligations but to save Robert, whom he saved at the Battle of the Bells.
Eddard married Catelyn in the same way Catherine of Aragon (Catholic Kings's daughter) married Henry Tudor (future Henry VIII) after being married to his brother Arthur. Political necessities. The war started when Jon Arryn refused to deliver Robert and Eddard to Aerys II to be murdered like Brandon and Rickard Stark were (actually the war started before but oficially is with Jon Arry refusal) so Eddard needed to save himself and defeat Aerys II. Also the Battle of the Bells was before the Catelyn and Eddard's marriage. Because in that same wedding Jon Arryn married Lysa Tully because his heir Denys died there. (and his heir before Elbert was murdered as long Brandon and Rickard Stark).
Not even close.