Sometimes it sucks being the good guy.

[Thorsteinn]

Discuss. Is Eddard Stark being Knightly?

[Thorsteinn]

Are the McManus Brothers?

[Sir Brian]

Discuss. Is Eddard Stark being Knightly?

Yes he definitely was. The condemned admitted to being a deserter and he was in service to Eddard Stark in the first place IIRC, so it was his responsibility to uphold the laws of the realm.

[Ian]

Ned is upholding a rather black and white interpretation of the law. In context, the reason the guy deserted was because his party was attacked by supernatural beings that massacred the other two people with him, and had he not fled he most certainly would have been killed as well with no chance of success. He fled out of panic.  So yes, he deserted, but not without legitimate reason driven by natural survival instinct in the face of certain doom.

 However, I do think that Ned's actions are knightly, mostly though in the aspect that he chooses to bare the burden of carrying out the punishment himself, and not delegating the grim responsibility to someone else.  After he carries out the execution he says "You understand why I did it?  You understand why I had to kill him?  The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword." That is what makes his actions knightly.

[Sir Brian]

Was he merciful?

[Thorsteinn]

Here is the whole 15 Min preview with back story:

[Thorsteinn]

What are your thoughts of the Knightlyness of the McManus family?

[Sir James A]

What are your thoughts of the Knightlyness of the McManus family?

I like them. A lot. More so in the first movie, especially the speech at the end. I'm not sure about knightly, but they're guys I'd want on my side.

[Thorsteinn]

Like in this line?:

CONNOR: "How far are we going with this, Da?"

FATHER: "The questions is not, "how far?" The question is, "Do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith to go as far as is needed?""

[Sir William]

Was Eddard Stark being knightly?   If by that you mean adhering to the tenets of law, despite the circumstances, then perhaps.  By the way, that black brother didn't serve Lord Stark, he served The Wall- he effectively deserted when his brothers were massacred by white walkers; I can't say I blame him.  It is one thing to die in battle fighting a man or men, quite another by supernatural beasts for which no real way to kill was discovered- at least not until Jon Snow thought to use fire in the Lord Commander's solar when one of their black brothers arose as a WW.  So, perhaps he was knightly, but I would not say he was just.  He automatically assumed the man was mad, and I can't really blame him for that as there was no real precedent...not in hundreds of years, according to canon.

The McManus brothers are noble...I wouldn't say necessarily knightly.  They pursued their own brand of justice, and the populace thanked them for it because only hardened criminals and mobsters met their ends at his hands.  Although they probably should've killed Rocco too- that man was a loose cannon and as far as I was concerned, just as bad as the mobsters.  All people have a redeeming quality if you take the time to learn it, doesn't mean it should absolve them of their crimes.

So, does that make the McManus brothers murderers, or righteous executioners?  Who are they, in their supreme arrogance, to assume they know the Will of God?  Depends on where you're standing.  Still, I loved the movie and I'd support them as well.

[Sir Edward]

To me, the McManus brothers are more Robin Hood than knight. They seek their own form of justice, and therefore are self-righteous. A knight's duty is in service.

To put it in D&D terms, I think the knightly thing is to be more Lawful Good, whereas these fellows were Chaotic Good.

[Ian]

To me, the McManus brothers are more Robin Hood than knight. They seek their own form of justice, and therefore are self-righteous. A knight's duty is in service.

To put it in D&D terms, I think the knightly thing is to be more Lawful Good, whereas these fellows were Chaotic Good.

Ned Stark is the definition of lawful good.  Much to his own detriment...

[Sir James A]

Like in this line?:

CONNOR: "How far are we going with this, Da?"

FATHER: "The questions is not, "how far?" The question is, "Do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith to go as far as is needed?""

The courtroom speech


1:15 to 2:15

[Sir William]

As for sucking to be the good guy, why do you think the Sith get members?  All that stifling your emotions, logic is your guide, etc etc...makes for a pretty drab existence, awesome Force powers notwithstanding.  To be able to feel, to emote- that is the human experience.

Not to be funny, but in the game Assassins Creed, the storyline tells of two organizations, the Assassins, and the Knights Templar caught up in a very old struggle between the two.  The Templars are seen as the 'good' ones, and their purpose is to exert dominion over the entire world as they see fit- for the good of all.  The Assassins believe that each individual should live based on their own internal code- that it should be allowed and respected because the individual matters...and yet both use similar methods to achieve their goals, primarily by assassinating high profile targets.  Makes for great fun, but also makes you think...or rather, made me think.

[SirNathanQ]

Being a good duy isn't all about slaying obvious villains and evil monsters, or saving damsels in distress.
Those are things tat anyone with a basic sense of morality would do. Being a good guy also means taking stances in grey areas, making descisions, sometimes making unpopular ones too. It's about enforcing the law, even when it's not very "Pretty". It's about doing what's right, sentiments be damned.

I also feel that the McManus are knightly in their own way, in doing the good that the law cannot, for the good of the people. Eddard Stark is being knightly in his own  way as well, in upholding the law, for the good of the people.