House Frey should be respected

[Clegane'sPup]

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I wouldn't dream of asking you re-read this thread to find a quote.

Hmmm on second thoughts yeah you're right-Manderly merely having dinner Davos doesn't automatically make Davos a guest and no longer his prisoner. So as of yet, Manderly has not violated guest right. He hasn't eaten the Bolton's food so they aren't entitled to guest rights. 

Hmmmmmm, yea okay babe'. You know, hair toss, people are just so concerned with who ate dinner when and where.

 

[Nowy Tends]

1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

"I hate the Starks. I'm very cool and unique. Isn't that so much special?" 

“I love the Freys and the Boltons, which shows that I have a strong personnality and an independent spirit…”

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

"I hate the Starks. I'm very cool and unique. Isn't that so much special?" 

1 hour ago, Nowy Tends said:

“I love the Freys and the Boltons, which shows that I have a strong personnality and an independent spirit…”

Wow! The two of you seem awfully upset with the concept of others having different opinions to the two of you. 

Instead of being childish with your ad hominem attacks why not point out why you disgaree with the opinions you disagree with? 

[Kandrax]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eh, probably.

Personally, i doubt that in such case Martin would write that line.

[Kandrax]

Man, i have feeling that some readers hate 2 year old kid with surname Frey more than noseless pedo.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

14 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

the complete post said

Most if not all families will do what the Freys did to protect themselves from the consequences of supporting the losing side of a rebellion.  Most if not all Westerosi families will break guest rights rather than continue to support a dishonorable fellow like Robb.  I'm not saying trickery isn't bad but they see what Robb did as trickery.  How you feel about the situation depends on whose shoes you're wearing.  I like Lord Walder.  He's one of the more entertainingly funny people and I don't want him to die.  I find it hard to have sympathy for Robb and his bannermen.  I know they were tricked but trickery is the most efficient way to win against a bigger opponent.  The Freys could never hope to fight Robb and his armies directly.  This was the only way open to the Freys to extricate themselves from a losing alliance to a man who broke his oaths to them.

That is not the post I cherry picked. The one I cherry picked is below.

Most families will break guest rights and any other taboo if given enough reason to do so.  Just look what Manderly did.  The man is a cannibal and he did it for revenge.  I will even accuse him of breaking guest rights because he tricked his host into eating human flesh.  Manderly had a choice.  He can forgive, after all they were rebelling against the crown, which is illegal in itself and they were outlaws.  He did not have to murder the Freys.  I stand by what I said.  Most families will break customs if given enough reason to do it.  They Freys had good reason to do it.  They could be facing excessive fines for their part in the rebellion and may even lose their bridge.  It's worth killing Robb to avoid the possibilities of losing their bridge.

So I am going to cherry pick again.

Sorry about that I should have clarified. I knew which post you picked from I was just trying to clarify that I agreed with the portion you picked but not the first post. 

 

14 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I do not know.  It seems to me that in this saga Martin has set up scenarios requiring me the reader to pass judgement on his characters. Life experience plays a part. Sometimes I think that that readers forget that besides Martin's interest in history his life experience plays a part

I agree. 

Your quotes on Manderly make me wonder if guest right can be extended to those that force themselves to be guests. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Wow! The two of you seem awfully upset with the concept of others having different opinions to the two of you. 

Instead of being childish with your ad hominem attacks why not point out why you disgaree with the opinions you disagree with? 

Let's see. In the book series where gray and grey morality is one of the foundation principles, some deeds are nevertheless painted as unquestionably wrong. The author had the Red Wedding and the House Frey condemned by such separate and different camps, as - and that's not counting the affected parties - the Faith of the Seven, the noblemen of the Vale, Davos Seaworth and Queen Cersei's Small Council. Moreover, he took care to make the Freys presenting their cause as a bunch of lying assholes, with Jared, Symond and Rhaegar taking the pie cake.

Now, while it is, I guess, physically possible for someone to read the same books and nevertheless conclude that the Freys were in the right and the Red Wedding was the right thing to do, but I find it unlikely. Way more probable is, the RW advocates are just contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

An adult arguing that 2+2=5 might be arithmetically challenged, but my bet would be, he knows the actual result of the - not that difficult - calculation, but is doing it in the hope of pissing somebody off.

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2018-1-20 at 10:12 AM, Bullrout said:

Most families will break guest rights and any other taboo if given enough reason to do so.  Just look what Manderly did.  The man is a cannibal and he did it for revenge.  I will even accuse him of breaking guest rights because he tricked his host into eating human flesh.  Manderly had a choice.  He can forgive, after all they were rebelling against the crown, which is illegal in itself and they were outlaws.  He did not have to murder the Freys.  I stand by what I said.  Most families will break customs if given enough reason to do it.  They Freys had good reason to do it.  They could be facing excessive fines for their part in the rebellion and may even lose their bridge.  It's worth killing Robb to avoid the possibilities of losing their bridge.

No, most families would not break guest rights, that is the whole point of having a custom that is so sacred and frowned upon; It prevents these types of atrocities from being committed.

And especially not under the circumstances that the Freys were in, as the situation they faced was not as dire as is being argued in this thread. Their backs were not against the wall, with no other options. They chose to break guests rights as an easy and cowardly way to exact revenge on Robb, not as some desperate attempt to save themselves.

And what about what Manderly did? You can accuse him of breaking guests rights all you want... But you are wrong, he did not break guest rights.

Strange that you would use him tricking the Freys into eating human flesh as justification for your accusations, seeing as the legend given to us by the author that reinforces just how vile and unacceptable breaking guest rights is, specifically lays out for us that the Rat Cook was not cursed by the gods because he committed murder, nor because he fed an Andal King his own son in a pie, but specifically and exclusively because he broke guest rights.

[Blackwater Revenant]

Take for example: During the Dance of Dragons, Lord Mooton of Maidenpool - a southern house, I would note - when commanded by his Queen to break guest rights, instead chose to commit treason, and switched his staunch allegiance for the Blacks, in favor of the Greens.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On January 15, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Who has he been merciless to? He ransomed 4 Freys after the Green Fork -- Ser Jared Frey, Ser Hosteen Frey, Ser Danwell Frey, and Ronel Rivers. That's sure merciless to the house he's communicating with to bring about Robb's downfall. 

He also trades Donnel Locke. Then we get to the thousands of men-at-arms, knights, and Lords who bend the knee and are not massacred by Joffrey. He agrees to have Marg married to Joffrey. Then even after the RW he is conciliatory and send Wylis Manderly back to his father amongst other captives like Galbart Glover.

Frankly the Freys he trades after Jaime is captured -- and he knows Jaime is captured at this point -- are basically all anyone needs to point out to show your point on Tywin's reputation has pretty much no merit or standing in this discussion. How can the Freys be afraid of Tywin when he's already shown them mercy and is willing to plot with them? They aren't. They just merely want protection from the crown for the atrocity:

"The blood is on Walder Frey's hands, not mine."

"Walder Frey is a peevish old man who lives to fondle his young wife and brood over all the slights he's suffered. I have no doubt he hatched this ugly chicken, but he would never have dared such a thing without a promise of protection."

 

Tywin was more than happy to oblige him, much like he was for the ransom for Walder's sons.

So Tywin releasing hostages while Lord Frey has agreed in your mind makes it totally irrational to think a man who'd eliminated two entire houses would be sever in his reprisal should they refuse him?

Also again, readers hindsight man.

How Tywin treated lords who came to bend the knee after the RW isn't really proof that the Freys wouldn't think a guy with a history overreacting to slights against his house-is likely going to use them as an example for why other houses should not obey.

Donnel Locke was traded to get back Tion Frey, kin of the lanisters.

And that was a move by Tyrion.

Margary was agreed to marry Joffrey to stop the literal famine that was engulfing KL.

These acts weren't done as a gesture of good will they were a literal necessity for securing the Lanisters place and winning the war.

The Freys need to show they've value to the lanisters in their current position in order to 100% secure it- and the RW is the only way for them to do it.

[Quoth the raven,]

23 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

This is ridiculous; we know Manderly says that because he wants to create panic and disorder inside Winterfell and that's exactly what he gets: Roose sends the Frey troops march in the blizzard toward their fate…

Wayman Manderly and Walder Frey are more alike than they both would care to admit.  Both of these men would commit whatever atrocity they need to commit to serve the best interests of their families.  Survival, revenge, considerable gain, family. honor.  All of those things can drive people to do dishonorable acts.  But there is a big distinction in what Walder did and what Wayman did.  Walder's was legal.  The red wedding was made legal before it began because the king's hand ordered it.  Wayman's murder of the Freys and his cannibalism are illegal by any laws of Westeros.  The red wedding is not legally punishable.  The murder of the Freys and the act of cannibalism can legally get Wyman Manderly beheaded.

[Nowy Tends]

26 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Walder's was legal.  The red wedding was made legal before it began because the king's hand ordered it.  Wayman's murder of the Freys and his cannibalism are illegal by any laws of Westeros.  The red wedding is not legally punishable.

Sure, it's "legal" then it's ok. The murder of Rickard and Brandon Stark was "legal" since the King ordered it…

Some people on this forum are really scary…

[Universal Sword Donor]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So Tywin releasing hostages while Lord Frey has agreed in your mind makes it totally irrational to think a man who'd eliminated two entire houses would be sever in his reprisal should they refuse him?

Also again, readers hindsight man.

How Tywin treated lords who came to bend the knee after the RW isn't really proof that the Freys wouldn't think a guy with a history overreacting to slights against his house-is likely going to use them as an example for why other houses should not obey.

Donnel Locke was traded to get back Tion Frey, kin of the lanisters.

And that was a move by Tyrion.

Margary was agreed to marry Joffrey to stop the literal famine that was engulfing KL.

These acts weren't done as a gesture of good will they were a literal necessity for securing the Lanisters place and winning the war.

The Freys need to show they've value to the lanisters in their current position in order to 100% secure it- and the RW is the only way for them to do it.

HE RELEASED FREYS WHEN THEY WERE ACTIVELY AT WAR WITH THE LANNISTERS.

Honestly at this point I don't even know why I am debating this. You think he's going to wipe them out after they abandon Robb's alliance?

GTFO

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

HE RELEASED FREYS WHEN THEY WERE ACTIVELY AT WAR WITH THE LANNISTERS.

Honestly at this point I don't even know why I am debating this. You think he's going to wipe them out after they abandon Robb's alliance?

GTFO

 

Yes. I awknowleged he released Donnel Lock in exchange for his nephew. The Freys had something he wanted and thus a trade was made. 

 And to answer you're question no and I've stated such previously in this thread.

What they can realistically fear from Tywin is something less but still horrifying; being made destitute through having their bridge seized in favor of a house that has proven that they could be trusted. 

 

[Kandrax]

Massacre can only be justified if someone was blackmailed.

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. I awknowleged he released Donnel Lock in exchange for his nephew. The Freys had something he wanted and thus a trade was made. 

 And to answer you're question no and I've stated such previously in this thread.

What they can realistically fear from Tywin is something less but still horrifying; being made destitute through having their bridge seized in favor of a house that has proven that they could be trusted. 

 

No the four from after the battle of the green fork. He sent money and they were ransomed.

No. That's just inherently ridiculous and goes against what Tywin has done previously with the Freys, what Tywin says, and what ends up happening with the story. If they had refused peace offerings, you might be in the realm of rational expectations.

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

On 12/25/2017 at 4:50 PM, Only 89 selfies today said:

All highborn are prickly.  They put family first.  Any one of them would ignore guest rights to avoid losing their lives and their lands.  The R/W was driven by fear, fear of the Lannisters.  Robb was an oath breaker and a fuck up.  Walder and Roose needed an exit strategy that would avoid punishment.  They had to do the R/W.  Walder and family could lose their magnificent bridge.  Roose would certainly lose his head for letting Jaime go.  Robb had to die in order for these men to protect themselves.

Roose Bolton's days were numbered unless he takes the Starks down because of his part in helping Jaime escape.  He's not getting the same leniency that Catelyn got.  He was a traitor from the very beginning and even someone slow like the lords of the north would eventually realize this. 

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

On 12/25/2017 at 11:52 AM, Sigella said:

No, because Robert only fathered bastards, which might not be the kindest to the children - but 250 heirs certainly isnt good for any House let alone a small on with only one seat.

Walder keeps a constant string of too young wives because he likes shagging them and he could give two phracks what becomes of them or their offspring. He supports them for now but leaves them to fend for themselves in case he or his oldest dies, none of which is "respectable" behaviour. It is dubious that all his wives dies prematurely, not respectable. 

Imagine being a cut off Frey out in the world on their own... They'd wish they were Baratheon bastards with good looks and physical talents.

Do you think Robert would remarry again for the fifth time if he had, say, 12 legal kids? (should be more if his wives weren't all as uncooperative as Cersei) No, even if he wanted to his council would dissuade him. Because its irresponsible.

I read it like you are arguing that there are two characters that you think might have turned as bad as Walder and therefore he is exempt of responsibility? 

Walder is way more like Aegon Unworthy than Robert tbh. House Frey needs some Blackfyre-pretenders and self-regulate.

Having a lot of kids is bad today.  It's fine back then as long as you can support them.  Infant mortality is quite high and with the Riverlands almost without a break from war, it makes sense to have many children.  Walder uses them to build family alliances. 

[Sigella]

3 hours ago, Belwas the Bodyguard said:

Having a lot of kids is bad today.  It's fine back then as long as you can support them.  Infant mortality is quite high and with the Riverlands almost without a break from war, it makes sense to have many children.  Walder uses them to build family alliances. 

I encourage you to read the Frey epilogue in SoS again

[Blackwater Revenant]

I must say, this whole defense of the Freys that they had no choice other than to commit the atrocity of the Red Wedding is just ridiculous.

First off, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they were pressured into committing this act by Tywin. In fact, the only thing we have alluding to who is responsible here, is Tywin stating that the Red Wedding is on the Freys, and that his hands are clean.

Secondly, the notion that the Freys saving themselves by these means is justifiable, is frankly, absurd and appalling.

If some scum bag broke into a home and proceeded to rape the woman he found residing there, would anyone claim, should that woman's husband or father come home and catch him in the act, that he would have no choice, and be justified in murdering that man in order to save his own skin?

This is the same situation the Freys found themselves in. They were not forced into supporting Robb's cause. Walder took Rob's predicament as an opportunity to coerce Robb into bringing about gains for his own family, and chose to rebel against the Crown in order to ensure his aspirations could be obtained.

The fact that Robb betrayed his word to Walder is irrelevant. He made his bed, now it's his responsibility to sleep in it. The only relevance of Robb's betrayal is in showing that Walder's actions weren't out of necessity, but as a means of getting revenge for the slight to his house.