House Frey should be respected

[divica]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Walder made a choice with the RW & will have to suffer the consequences. He could have done any number of things though. He could have pulled his army from Robb's & joined forces with Tywin, or he could have pulled his army & stayed out of it. Tywin would not turn away the allegiance of the Frey's during wartime simply because they refused to the RW. 

If the marriage to Edmure is a shitty agreement then Walder shouldn't have agreed to it. Robb needed his army. He could have asked for anything he wanted & refused anything offered if he wanted. He chose to feel spurned & slaughter guests under his own roof. 

I am not sure of the timing, but the moment Edmure attacked tywin and prevented him from getting away  from KL the riverlands were lost. So if tywin really wanted walder to betray and kill robb there was little walder could do because tywin could exterminate his house like he did with castamere. And what could robb do that would make the freys avoid the ire from the Lannisters and gain something? Don t froget that tywin is known for not being a nice person to revolt.

I am not saying walder isn t a bad person. Just that he was in a bad spot and felt scorned, then tywin ofered him a solution to his probs that would allow him to get his revenge. And if tywin really wanted walder to do the RW I don t know if walder could have said no...

[Bernie Mac]

6 minutes ago, divica said:

 

I am not saying walder isn t a bad person. Just that he was in a bad spot and felt scorned, then tywin ofered him a solution to his probs that would allow him to get his revenge. And if tywin really wanted walder to do the RW I don t know if walder could have said no...

I actually think it was Roose, not Tywin, who convinced him to do this. Roose not only needed Robb dead, but he needed the other factions that threatened his rule of the North to be dealt with. He could not allow the 3,500 with Robb to just support another Stark, he needed the Stark loyalists and competing factions to be hurt. 

And of course Cat notices that Roose may well be threatening Walder

Bolton had made a toast to Lord Walder's grandsons when the wedding feast began, pointedly mentioning that Walder and Walder were in the care of his bastard son. From the way the old man had squinted at him, his mouth sucking at the air, Catelyn knew he had heard the unspoken threat.

[divica]

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I actually think it was Roose, not Tywin, who convinced him to do this. Roose not only needed Robb dead, but he needed the other factions that threatened his rule of the North to be dealt with. He could not allow the 3,500 with Robb to just support another Stark, he needed the Stark loyalists and competing factions to be hurt. 

And of course Cat notices that Roose may well be threatening Walder

Bolton had made a toast to Lord Walder's grandsons when the wedding feast began, pointedly mentioning that Walder and Walder were in the care of his bastard son. From the way the old man had squinted at him, his mouth sucking at the air, Catelyn knew he had heard the unspoken threat.

good catch. It is even more reasons for walder to take his revenge instead of suffering for a king that betrayed him.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol ok. People who only agree with you have sense, the others don't. Why even engage in this conversation if you automatically think the people who disagree with you are stupid? Pretty condescending attitude to have in life

Not at all. I respect the opinion of many that disagree with me & I would assume the people I quoted disagree with me on plenty of subjects. It's the nonsense that gets me. I'll never understand this fandom's want to root for the bad guy or justify the actions of someone that we're clearly meant to show they are wrong. 

 

17 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

His choices were limited. And he wanted revenge for the death of his heir, for the death of all the Frey men who died for Robb's lie. And he wanted to be able to do it while he was still alive and Walder is not long for this world.

Walder, like Robb, was desperate for revenge. He did not have many options to see Robb dead

He had choices. He made one. Because he didn't have many choices that would satisfy his want for Robb's death doesn't mean his choice was justified. He allowed vengeance to rule his choices & chose accordingly. He could have chose to declare war on Robb rather than taking the cowards way out. 

 

20 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

? How is the point moot when the point I made (and it was I who made the point, so give me the good grace to know what point I was actually making) was that Robb and his generals were more than prepared to destroy the Twins for merely being in their way of the most convenient route. 

Doing this is also shit behaviour, no one claimed it was worse or even equal to the red wedding, just pointed out that Robb and the Northmen were more than willing to do something shitty to a House full of women and children all for the crime of being neutral. 

It appears many of you Stark fans are more than happy to abandon the outrage when it is the Northern side acting the aggressor

The point is moot because he didn't do it. I'm sure if we had Walder's POV he thought & said much worse. You can't judge a man on what he may have wanted to do, may have done, was willing to do. Only on what he did. 

 

23 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

After spending the price. If I make an agreement to buy a car, take car, smash said car and then say "oops, I don't feel like paying for it now" then off course the car owner is going to want revenge. 

You, and others, seem to downplay just what Robb did. Men died for Robb's broken promise

That's not a good analogy because Robb didn't drive or smash the car. The woman he was meant to marry is left in tact with her virtue. At any rate I would expect someone in this scenario to want to be made "whole" again, not want revenge. They would, rightfully so, expect compensation for their damages, not the death of the buyer & everyone he knows. 

 

27 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

had some options. He did not have many. The Twins and the Freys are stuck in the middle of Robb's adjoining kingdoms, and Robb had shown a willingness to destroy the Twins in the past. Walder also had to get Tywin on side, as look what happened to the Tullys, and the Freys had done more damage to the Westerlands than any other Riverland House. 

And he wanted Robb dead. His options were not that great, they were sorely limited. Like Robb when he married Jeyne, Walde was prepared to sacrifice his honour for what he wanted. 

I'm sorry but Walder wanting Robb dead does not justifiably shorten his options. It is for this reason, among others, I name him treacherous. Wanting to slaughter a whole wedding party over a broken proposal is an overkill no? The punishment should fit the crime. 

 

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Has anyone claimed he was right? I certainly have not, I don't think any of these nobles have the right to do the shitty things they do. I can explain why they do it, but I've been pretty clear, they are all as bad as each other. As fun as the feudal times is to read about (both real and imaginary) it is not a society I think is 'right'. 

Yes actually many have claimed it was right. 

 

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

is a strawman argument. This is often what happens in these conversations. Peope stop reading and responding to what is being said and revert to what they understand in their heads and what the echo chamber is telling them is right. 

I'm not saying Walder was right to kill people, he was not. But I do think that he did not have to honour any future agreement he made with Robb as Robb had already proven to not be a man of his word. Robb has shown that he had little trouble breaking his word even after having acccepted and spent the payment the Freys gave him in good faith. 

My point exactly. It is a straw man argument that's what I was saying. Both are wrong. Walder may have been right to refuse any arrangement promised by Robb after Robb broke his word. To repay him in kind would have been to agree to the marriage of Edmure & Roslin, along with his allegiance & then to withdraw those things. Not to slaughter everyone. 

 

34 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure. Not out of respect, out of desperation. 

"We must win back the Freys," said Robb. "With them, we still have some chance of success, however small. Without them, I see no hope."

Robb is entirely dependent on the Freys, that and only that, is the reason he is willing to deal with them from weakness

I never said he made it out of respect, only that he made it. In Robb's position would you want to make an ally of Walder Frey if you didn't need to? I sure wouldn't. 

 

36 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That does not seem to be the case here as you have not said shit about the men that died fighting for Robb lie to Walder? All you seem upset about is the men who died over Walder's lie. 

I'm sorry, but maybe you would not need to explain this all the time if you did not assume one was automatically right, as you seem to be doing here. 

Both Walder and Robb broke a promise to each other, both are bad and yet you only seem to be commenting on the Walder's lie. It is called an agenda. 

People have used the argument that Robb started it by breaking his marriage pact. My point, as I've said, is that two wrongs don't make a right. I've very specifically said Robb was wrong to break his pact so why you insist I'm only concerned with Walder's wrong is beyond me. I'm absolutely not assuming one was right, again they were both wrong. My issue with the RW is that it is an overkill, the punishment does not fit the crime & it is certainly not justifiable because Robb broke his marriage pact first. 

 

40 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

'm sorry but if your reasoning is that imaginary gods in an imaginary universe dictate which side is right or wrong then naturally I am not going to take agree with it. That is just me, I don't really take heed from the imaginary gods in our own world, I'm certainly not going to take one from a fictional one any more seriously.

I don't take heed from the imaginary God's IRL either. But when an author sets up a fictional God & what angers them, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that these God's will exact revenge. 

 

41 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Has anyone claimed that guest rights are not important? 

Well yes. Unless I'm misunderstanding your paragraph above this one is stating just that. Besides that people all over this thread have stated that there is nothing more wrong with slaughtering guests at your dinner table than there is to fight another army. I disagree. 

 

I apologise for not responding to everything but my time is cut short again. I'll get back to you. 

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Not at all. I respect the opinion of many that disagree with me & I would assume the people I quoted disagree with me on plenty of subjects. It's the nonsense that gets me. I'll never understand this fandom's want to root for the bad guy or justify the actions of someone that we're clearly meant to show they are wrong. 

Come on, how can you say not at all when you are claiming the people in this thread you don't agree with our speaking nonsense just because you don't understand their argument. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

He had choices. He made one. Because he didn't have many choices that would satisfy his want for Robb's death doesn't mean his choice was justified.

Sure it was. He was able to justify his actions to House Frey. He, like Robb, was righteous in his desire for revenge, as well as self preservation, so easily was able to justify his actions to both himself and his vassals. Coming up with reasons to justify his actions is easy. As is coming up with reasons why it was wrong, but I am going to assume everyone on both sides of this discussion is already familiar with the cons on this one.

What seems to be overlooked is that it was not just a case of just Walder being angry, they all were as we saw from their reactions with Robb in the Westerlands and the Freys at Riverrun

Something else was wrong as well. On the day her brother returned, a few hours after their argument, she had heard angry voices from the yard below. When she climbed to the roof to see, there were knots of men gathered across the castle beside the main gate. Horses were being led from the stables, saddled and bridled, and there was shouting, though Catelyn was too far away to make out the words. One of Robb's white banners lay on the ground, and one of the knights turned his horse and trampled over the direwolf as he spurred toward the gate. Several others did the same. Those are men who fought with Edmure on the fords, she thought. What could have made them so angry? Has my brother slighted them somehow, given them some insult? She thought she recognized Ser Perwyn Frey, who had traveled with her to Bitterbridge and Storm's End and back, and his bastard half brother Martyn Rivers as well, but from this vantage it was hard to be certain.

It should be noted that Perwyn was one of the Freys who abstained from the Red Wedding and even his reaction was outrage. The Freys were justifiably pissed off. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

He allowed vengeance to rule his choices & chose accordingly.

Yeah, this is pretty common with nobles in Westeros. Both protagonists and antagonists alike in the noble world share this characteristic. Even Robb allows his vengeance to guide him over common sense. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He could have chose to declare war on Robb rather than taking the cowards way out. 

Thanks to Robb's lies Walder would have been down around 1,000 men and been stuck in the middle Robb's two kingdoms. It would have been idiotic to declare war on Robb in that situation as he would not be able to do anything about it. 

Though were do you draw the line? Surely attacking sleeping green boys is also cowardice of sorts, right? Why can't Robb attack an enemy that is awake?

All the while, their cousin Ser Stafford would be training and arming the new host he'd raised at Casterly Rock.

Robb is not using cowardice here, he is attacking an enemy before they are trained and armed, and doing so at night because he wants as many advantages as possible. Depending on your definition of honour in war Robb's actions could also be described as cheating and cowardice. Walder just followed the same, bending the rules even more so to get as many advantages as he could. War is about winning with as few casualties as possible. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

The point is moot because he didn't do it.

How is it moot? Please don't condescend people telling them points they made are moot. 

My point had nothing to do with it having happened, if you came to that conclusion reading my responses then I am sorry, but the fault lies in your reading comprehension. not with the point I made. 

Robb and his generals were more than prepared to do it, to do it to an neutral faction all for being in their way. Talking about what is fair and what is not fair it is always best to look at what these commanders on both sides are willing to do before spouting off how one side is 'bad'. 

Rather than admit that what Robb was prepared to do was wrong, you instead want to silence the converstion. Funny how all the people you claim lack sense can call Walder's actions as bad, but you can't seem to do the same for Robb. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm sure if we had Walder's POV he thought & said much worse.

Is anyone here arguing that Walder is good a person?

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

You can't judge a man on what he may have wanted to do, may have done, was willing to do. Only on what he did. 

Of course you can. When Bronn told Tyrion he would kill a child for the right price did you not judge him?  Do you judge Tarly for threatening to kill Sam?

Of course you can evaluate someone on what they were more than willing to do, especially if the only thing stopping was outside forces rather than their own conscious. 

 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

That's not a good analogy because Robb didn't drive or smash the car.

Yeah, he did. He sent two thousand six hundred Frey infantry to fight at the battle of the Green Ford,, around 1/5th of them died, he would have had Frey casualties with him in every single one of his victories. Walder lost his heir Stevron and great grandson was murdered while Robb held him prisoner. 

House Frey had sacrificed a lot for Robb's broken promise. He not only drove the car, but fucked it up and in Walder's eyes possibly beyond repair

His father was querulous and stubborn, with an iron will and a wasp's tongue, but he did believe in taking care of his own. All of his own, even the ones who had displeased and disappointed him. Even the ones whose names he can't remember. Once he was gone, though . . .

When Ser Stevron had been heir, that was one thing. The old man had been grooming Stevron for sixty years, and had pounded it into his head that blood was blood. But Stevron had died whilst campaigning with the Young Wolf in the west

Robb is angry over the death of his father and wants revenge and is willing to risk everything to get it

He is playing the boy now, not the king. "The Lannisters do not need the north. They will require homage and hostages, no more . . . and the Imp will keep Sansa no matter what we do, so they have their hostage. The ironmen will prove a more implacable enemy, I promise you. To have any hope of holding the north, the Greyjoys must leave no single sprig of House Stark alive to dispute their right. Theon's murdered Bran and Rickon, so now all they need do is kill you . . . and Jeyne, yes. Do you think Lord Balon can afford to let her live to bear you heirs?"

Robb's face was cold. "Is that why you freed the Kingslayer? To make a peace with the Lannisters?"

"I freed Jaime for Sansa's sake . . . and Arya's, if she still lives. You know that. But if I nurtured some hope of buying peace as well, was that so ill?"

"Yes," he said. "The Lannisters killed my father."

 

Is it such a shock when others will make similar risks to get revenge as well? Or is it only Starks who are allowed to feel they have been wronged in this series?

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

The woman he was meant to marry is left in tact with her virtue.

But the soldiers who died for that promise remain dead. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

At any rate I would expect someone in this scenario to want to be made "whole" again, not want revenge.

There is no making whole again. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

They would, rightfully so, expect compensation for their damages, not the death of the buyer & everyone he knows. 

Why not? Why would Walder not want Robb to die in compensation for the Freys who lost their lives because he agreed to side with Robb?

It is clear from Robb's greeting at the Twins that Walder was not happy with just an apology

She fell off her horse and cracked her head. What would Your Grace do if Petyr had broken his neck, heh? Give me another apology in place of a grandson? No, no, no.

I suspect from Walder and the Freys reaction that an apology was never going to cut it, Robb should have gauged that from Walder Rivers negotiations at Riverrun. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

I'm sorry but Walder wanting Robb dead does not justifiably shorten his options.

Yeah, it does. But as I said before, I am happy for you list all of Walder's options and we can go over the pros, cons and feasibility of each one. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It is for this reason, among others, I name him treacherous.

Sure. Same can be said of Robb, right? His treachery to the Freys and the prisoners show that Robb too was treacherous. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Wanting to slaughter a whole wedding party over a broken proposal is an overkill no?

They did not slaughter a whole wedding party, many inside the castle were taken prisoner while the soldiers outside were not part of the wedding party, they were never offered guest rights. 

But yeah, even the 50 or so people that were killed is wrong, but then I kind of think that about many of the actions in this series. The whole time period was a time of overkill. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The punishment should fit the crime. 

How do you figure that? Who do they go and ask what a fair punishment is for Robb's crime?

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes actually many have claimed it was right. 

In this thread? Who?

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

My point exactly. It is a straw man argument that's what I was saying. Both are wrong. Walder may have been right to refuse any arrangement promised by Robb after Robb broke his word. To repay him in kind would have been to agree to the marriage of Edmure & Roslin, along with his allegiance & then to withdraw those things. Not to slaughter everyone. 

Robb had already took payment for the first marriage. Robb had betrayed first, why would Walder care about betraying someone who had already fucked him over?

You are acting like Walder's losses were far less than they were. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I never said he made it out of respect, only that he made it. In Robb's position would you want to make an ally of Walder Frey if you didn't need to? I sure wouldn't. 

Well that is pretty dumb. They are the post powerful House in the neighbouring Kingdom of the North, they are the most Northernmost Riverland House and seem to control a lot of trade going North and South. It would be idiotic for the Lord of the North to not want to make an ally of Lord of the Twins, same goes for the Lord of the Riverlands deliberately making jest of his most powerful vassal. 

I, frankly, find it bizarre how any Lord of the North could be so shortsighted about such a matter.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

People have used the argument that Robb started it by breaking his marriage pact.

Is that really an argument? Up until his betrayal the Freys were fighting and dying for him. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

My point, as I've said, is that two wrongs don't make a right. I've very specifically said Robb was wrong to break his pact so why you insist I'm only concerned with Walder's wrong is beyond me.

Because most of your posts are stating how Robb did nothing wrong. Maybe reread your own content to understand why people are saying what they are to you. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm absolutely not assuming one was right, again they were both wrong. My issue with the RW is that it is an overkill, the punishment does not fit the crime & it is certainly not justifiable because Robb broke his marriage pact first. 

What are you going on about? What punishment fits the crime? There is not some lawbook with the specific action Robb has done and with a specific punishment to go along with it. 

 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't take heed from the imaginary God's IRL either. But when an author sets up a fictional God & what angers them, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that these God's will exact revenge. 

lol that is how religions are started in the first place. By coincidences being credited to the Gods. 

Many people in Westeros get a shit hand in life and suffer and it has nothing do with the Gods, similarly some people get what they deserve (and I agree, the Freys do deserve some kind of retribution) but if that happens that is not evidence the gods in Westeros exist. 

 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well yes. Unless I'm misunderstanding your paragraph above this one is stating just that.

I think they are, but then I think not attacking sleeping enemies is also important, I think honouring your promises is important. You misunderstood me thinking that Guest Rights and Guest Rights alone is important because some imaginary fellows in the sky said it was so. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Besides that people all over this thread have stated that there is nothing more wrong with slaughtering guests at your dinner table than there is to fight another army. I disagree. 

I think you have definitely oversimplified every argument made on this page with that paragraph. you can admit that right?

 

The situation is obviously far more complicated than that and that is why people are defending Walder's position and actions in a world that sees slightly worse acions sanctioned by the gods be accepted  by the fandom.  

 

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

F*ck the Freys.

[The Fattest Leech]

The arguments in this thread have gone crazy. Have so many people forgotten things like...

• Tywin conspired with the Westerlings/Spicers to divert Robb's attention (whether Jeyne knew or not at the time). This was planned and the Westerlings were also rewarded. NOTHING good happens in the story when a spice is involved. This includes Melisandre and most probably Saffron in the next book.
• Which lead to Walder getting pissed off, but was actually a ruse because the Freys are historically known as grasping traitors. TWINS are duplicitous in ASOAIF. Two sides of the same coin and you never know which side lands heads up. The Freys flipped with the second Blackfyre rebellion, and as history is showing us, this near exact set up is happening 90ish years later.
• At the least, Walder Frey was played as a puppet between Tywin and Roose, which means Walder was going to betray someone wherever he stepped.
• IF Tywin gave him no choice, this also means that twice in the histories now we see the Freys being used as patsies, which means, no, they do not "deserve" respect. Respect is earned, not given, and the continual repeats of the main house show their true colors.
• Roose knew about this duplicitous plan with Tywin back when he had Jaime at Harrenhal. This has been going on and it has little (nothing) to do with Robb keeping an honor where he, the chosen king in the north, saw fit.
• Historically the Freys have always been disrespected. This is nothing new and certainly not isolated to the Starks or Tully's. The house has been set up as a family mostly comprised of jerks, even down to a Frey being on e of the ones specifically mentioned as doing the taunitng in the Knight/Laughing Tree incident.

Everything that happened was part of a large scheme that relied on the sneaky tactics and betrayal of House Frey. If Robb really had to be detained, then he should have been detained and handed over to the king... but that is not what happened. Robb and his men were literally disarmed and murdered. And Lord Frey did not care about the deaths that his family took either, but many Freys were killed as well. 

The author now has these traitors in places where their demise is coming soon. Call it the old gods, new gods, or just plain karma, but these betrayers have their ends in sight. But go ahead and claim they were in the right.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

37 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

You misunderstood me thinking that Guest Rights and Guest Rights alone is important because some imaginary fellows in the sky said it was so.

There's a reason why Guest Right is important, and it goes way beyond just religious reasons. There needs to be some level of trust in alliances, or the entire political system falls apart. Obviously, if a house recently slaughtered all their guests at a wedding, then people are unlikely to rush into marriage contracts or alliances with them in the future. No-one is now going to trust the Freys, and they have made themselves the most reviled house in Westros.

[Bernie Mac]

50 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

There's a reason why Guest Right is important, and it goes way beyond just religious reasons. There needs to be some level of trust in alliances, or the entire political system falls apart.

Come on, that is an exaggeration as we have seen people trust in guest rights after the Red Wedding. 

The entire political system has not fallen apart, and lets face it, the Freys are not the only people to have ever broken guest rights. Likely just the most high profile.

50 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Obviously, if a house recently slaughtered all their guests at a wedding, then people are unlikely to rush into marriage contracts or alliances with them in the future.

Too true. The Freys are going to have to offer bigger dowries or be prepared to marry below their station. 

50 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

No-one is now going to trust the Freys, and they have made themselves the most reviled house in Westros.

In the North, certainly. Likely in the Riverlands as well.  All of Westeros is a stretch, and this is the immediate aftermath of it. The inspiration of the Red Wedding, the Black Dinner, did not see the Cambells remain the most reviled House in the UK, after some time it was only the MacDonalds who held that grudge, the Cambells even thrived for a time afterwards.  Soon Walder will be dead and there will be some distance between the House and the event. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

In the North, certainly. Likely in the Riverlands as well.  All of Westeros is a stretch, and this is the immediate aftermath of it.

We see the general revulsion felt towards the Freys, as reported by Qyburn, in their reception in the North, and Davos's instinctive reaction when he hears about it. 

[Damsel in Distress]

23 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

First off, what the Freys did was murder, what Rob was contemplating is not considered murder.

Secondly, do I approve of war, and the killing of your fellow man for any reason? Absolutely not, but an argument can be made for justifying Rob's hypothetical actions.

And yes, murdering unarmed, defenseless guest of yours is worse than killing a man in battle.

Would I say it's "better" to kill a man in battle, than to murder a defenseless man eating his supper as your guest? No, I wouldn't use that terminology when discussing a matter such as this, but it certainly isn't nearly as treacherous and despicable of an act as the latter.

 

Just about all of the people that the Freys killed at the wedding were soldiers.  Killing Robb and his armies this way helped put an end to further conflict between lion and wolf.  It saved more lives than it cost because it prevented prolonged fighting.  Imagine if you will a scenario in which Robb continued to fight against the lions.  More lives lost and more farm lands damaged.  The wedding only costed the lives of Robb, and many of his bannermen.

[Bernie Mac]

50 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

We see the general revulsion felt towards the Freys, as reported by Qyburn, in their reception in the North, and Davos's instinctive reaction when he hears about it. 

Sure, this is the immediate aftermath. Things change. In the North they will always be hated, much like the Cambells were in Macdonald land, but other places move on. Events are constantly happening, I imagine that the Blackwoods briefly hated the Freys and by the end of ADWD have gone back to hating the Brackens above all else with Freys and Lannisters coming next. Give it a few years and their contempt may have found a new target.  

The idea that a Houses reputation can never recover is wrong. It is more than possible that future Freys can change the perceived status of their House. That new Houses/people will be become the Villain de Jour. 

[Damsel in Distress]

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

There's a reason why Guest Right is important, and it goes way beyond just religious reasons. There needs to be some level of trust in alliances, or the entire political system falls apart. Obviously, if a house recently slaughtered all their guests at a wedding, then people are unlikely to rush into marriage contracts or alliances with them in the future. No-one is now going to trust the Freys, and they have made themselves the most reviled house in Westros.

There's a reason why oaths are important and people held accountable to honoring them.  For the same reason you said, there needs to be some level of trust in alliances.  Robb broke his and the Freys no longer trusted him.  It is hard to blame Walder.  The Freys wanted to cut their loses and Robb's betrayal gave them the moral excuse that they needed to commit breaking guest rights.  It's like doing something that you know is wrong to someone who already did you wrong.  It is partial revenge but more about protection from the repercussions that will come from the king's hand when they lose.  Walder Frey is a practical man who can hold his temper when he needs to.  I don't see him forgiving or forgetting Robb's betrayal but he might be willing to let it go if Robb had a chance to win the war and the Starks gave him something very valuable in advance. 

You should ask yourself what the Starks would do if someone had done to them what they did to the Freys.  Same, I think.

[Damsel in Distress]

10 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure, this is the immediate aftermath. Things change. In the North they will always be hated, much like the Cambells were in Macdonald land, but other places move on. Events are constantly happening, I imagine that the Blackwoods briefly hated the Freys and by the end of ADWD have gone back to hating the Brackens above all else with Freys and Lannisters coming next. Give it a few years and their contempt may have found a new target.  

The idea that a Houses reputation can never recover is wrong. It is more than possible that future Freys can change the perceived status of their House. That new Houses/people will be become the Villain de Jour. 

A discount on the crossing fee would go a long way towards establishing good relations.

[The Fattest Leech]

8 minutes ago, Damsel in Distress said:

A discount on the crossing fee would go a long way towards establishing good relations.

Coupons! Coupons for all who have salt! 

Mayhaps. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

14 minutes ago, Damsel in Distress said:

There's a reason why oaths are important and people held accountable to honoring them.  For the same reason you said, there needs to be some level of trust in alliances.  Robb broke his and the Freys no longer trusted him.  It is hard to blame Walder.

Surely there's a difference between breaking a marriage contract, and pretending to enter into one and then slaughtering everyone?

 

15 minutes ago, Damsel in Distress said:

You should ask yourself what the Starks would do if someone had done to them what they did to the Freys.  Same, I think.

Really, you think that if another house had broken a marriage contract with them, the Starks would lure them into a feast under the pretense of patching things up, and then massacre them?

[Sigella]

On 2017-12-22 at 6:47 PM, Frey Kings said:

They rose from nothing and didn't owe anyone blind allegiance. No legendary or historic roots like some other great houses in Westeros. But they should be proud that a commoner was able to rise to royalty and the the rest of the royalty class didn't accept them and continue to spit on them!!! Sure there are some bad apples but when you are sh_tted on for your entire existence what else would you expect?

 

Here's to House Frey!!! 

I can't think of a single good thing any Frey have done. Exactly what are we supposed to respect? I mean come on, House Frey is modeled like a fundamentalist mormon cult with one patriarch producing like 250 children. Ever so hard to respect that, fortunately.

[Apoplexy]

On 12/22/2017 at 11:47 AM, Frey Kings said:

They rose from nothing and didn't owe anyone blind allegiance. No legendary or historic roots like some other great houses in Westeros. But they should be proud that a commoner was able to rise to royalty and the the rest of the royalty class didn't accept them and continue to spit on them!!! Sure there are some bad apples but when you are sh_tted on for your entire existence what else would you expect?

 

Here's to House Frey!!! 

There is a reason the present Freys have been reviled for their entire existence. Because their conduct deserved it. Even if the Freys were mere pawns in a plan cooked up by Tywin and Roose, they went it anyways because they lack any principles whatsoever. And both Tywin and Roose knew they would. I'm not sure there's anything worthy of respect here.

[Bernie Mac]

33 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Surely there's a difference between breaking a marriage contract, and pretending to enter into one and then slaughtering everyone?

Sure. 

33 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Really, you think that if another house had broken a marriage contract with them, the Starks would lure them into a feast under the pretense of patching things up, and then massacre them?

Depends on the Stark, they are not all carbon copies of each other. Also depends on the variables as well. It took a lot of variables for the Red Wedding to happen, the Starks status as Lords of the North and their position as the furthest kingdom in the realm makes this comparison something of a none starter. 

But yeah, I believe that Robb and other past Starks would forsake their honour to get vengeance on someone who were responsible for the deaths of their father/son. 

 

22 minutes ago, Sigella said:

I can't think of a single good thing any Frey have done. Exactly what are we supposed to respect? I mean come on, House Frey is modeled like a fundamentalist mormon cult with one patriarch producing like 250 children. Ever so hard to respect that, fortunately.

Fundamentalist mormon cult? Can you expand on that? House Frey is the books is ruled like any other Noble House. 

Shit, had Robert lived to Walder's age he would have had more children. Is it such a crime that Walder is healthy? That he would rather have legitimate children and provide for them rather than fuck a lot of random peasants and have nothing to do with the children?

[The Sunland Lord]

26 minutes ago, Sigella said:

I can't think of a single good thing any Frey have done. Exactly what are we supposed to respect? I mean come on, House Frey is modeled like a fundamentalist mormon cult with one patriarch producing like 250 children. Ever so hard to respect that, fortunately.

Some of them died fighting bravely. Unlike the Boltons they truly fought for Robb's cause till some point. They are probably doomed though.