Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

[Nowy Tends]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Last time I looked Ygritte had no concept of a watchtower, let alone a siege tower.

And that makes her a "savage"? To admit her in a castle as a servant would be "pampering" her?

[Clegane'sPup]

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Those people are not proper guests, the way other noblemen of equal rank are. But they still are guests in the sense that they are not allowed to do anything against their better who throw them some bones from their tables.

The WF scenario is not about guest or host. The WF scenario is about that the rebellion is not yet finished..Roose summoned the lords to Barrowton. The lords were to bring hostages. Roose decided that the wedding be moved to WF to bait Stannis.

Roose does not claim WF. Ramsey through an imposter is laying claim to WF. As I have said before, I have to pick a side in this tale.

I side with the northmen.

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

The WF scenario is not about guest or host. The WF scenario is about that the rebellion is not yet finished..Roose summoned the lords to Barrowton. The lords were to bring hostages. Roose decided that the wedding be moved to WF to bait Stannis.

Roose does not claim WF. Ramsey through an imposter is laying claim to WF. As I have said before, I have to pick a side in this tale.

I side with the northmen.

I really don't care on what side you are on. I'm not on Roose's side, either. I want those people to be killed.

But Roose is the host at Winterfell and everybody going there plotting behind his back - murdering people, abducting people, cannibalizing people, etc. - is breaking guest right. There is no way around that. It isn't as worse as the breaking of guest right at the Twins because it isn't the same scale. But then - Mance's women butchered Northmen at Winterfell, too, no? Did they deserve to die?

People like Mance and his women aren't important enough to be real and proper guests. They are not nobility or royalty, and thus actually nobody cares what Roose does to them, but it is pretty clear that nobody in the Seven Kingdoms would say a bard or singer and some washerwomen you hire can murder and abduct people with impunity in your castle and lands. That's just not the case. And if that singer actually works for your and is allowed to eat at your table in your hall it is much, much worse.

Vice versa, if you talk about rebellions here then the Red Wedding wasn't about guest right, either. After all, Roose and Walder's king at the time of the Red Wedding was King Joffrey - Robb was a traitor, pretender, and false king in their eyes. All they did was to put a mad dog down, a criminal and traitor who had plunged the Realm into a pointless civil war which killed thousands of people.

One could argue that such a person couldn't even be a guest and thus the people putting him down weren't breaking any guest right, no?

I assume that's how Wyman Manderly justifies feeding Frey pie to Walda Frey, her kinsmen, and the other wedding guests. But Roose and Walder might use similar rationales, no?

But the whole point of guest right is that it doesn't matter who you are and what you did - if you are guest or a host you are supposed to be safe, never mind what you did or you plan to do after you leave. People caring to uphold guest right wouldn't do what Mance, his women, or Manderly do at Winterfell.

[aryagonnakill#2]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I really don't care on what side you are on. I'm not on Roose's side, either. I want those people to be killed.

But Roose is the host at Winterfell and everybody going there plotting behind his back - murdering people, abducting people, cannibalizing people, etc. - is breaking guest right. There is no way around that. It isn't as worse as the breaking of guest right at the Twins because it isn't the same scale. But then - Mance's women butchered Northmen at Winterfell, too, no? Did they deserve to die?

People like Mance and his women aren't important enough to be real and proper guests. They are not nobility or royalty, and thus actually nobody cares what Roose does to them, but it is pretty clear that nobody in the Seven Kingdoms would say a bard or singer and some washerwomen you hire can murder and abduct people with impunity in your castle and lands. That's just not the case. And if that singer actually works for your and is allowed to eat at your table in your hall it is much, much worse.

Vice versa, if you talk about rebellions here then the Red Wedding wasn't about guest right, either. After all, Roose and Walder's king at the time of the Red Wedding was King Joffrey - Robb was a traitor, pretender, and false king in their eyes. All they did was to put a mad dog down, a criminal and traitor who had plunged the Realm into a pointless civil war which killed thousands of people.

One could argue that such a person couldn't even be a guest and thus the people putting him down weren't breaking any guest right, no?

I assume that's how Wyman Manderly justifies feeding Frey pie to Walda Frey, her kinsmen, and the other wedding guests. But Roose and Walder might use similar rationales, no?

But the whole point of guest right is that it doesn't matter who you are and what you did - if you are guest or a host you are supposed to be safe, never mind what you did or you plan to do after you leave. People caring to uphold guest right wouldn't do what Mance, his women, or Manderly do at Winterfell.

Do you not think there is anything to Manderly bringing his own food?  Even if just a technicality, we were in Catlyns head when they arrived at the Twins and she doesn't think they've been given guest rights until they are given some of Walders food.

[Clegane'sPup]

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I really don't care on what side you are on. I'm not on Roose's side, either. I want those people to be killed.

Okay.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But Roose is the host at Winterfell and everybody going there plotting behind his back - murdering people, abducting people, cannibalizing people, etc. - is breaking guest right. There is no way around that. It isn't as worse as the breaking of guest right at the Twins because it isn't the same scale. But then - Mance's women butchered Northmen at Winterfell, too, no? Did they deserve to die?

Roose is not the host. Roose is Warden of the North as per the Lannister/Baratheon IT. The northmen are still in rebellion.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

People like Mance and his women aren't important enough to be real and proper guests. They are not nobility or royalty, and thus actually nobody cares what Roose does to them, but it is pretty clear that nobody in the Seven Kingdoms would say a bard or singer and some washerwomen you hire can murder and abduct people with impunity in your castle and lands. That's just not the case. And if that singer actually works for your and is allowed to eat at your table in your hall it is much, much worse.

We have a communication problem.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Vice versa, if you talk about rebellions here then the Red Wedding wasn't about guest right, either. After all, Roose and Walder's king at the time of the Red Wedding was King Joffrey - Robb was a traitor, pretender, and false king in their eyes. All they did was to put a mad dog down, a criminal and traitor who had plunged the Realm into a pointless civil war which killed thousands of people.

That is why I said I have to pick a side.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One could argue that such a person couldn't even be a guest and thus the people putting him down weren't breaking any guest right, no?

I assume that's how Wyman Manderly justifies feeding Frey pie to Walda Frey, her kinsmen, and the other wedding guests. But Roose and Walder might use similar rationales, no?

As far as I am concerned the frey pie bs is fan site bs.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But the whole point of guest right is that it doesn't matter who you are and what you did - if you are guest or a host you are supposed to be safe, never mind what you did or you plan to do after you leave. People caring to uphold guest right wouldn't do what Mance, his women, or Manderly do at Winterfell.

Does that extend to Harrenhal under Tywin and Roose?

[Nowy Tends]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 After all, Roose and Walder's king at the time of the Red Wedding was King Joffrey - Robb was a traitor, pretender, and false king in their eyes. All they did was to put a mad dog down, a criminal and traitor who had plunged the Realm into a pointless civil war which killed thousands of people.

One could argue that such a person couldn't even be a guest and thus the people putting him down weren't breaking any guest right, no?

No. Robb and co were welcomed as guests, with the complete rite.

And again "traitor" "pretender" etc. means nothing when the prick sitting on the throne is a byproduct of adultery and incest with zero legitimity.

[bemused]

5 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

The WF scenario is not about guest or host. The WF scenario is about that the rebellion is not yet finished..Roose summoned the lords to Barrowton. The lords were to bring hostages. Roose decided that the wedding be moved to WF to bait Stannis.

Roose does not claim WF. Ramsey through an imposter is laying claim to WF. As I have said before, I have to pick a side in this tale.

I side with the northmen.

And around we go again..

I agree with Clegane's pup, above.

The situation at WF is a complete farce with regards to guest right. The northerners were not invited, but summoned to witness the wedding and swear fealty to Roose (and provide hostages). There was a clear “or else” implicit in the summons.

The northerners know how WF was despoiled and by whom. They can at least surmise (rightly) that Roose had some part in the Red Wedding, because of his subsequent appointment as Warden of the North, including the gift of "Arya" (by a ruler they don't want to recognise), and by the amazing rate of survival among his own men. I think for the Northmen, the “plausible” in Roose's plausible deniability is stretched far too thin. There are hints that at least among their leadership, there is suspicion, if not knowledge that the bride is not Arya.

There is the business of Manderly providing much of the food and however much else there was would have been provided by the other houses, not Roose.(We don't hear of supplies being sent for from the Dreadfort.)

Mance and his women were not guests, but allowed in to ply their various trades. Mance was earning his way.

Guest right is considered sacred in the eyes of gods and men.

OK. We know that the Northmen don't genuinely accept Roose as their legitimate overlord. Although Roose momentarily holds power at WF, he's claiming WF for Ramsay. But it's an illegitimate claim - the Northmen know that even if the Boltons had the real Arya, WF should at least be Rickon's (if not Jon's by Robb's decree). I don't think they consider either Bolton as a real host. Now they are the squatters.

And what about the gods? In the North, for most people, that means the old gods. We've met some of the old gods , and they would be in agreement with the Northmen, no question.

So, I think Mance is definitely off the hook.

ETA: I should add that by my reckoning, Mance and his women are not responsible for the murders ... that would be Ramsay and of course, Big Walder for Little Walder. (Probably not alone)

[Kandrax]

7 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

And again "traitor" "pretender" etc. means nothing when the prick sitting on the throne is a byproduct of adultery and incest with zero legitimity.

If you ask either Stannis or Daenerys, he was a separatist scum.

 

Something about guest right bother me. Are host's servants, or, if he is a ruler over some town, his subjects?

[Orphalesion]

10 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Well, the problem is, most people are not the lord commander of an order whose mission is to stay neutral and protect the realm of man from the Others.  The N/W has to maintain its distance from the political affairs of the realm in order to do its job.  The men of the watch must forget the families they left behind.  And along with leaving their families behind, they leave prejudices, bias, family alliances, and old feuds aside.  A dairy farmer who puts the safety of his sister over the welfare of the realm is being unethical.  A lord commander of the N/W who does something as shockingly stupid as Jon did to rescue his sister is guilty of far more, it's treason.  One can hardly blame Bowen for doing what he did to stop Jon from escalating the problem.

Oh man "for teh Watchz!!!!!!!!" eh? Sure thing 
Yes i fault Bowen. If Jon's death would stick, he would have killed one of the few people who actually recognize the actual threat the Others pose and is willing to do the dirty work that's needed to survive them.

Yes, rules are important. But sometimes rules ought to be broken. Jon broke the rules by having Wildlings and Stannis at the wall, but well, it's the Apocalypse and old rules ought to be broken if anything in Westeros is supposed to survive. Blindly following rules isn't going to help anybody.
And no I won't fault Jon for undertaking a covert operation to liberate his sister and then refusing the demands of a sadist to hand over civilians that are under his protection (remember the letter asks for Shireen, Mellisandre and Selyse as well)

But then again the way you fault Jon, you probably also fault Jaime for preventing Aeries from blowing up King's Landing, eh?

10 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

 

And still nobody has given me a good reason why I should care about whether what Mance did was "against the guest rights" in a series where the heroes of the story frequently act immoral.
Either you guys really hate Jon and just want an echo chamber of that sentiment, or you guys really, really like Ramsay and want to defend your sweet little sadist.
Or where those nameless serving men your favourite characters?

You guys are really just blaming Mance for being smart about the whole thing. Also I just poked around google a bit, there's nothing that explicitly says that the Wildlings even hold the guest right that highly, recognize it by the same categories or indeed whether they have it at all...

8 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

This thread is about the stupid idea "Mance violated GR". Nevertheless you bring your unhealthy obsession with Jon again and again. I think it won't be long before you explain us how Ramsay is the victim of the story…

^This.
 

[Rondo]

Jon screwed up at the wall.  He's not cut out for leadership.  He had a chance to build a strong coalition and blew it because he could not leave Arya to fend for herself.  Very dumb move on Jon's part.  It does no good to save Arya at the expense of the Night's Watch.  She's not worth it.  She will die anyway when the white walkers cross the wall.  Jon's best chance of saving Arya was to focus on his duties at the wall.  

Jon allowed his feelings to steer his decisions.  He executed Slynt for disrespect when the appropriate punishment was time in the cells.  You really can't call it insubordination because Slynt eventually agreed to go on his mission.  Mance in comparison to Slynt is guilty of oath breaking and attacking the seven kingdoms with his wildlings.  Not to mention trespassing where he doesn't belong.  Jon was thinking of Ned when he decided to execute Slynt.  

 

[Rondo]

2 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

If Jon's death would stick, he would have killed one of the few people who actually recognize the actual threat the Others pose and is willing to do the dirty work that's needed to survive them.

The fact that Jon recognized the threat and still chose to put them all in danger just to rescue his sister makes his decision to do so even worse.  Jon should die and stay dead for what he did.  He put poor Bowen Marsh and the watch in danger when he meddled with the Boltons.  

[Rondo]

On 4/18/2018 at 0:04 PM, Moiraine Sedai said:

The fact that Mance carried out his mission is proof that he was working for Jon all throughout his time inside Winterfell. 

Sure he was.  He didn't put himself and his women in danger for no reason.  They went in looking for Arya because that was the mission given them by Jon Snow.    They broke guest rights to do so because they murdered Bolton soldiers and maybe even killed Little Walder (despite their denials).

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Do you not think there is anything to Manderly bringing his own food?  Even if just a technicality, we were in Catlyns head when they arrived at the Twins and she doesn't think they've been given guest rights until they are given some of Walders food.

That is all about formality and ritual. Cat believed she and Robb were under special protection after guest right was formally granted to them but the people hanging out at Winterfell were attending the wedding of their lieges - 'Arya Stark' and Ramsay Bolton. Of course they were their guests. Especially those people who actually wholeheartedly follow the Bolton cause - like the Bolton, Dustin, Ryswell men. But also people on the fence like Hother Umber and his levies, the Manderlys, and the Hornwood, Tallhart, etc. men showing up there.

If you think guest right is only granted under many special circumstances then it isn't really a thing at all. We should assume that any person entering the home/castle/camp of another person is under that person's protection as per the guest right thing as long as he is actually welcomed there.

Ser Raymun Darry, for instance, did not have to offer his king, Robert Baratheon, some food so that the king and his party were under guest right protection, just as you don't have to first be offered (free) food in an inn to expect not to be robbed and butchered by the staff there.

Cat just made a big fuzz out of the guest right thing because she thought that would make it less likely/impossible for Walder to betray them. Which was always kind of naive because guest right really isn't all that important a custom in the south, anyway. It is not irrelevant, but it isn't as hallowed as it is in the North.

8 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Roose is not the host. Roose is Warden of the North as per the Lannister/Baratheon IT. The northmen are still in rebellion.

Not those at the wedding. Those were accepted back into the King's Peace. Plotting behind the back of the Warden of the North and hoping that he chokes to death on some Frey pie isn't 'rebellion'. It is cowardice and acceptance.

The Northmen still in rebellion are those who joined King Stannis. Not those who hang out with Roose Bolton. And only a fraction of them - the Manderlys and perhaps some of the Hornwood, Tallhart, and Umber people - are likely to change their allegiance and fight with Stannis against the Boltons if the tide turns against him. The Boltons, Dustins, Ryswells, etc. should stand firm at Roose's side. As are the Freys, of course.

8 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Does that extend to Harrenhal under Tywin and Roose?

Sure, why not? Vargo and his gang also broke guest right of Ser Amory Lorch, etc. The Northmen in chains likely not because they were actually imprisoned.

8 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

No. Robb and co were welcomed as guests, with the complete rite.

That doesn't make the people visiting Roose Bolton at Winterfell not his guests. We can say that Cat, Robb, and their people were more special guests - or welcomed with more ritualistic nonsense - than the people showing up at Winterfell for the wedding. But this doesn't mean only Robb and his people were 'guests' at the Twins. After all, all the Northmen butchered there were guests of the Freys, yet only 'King Robb' was welcomed in a formal manner, right?

8 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

And again "traitor" "pretender" etc. means nothing when the prick sitting on the throne is a byproduct of adultery and incest with zero legitimity.

That is actually irrelevant to the topic at hand. The Starks and Tullys did not rebel against King Joffrey because they challenged his parentage - nor did they suspect he wasn't King Robert's son by the time they rebelled. In fact, they also rebel against 'the rightful king', Stannis Baratheon, who made it clear to Catelyn that her boy's time will come, too. Robb and his people were rebels and traitors. Walder and Roose spared Robb from the fate to be killed by another shadow assassin sent by Melisandre and Stannis.

But even if we were to accept Stannis' story that Cersei's children aren't Robert's - there is no reason to believe that people have the right to question the legitimacy of the children the king acknowledged as his own. Neither Ned nor Stannis had the courage/brains to actually inform King Robert about their findings/what they believed to be true, and thus King Robert named and confirmed Prince Joffrey as his heir and successor in his last will - a document his friend and Hand then insidiously forged.

If you think Stannis or Robb were right to question the king's authority on the basis that they say the king isn't the son of his father - never mind that said father actually acknowledged him as his son and anointed him as his heir - then nobody is obliged to accept Robb as Ned's seed, either, no? If vassals and subjects can question and second-guess the king's ancestry then this entire society would quickly collapse.

It is not up to a subject or vassal to investigate or wonder about the parentage of the children of liege or king. At least not in the sense that they can cite such 'doubts' as pretext for a justified rebellion.

But again - this has nothing to do with guest right. Guests and hosts can be pretty much anyone, regardless whether their claim to this or that is justified. Robb and his people were Walder's guests at the Twins, and neither he nor Roose should have turned against him. Vice versa, the people at Winterfell right now - including Mance and his women - are most definitely Roose's guests right now. There is no question about that.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, bemused said:

And around we go again..

I agree with Clegane's pup, above.

The situation at WF is a complete farce with regards to guest right. The northerners were not invited, but summoned to witness the wedding and swear fealty to Roose (and provide hostages). There was a clear “or else” implicit in the summons.

The same goes for the Red Wedding. Walder also demanded that the wedding happen at the Twins, and made it clear he wouldn't support Robb if they didn't went through with things as he decided they would be. Does this mean Robb and his people weren't guests at the Twins? Because they all preferred to be elsewhere?

When a king or lord summons you to attend something you are still his guest. Not as welcome or happy a guest as you might be under other conditions but you are still his guest.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

There is the business of Manderly providing much of the food and however much else there was would have been provided by the other houses, not Roose.(We don't hear of supplies being sent for from the Dreadfort.)

That is a nonsensical technicality. Nobody ever said that you can only be a host if you offer your guest something from your own food. If that was a way to get around the whole thing then Walder could claim the food he gave Robb wasn't actually his food, either, because he never touched or made it but some levies or vassals of his brought it to him - like Manderly brought the food to Winterfell. After all, we all know that Lord Walder most likely never actually made any food, right?

And it is not just the wedding - we know that the army assembled in Winterfell continuously eats the provision Roose has stored at Winterfell. A decent portion would be Manderly food, others would come from Barrowton, the Dreadfort (by ways of the baggage train accompanying Ramsay's host) other food from the Riverlands accompanying Roose's host and the Frey host he was leading up the Neck, etc.

Those people are not just guests of the wedding, they continue to be guests until Roose commands the Manderlys and Freys to march against Stannis. Then their time as guests at Winterfell is over.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

Mance and his women were not guests, but allowed in to ply their various trades. Mance was earning his way.

So you would say a person living in your house and working his or her trade there - say, a washerwoman, a servant, a nurse, etc. - is not both your guest and your employee? You cannot separate those two concepts in this context. Anybody who does not have a permanent right to live in your home/castle is your guest, there is no way around that.

And by all accounts of decent behavior - what Mance and Tom do their particular employers is in any case a worse betrayal of trust than if they have just been 'guests'. Because they pretended to actually be loyal to their employees. A guest is just a guest - he can be your friend, ally, rival, or enemy. All he has to do is to not open hostilities while being your guest. But a man in your service has an obligation to be loyal.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

OK. We know that the Northmen don't genuinely accept Roose as their legitimate overlord. Although Roose momentarily holds power at WF, he's claiming WF for Ramsay. But it's an illegitimate claim - the Northmen know that even if the Boltons had the real Arya, WF should at least be Rickon's (if not Jon's by Robb's decree). I don't think they consider either Bolton as a real host. Now they are the squatters.

King Tommen can give Winterfell to anyone he wants. It is his to give. The Northmen at Winterfell might not want Roose or Ramsay as their overlords but if they follow their summons, attend the wedding, and eat their food they are their guests. And if they secretly plot against them rather than openly denounce them as traitors and murderers they are cowards and liars. There is no way around that.

There is nothing honorable or honest in the behavior of a man like Wyman Manderly. Ned and Robb Stark would most likely be disgusted by the things this man did in their name.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

And what about the gods? In the North, for most people, that means the old gods. We've met some of the old gods , and they would be in agreement with the Northmen, no question.

Well, they are no 'gods', anyway, and if they are favoring one side over the other they don't really care about the concept of guest right, either. Nobody should expect an impartial assessment of the situation from Brandon Stark, no?

4 hours ago, bemused said:

ETA: I should add that by my reckoning, Mance and his women are not responsible for the murders ... that would be Ramsay and of course, Big Walder for Little Walder. (Probably not alone)

The washerwomen confessed that they killed the men, didn't they? They make it clear they didn't kill the Frey boy, but they did kill the men.

[BalerionTheCat]

I believe Mance knows better than any of us what is the Guest's Right and what is not. He and more so his spearwives would not kill someone if it was violating the GR. And killing Boltons men was not much serving their mission. IMO the Boltons are not the legitimate hosts of WF. They do not feed or protect people living around. They have no grant from the Old Gods.

[Tucu]

In the end it doesn't really matter if Mance was bound by guest rights. Who will judge him based on this?

-northern society? most likely not, he would first be judged by his actions as a wildling or as a supporter for Stannis/Jon

-Jon or Stannis? no, he would be praised for his actions

-Bolton or Freys? no, he will be judged for the killings and assisting the rebels

-Old Gods? most likely not. Both BR and Bran would probably support his actions.

[Nowy Tends]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

Either you guys really hate Jon and just want an echo chamber of that sentiment, or you guys really, really like Ramsay and want to defend your sweet little sadist.
Or where those nameless serving men your favourite characters?

Asinus asinum fricat. This thread is the water hole for supporters of mediocrity.

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I believe Mance knows better than any of us what is the Guest's Right and what is not. He and more so his spearwives would not kill someone if it was violating the GR. And killing Boltons men was not much serving their mission. IMO the Boltons are not the legitimate hosts of WF. They do not feed or protect people living around. They have no grant from the Old Gods.

The old gods are fiction. Nature doesn't care how people behave. The greenseers might. But the greenseers are people. They are not divine. What they decree is about as fallible as any other human decision or ruling.

It is pretty obvious that Mance broke guest right there. In fact, he also broke guest right when he infiltrated Winterfell the last time, just as Bael the Bard broke guest right when he infiltrated Winterfell back in the day. A thief isn't a guest. A man pretending to be somebody else to gain access to a place is a coward and a liar.

Stealing a man's daughter isn't the same as killing a man, true, but it is still not a nice thing to do. And nothing one expects from a guest. In a society like Westeros - especially in the more primitive days of the Kings in the North - a man sleeping around with your daughter of the host without the host's permission likely deserves to be killed to restore the honor of the woman as well as the honor of your house. Even a king like Aegon IV had to offer some recompense to Lord Butterwell when he deflowered all his maiden daughters in one night.

We see it that virtues like courage and deception are praised much more among the wildlings than upholding some abstract virtues like guest right. Guest right seems to me more like a custom/virtue coming out of the feudal context where powerful people of roughly the same power with a similar following need ways to ensure they do not kill each other whenever they meet for a negotiation, a feast, or some other social gathering.

That doesn't mean it isn't honored among the wildlings when two powerful clan chiefs meet each other. But when some raiders leave their village to steal themselves some women - be it on their side or the other side of the Wall - they will use their brains to get what they want, deception included.

In general, the virtues of the wildlings are much more individualistic. Their heroes are people who defy common moral, who transcend borders, etc. We see that with Timmett taking out his eye (against custom), with Bael's and Mance's exploits. What is the morale of the song about the Dornishman's Wife?

And the stories about the ancient First Men heroes also fit in that category. Lann the Clever wouldn't have been Lann the Clever if he had cared about guest right.

[Nowy Tends]

1 hour ago, Tour De Force said:

Jon allowed his feelings to steer his decisions.  He executed Slynt for disrespect when the appropriate punishment was time in the cells.  You really can't call it insubordination because Slynt eventually agreed to go on his mission. 

We have a winner

Are you a specialist of the internal regulations in the Night Watch? What do you believe Jeor Mormont would have done to Slynt after his refusal to obey orders? Sent him to bed without having dinner? A spanking maybe?

[Adam Yozza]

@Lord Varys I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. Throughout the books it's made clear that guest right is initiated by an invited guest being given food by the host. Roose and Ramsay did not do this. Manderly provided the food at Winterfell. That doesn't make Manderly the host, I've never said that and I don't think anyone else has either. What it does mean, is that no one in Winterfell is protected by guest right. Not the host's; not the visitors. So Mance broke nothing. Manderly also didn't break guest right, not even with his Frey Pie's (If indeed that's what he did; remember, that's not confirmed). If the Frey's were in those pie's then he did something very immoral, sure, but he didn't break guest right. As you yourself pointed out he asked for a song about the Rat Cook. The Rat Cook wasn't punished for murder, or forcing cannibalism on someone else. He was punished for breaking guest right. Manderly knows all this and is taunting Roose with it.