Arya vs. Dareon

[The Anti-Targ]

OK some quotes from arguments about Arya and whether she can be considered a more gooder person that Jaime. Specifically relating the execution/murder (take your pick) of Dareon...
[quote name='King Nobody' post='1576690' date='Nov 5 2008, 04.02']Jaime tried to kill Bran, Arya killed Dareon, this doesn`t have the same similarities, and while i didn`t like Dareon as a person i also don`t think he deserved to die, or be in the night`s watch for that matter, if he can be believed, all he did was have consensual sex with a lord`s daughter, the lord found out and she called it rape, not his fault.[/quote]

[quote name='Dornish' post='1577519' date='Nov 5 2008, 13.28']Yes, the coward who abandoned a woman, infant, and old man to probable death without remorse didn't have it coming [i]at all[/i][/quote]

[quote name='King Nobody' post='1578311' date='Nov 5 2008, 20.32']How many prison shows has there been where the premise is an innocent man breaking out of prison? when you watch these shows you generally root for the innocent person, Dareon was innocent of his crime, yet he is at the wall (very much like a prison) now he escapes, i liked that he escaped, however i hated him for abandoning Sam, Gilly the baby and Aemon, if the circumstances were different, and by deserting he didn't hurt Sam, Gilly, the baby and Aemon then i would have completely condoned it and said Arya was wrong in killing him.[/quote]

[quote name='redevil' post='1579319' date='Nov 6 2008, 14.39']the reason i think Dareon was a criminal is the fact that he said his vows, and forsaking them is condemned by death. i know the reason he said them was for falsely accusing him (which by the way is not necessarily true, many men deny things they did, many condemned murderers deny having anything to do with the death. how many of them might be lying?) but he said them with the knowledge that if he disserted he is punishable by death. now we know that Arya is not certified to judge him and take the laws to her hand. but he still was a criminal.[/quote]

I was starting to wonder why the initial protagonists in the argument were leaving out the fact Dareon was a deserter as an element to consider regarding whether Arya was righteous or condemnable in what she did.

For me redevil almost got it right. And we know Arya's thought process certainly included the known consequences of desertion from the watch. I would argue that Arya is completely qualified to judge and execute Dareon. She is the daughter of the Warden of the North, she knows the law of the Watch and she knows the swift and merciless consequence. She is also the sole representative of Westeros in Braavos who knows of Dareon's desertion, and she knows if she does not administer Westerosi justice no one will.

Throughout the history of the Wall there will be countless numbers of men who were forced to go to the Wall against their will and because of an injustice, Sam being one of them. As far as we know all of those men took the oath to heart and served the Watch and Westeros until their deaths. Dareon is not special. He deserves sympathy for the cause of him being sent to the Wall (if he was telling the truth). But once the words were said and the law applied to him then his sentence for desertion was forever set in stone. The defence of the Wall demands that no matter the reason for having to say the words, the Watcher must defend the Wall or die. He said the words and the Watch was his to keep until his death.

Jon even gave him a cushy number in sending him on a permanent recruitment mission, to travel the length and breadth of Westeros. Whoring, drinking and singing to his heart's content, as long as he worked to recruit people for the wall. But no Dareon had to turn his back on his brothers utterly and completely. His abandonment of Sam and Aemon (Gilly and the baby are irrelevant in this context) was merely the proof Arya needed to declare him a deserter, and carry out the justice of the Watch.

Dareon deserved death, and Arya was the only person capable of doing it. Remember, she did not kill Dareon as Cat of the Canals, or Arya Underfoot, or Arry, or Nan. She killed Dareon as Arya of House Star.,Sshe was carrying out her solemn duty to Westeros and the men of the Night's Watch. She was honouring her Father, and all that he stood for. Every man-jack of the Watch would have been 100% behind Arya's actions. As would all the lords and nobles of Westeros, even if they knew Dareon was sent to the wall due to a miscarriage of justice, they would have applauded Arya's actions as right and righteous.

These are harsh times, with harsh laws and harsh punishments. Arya's actions were right in the context of her world.

[Errant Bard]

Here we go again.

Dareon deserved death under one justice system. That does not make his execution objectively right. Salman Rushdie was condemned to death by a country he was not in, Alexander Litvinenko's execution by the KGB on UK ground was called a murder.

That Martin's world is harsh has nothing to do with that, it doesn't make justice something anyone can enact anywhere because it's "right".

I don't approve of a "law" (more like tradition in our case, actually) that condones summary executions, so I will not support the idea that there is any objective right in what Arya did, even if indeed, she does act in accordance to her former culture's guidelines.

As an aside, the law to the letter is Stannis, and is Jon being executed, it's just not right.


ETA: Don't get confused by the perceived harm he did Sam and his breaking the vows of the Night's Watch. If he is executed, it's for deserting, it has nothing to do with abandoning Sam. In fact, he did no harm to Aemon or Sam, Aemon died because he was one hundred, recall what was said to Sam when he blamed himself for Aemon's death? That was the right of it, Aemon was NOT going to get better, he was not going to get younger and the only thing Sam would have given him if he had managed to get Dareon to give him money would have been a death in Braavos ignorant of Daenerys. The healers themselves gave up on Aemon before Dareon did.

So please, don't argue Dareon deserved to die in the eye of the "law" for something else than desertion, it just shows double standards where you agree that running from the Night's Watch is not really worthy of that sentence, but cling to what bad things the singer did but are not punishable by law to justify whatever your favourite character did.

[Happy Ent]

I think I’m with Errant Bard — but in fact, I think the original question makes no sense.

Martin doesn’t write a morality play. He doesn’t want us to evaluate actions as “this was right” and “this was wrong” and “this character, while originally virtuous, is now on a slippery slope to wickedness”. I simply don’t think that’s what these book are about.

Instead, Martin writes [i]extreme[/i] POV. Some things are right for some individuals, others aren’t, often if they are on the receiving end. Ned distributes justice when he executes a ranger. Jaime thinks he does the same when he executes two broken men. When Stannis executes a traitor, we think it’s wrong, because the traitor was pious and we’re seeing the action through the eyes of somebody who shares his religion. When Catelyn Stark executes another traitor we think it’s wrong because we’re seeing it through the eyes of said thraitor.

With Arya’s execution of Daeron, GRRM takes this approach up another notch. Daeron’s execution is [i]right for Arya Stark[/i]. It would have been wrong for Sam Tarly, or for Cat of the Canals, or for pretty much everybody else, including the reader. But for Arya of House Stark, it’s [i]exactly[/i] moral, just like what Ned opened the book with.

And GRRM uses this scene [i]not[/i] to make a moral point, but to illustrate SheWhoWasArya’s near-perfect facility to switch roles. She [i]wants[/i] to kill Daeron, so she [i]assumes the character[/i] that makes exactly that act moral and right and decent. I think this scene is GRRM at his very, very finest, and [i]Feast[/i] ranks very highly in my mind because of it. (Another point if favour of [i]Feast[/i] is Brienne’s POV, which makes a similar point about the individualism of ethics, but the other way around: honour and decency and oaths are damn unfair if you’re on the receiving end of that system of ethics.)

[shewolf85]

Arya, from being part of not only her father's world but also the Westeros general code of "law"/"justice" sees this guys as a deserter and a breaker of his oath. Plus, she knows Jon is now the new commander, maybe she is trying to help him out too. Either way, yeah she killed the guy and he deserved it, plus I think she is so angry inside that I think anyone who crosses her path should be weary.

[Errant Bard]

HE: Good grief that is an amazing twist on Faceless Men modus operandi, to kill without carrying the sin/soul of the murdered people only if the persona you use can in good faith claim it is justice. Brilliant.

[quote name='shewolf85' post='1625572' date='Dec 19 2008, 16.42']she knows Jon is now the new commander[/quote]As a matter of fact, she doesn't.

[Guest tabAnimal]

I definitely think Dareon should have died for what he did.

He abandoned his duty, even though his duty was to travel Westeros singing of the Nights Watch in order to recruit people. He could've been called the Black Bard and brought the Walls numbers up by hundreds. Instead he just wanted to fuck, eat, and be warm (note, he could do the majority . Selfish prick. Bet he didn't expect Sam beating his ass then getting stabbed by a little girl.

Regarding his rape: the dumbass shouldn't have had sex with the lords daughter unless he A) could've gotten away with it B) wasn't her first.

Was she a virgin?

Who knows.

[TK-421]

Daeron was a selfish prick but for Arya to simply kill him out some vigilante sense of righteousness, to me, puts her past the point to revenge to the point of simply being a murderer. A 9-year murderer but one nonetheless.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I don't care how you dice it or slice it, Arya did the right thing. It was her duty, it was a matter of honor, she would have made her father (as well as her brothers, especially Jon) proud with what she did. Her only mistake was admitting that it was Arya that did it. She should have just said that Cat of the Canals wanted to kill a wicked man for his boots.



[EDIT] Interesting thought. She became Cat of the Canals, after Cat was thrown into a river... hmmm... I'm just wondering if everyone who's name she has taken along the way has been dead at the time that she took it? What if the Stable boy's name was Ari? [/EDIT]

[El-ahrairah]

I agree that "Arya of House Stark" was justified in killing Dareon, who had by his own admission committed a capital crime. However some people seem to think she did this because she thought herself the head of the House of Stark. Arya knows that Robb is dead, and believes Bran and Rickon to be so. But she knows Sansa is still alive, and the apparent Lady Stark.

In the first chapter of AGOT Eddard mentions to Bran that he will someday hold a castle for Robb, and administer justice for him. Clearly the right of execution is not restricted to the lord, and can be delegated. In the case of desertion I think it goes even further. Perhaps a deserter is considered an outlaw, in the original sense of being outside the law, and liable to death by any citizen. The beheading Bran saw could have a sort of trial, to determine if the man was indeed a deserter. But as Dareon confessed his condition, I think that not only Arya, but any Westeroi in Braavos, would have both the right and duty to kill him.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1625444' date='Dec 20 2008, 02.48']ETA: Don't get confused by the perceived harm he did Sam and his breaking the vows of the Night's Watch. If he is executed, it's for deserting, it has nothing to do with abandoning Sam. In fact, he did no harm to Aemon or Sam, Aemon died because he was one hundred, recall what was said to Sam when he blamed himself for Aemon's death? That was the right of it, Aemon was NOT going to get better, he was not going to get younger and the only thing Sam would have given him if he had managed to get Dareon to give him money would have been a death in Braavos ignorant of Daenerys. The healers themselves gave up on Aemon before Dareon did.

So please, don't argue Dareon deserved to die in the eye of the "law" for something else than desertion, it just shows double standards where you agree that running from the Night's Watch is not really worthy of that sentence, but cling to what bad things the singer did but are not punishable by law to justify whatever your favourite character did.[/quote]

What, about my OP, suggests I think the wronging of Sam and Aemon is in and of itself worthy of execution? Dareon's abandonment of them was simply the final outward manifestation of his desertion from the Night's Watch. It is only in the context of its link to his desertion that his abandonment of Sam and Aemon takes on any significance over and above showing him to be a selfish arsehole.

There is no point in equating the situation to the real world because the moral, traditional and legal contexts are so vastly different that there is nothing to be gained by bringing up cross trans-national assassinations in today's world. Within the context of Westerosi custom and practice Dareon was a dead man walking the minute he finally and completely cut his ties with the NW. Had word gotten back to the Jon he would have made it known that anyone was free to rid the world of Dareon without fear of being held to account as a murderer. Arya doesn't know who the Lord Cammander of the NW is, but she knows exactly what the summary judement would be regardless of who holds the the of Lord Commander. Given it would be the fully sanctioned action of any right thinking Westerosi to kill Dareon, there is no need for Arya to be the acknowledged heir of Winterfell for her action to carry the authority of Westerosi law/tradition.

It is within this context that I examine Arya's deed, not using my own moral compass to judge Arya's slaying of Dareon to see whether it accords with the contemporary view of justice. Whatever else might be happening to Arya's personality for good or evil, her execution of Dareon was not the act of an amoral sociopath. It was the deliberate and considered action of a member of the nobility

True GRRM is not writing a morality play, but the world he has created contains its own moral and traditional values. If you're going to pass judgement on a person for someone's death then it has to be given from the viewpoint of a person in Martinworld, not real world.

You can lament the fact that the internal fortitude and capability to carry out such harsh justice exists in one so young. Even within the context of Martinworld culture this is highly unusual, and the cause of pursed lips and tut-tutting in certain circles, especially given she is a girl. But that is a different matter, and it does not detract from the justness of Dareon's death according to the rules GRRM has created for the purposes of the story.

[sailor]

It is perfectly legal and lawful. It is not objectively good, just or legitimate (particularly since the oath he took was essentialy forced from him), but it is honorable. That is the whole point. The whole goodness vs honor thing GRRM has going on. Someone like Barristan would have done the same (provided he knew enough or cared enough about the watch) without batting an eyelid.

Incidentaly Daeron was also a scumbag who stole money from a 100 years old guy, a single mother and his own worldshy fat friend and got what he bargained for in a cosmic justice sense.

[King Nobody]

Arya was not lawfully justified in killing Dareon, this happened in Braavos, a [i]free[/i] city, meaning free of the laws that govern Westeros. Also, Arya is technically a traitor to the crown, can a traitor to the crown really carry out any of the Crown's justice? Also, regarding his oaths, remember when Jaime says that his oath to Catelyn was worthless because it was made at swordpoint? Well Dareon may not have literally been at swordpoint, he certainly knew what would happen if he refused to take the oath. IMO any oath made for any reason other than the uninfluenced choice of the individual is not a real oath.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='King Nobody' post='1626386' date='Dec 20 2008, 02.42']Arya was not lawfully justified in killing Dareon, this happened in Braavos, a [i]free[/i] city, meaning free of the laws that govern Westeros. Also, Arya is technically a traitor to the crown, can a traitor to the crown really carry out any of the Crown's justice? Also, regarding his oaths, remember when Jaime says that his oath to Catelyn was worthless because it was made at swordpoint? Well Dareon may not have literally been at swordpoint, he certainly knew what would happen if he refused to take the oath. IMO any oath made for any reason other than the uninfluenced choice of the individual is not a real oath.[/quote]

For Arya, her authority does come from the Crown, the Crown of the North. But fine points of law during civil war are rather moot. Everyone in Westeros is traitor to some king or another. Jurisprudence in Westeros is nowhere near as advanced as ours, being in large part tradition, and what really matters at this time is power. As for Braavos being free of Westeroi law, Dareon is not a Braavosi citizen, and I doubt the Sealord's statures prohibit such enforcement.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='The Anti-Targ' post='1626168' date='Dec 20 2008, 02.11']What, about my OP, suggests I think the wronging of Sam and Aemon is in and of itself worthy of execution?[/quote]That you bring up how Dareon abandoned Sam. Unless you bring up irrelevant points for fun, of course :P

We know he deserted, harping about Aemon is only appealing to emotion to make the murder more acceptable. From the legal standpoint used to justify the kill, he deserves it as much as Jon does.


[quote]There is no point in equating the situation to the real world because the moral, traditional and legal contexts are so vastly different that there is nothing to be gained by bringing up cross trans-national assassinations in today's world.[/quote]There is a point, or you wouldn't be arguing about the right of it. Countries exist now, they existed then, laws exist now, they existed then, ditto for traditions. Indeed, what exactly is so different? You would condemn a man assassinating in your country someone having broken the tradition of another, but would cheer for the exact same act if it happened in that "different" world? How can you claim to be able to say what is right in that other world if it's so different?

The reason is, it's not so different, we can relate because the society works consistently like ours, and everything screams that Dareon is a guy having escaped a Gulag, and getting killed while he is trying to taste freedom in Venezia.


As for Arya's "amoral sociopath" argument:
[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=32648"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=32648[/url]
[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=32010"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=32010[/url]
[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=24930"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=24930[/url]
[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=30273"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=30273[/url]
[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=28552"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=28552[/url]

I'll pass.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1626400' date='Dec 20 2008, 09.05']I'll pass.[/quote]
What! You really believe everything has been said in every possible way? We could do it in Yoda-speak! Or demand every argument be made in dactylic pentameter!

Or… dare I suggest it:

There once was an immoral sociopath,
who killed an ex-convict in righteous wrath.
But her fans say "Taboo?
Shmaboo!". I [i]like[/i] Mary Sue,
cause she’s pretty, a loner, and good at math!

[AryaSnow]

I don't know if the action was lawful or not and I'm honestly not very interested in that. Gregor's actions were lawful too, 'cause his lord and his king (Joffrey) permitted him to do them, and so? Legal doesn't necessary mean moral. And illegal doesn't necessary mean immoral.
I think that killing Dareon was [i]morally wrong[/i], because it was useless and he was neither a monster like the Ticker etc etc (although he was a selfish shit)... even if it's understandable and it doesn't make her bad, sociopath and so on.

[Excalibur1027]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1625856' date='Dec 19 2008, 14.36']I don't care how you dice it or slice it, Arya did the right thing. It was her duty, it was a matter of honor, she would have made her father (as well as her brothers, especially Jon) proud with what she did. Her only mistake was admitting that it was Arya that did it. She should have just said that Cat of the Canals wanted to kill a wicked man for his boots.[/quote]
So she should have [i]also[/i] lied about her reasoning for killing Daeron? Further, I don't think Eddard Stark would have condoned executing, silently, in the middle of the night, a man in a dark alley without reading him his rights. And frankly, Arya's not even carrying out King's justice, she's carrying out personal justice. It's just another vendetta for her.

[quote name='King Nobody' post='1626386' date='Dec 20 2008, 02.42']Arya was not lawfully justified in killing Dareon, this happened in Braavos, a [i]free[/i] city, meaning free of the laws that govern Westeros. Also, Arya is technically a traitor to the crown, can a traitor to the crown really carry out any of the Crown's justice?[/quote]
Exactly. If you're going to get all technical as to why Daeron [i]deserved[/i] to die, you have to take Arya's situation into account as well. Arya has killed several people, usually in self defense, and we understand that. But I think this final act of murdering Daeron in cold blood isn't exactly something for Stark fans to cheer about.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I have to disagree. The location does not matter. Just because crossing a border can keep the law from pursuing you (in most cases), it does not change the fact that you broke the law (or the punishment that is earned with that act). He was a deserter from the NW, and he admitted it. He deserved to die for that crime. If Arya had stepped up and told him who she was, and what she was about to do, he wouldn't have had the honor within him to kneel and present his neck... He'd have fought her, overpowered her, and most likely killed her. She did what she had to do, in order to do what needed to be done. I, for one, think that she is the better for it. As far as lying to the FM about it, Yes, I would support that. It was [i]NONE[/i] of their business, after all.


And before you jump on the "She broke the law of the free cities" band-wagon... I say "So what". The free cities remind me a lot of a third world country. Their laws aren't really laws, so much as suggestions. They aren't a truly civilized society (in my eyes), and they're entirely of no consequence. In short, they are beneath her.

[King Nobody]

[quote]For Arya, her authority does come from the Crown, the Crown of the North. But fine points of law during civil war are rather moot. Everyone in Westeros is traitor to some king or another. Jurisprudence in Westeros is nowhere near as advanced as ours, being in large part tradition, and what really matters at this time is power. As for Braavos being free of Westeroi law, Dareon is not a Braavosi citizen, and I doubt the Sealord's statures prohibit such enforcement.[/quote]The north does not have a crown when this takes place. The north never was any sort of crown to begin with, Robb was a rebel, until he either sat the iron throne (which he didn't intend to do) or was granted independence. Dareon may not be a Braavosi citizen but he is still in their city, meaning laws must be carried out according to that city's rules. And to me anyway it seems like it would be illegal for a Westerosi official (which Arya isn't even anyway) enforcing Westerosi law in the free cities. Note some of the other deserters at the beginning of ASOS are talking about fleeing to the free cities, they clearly seem to think they will be safe there.


[quote]She did what she had to do, in order to do what needed to be done.[/quote]She didn't have to do it and it didn't need to be done.


[quote]And before you jump on the "She broke the law of the free cities" band-wagon... I say "So what". The free cities remind me a lot of a third world country. Their laws aren't really laws, so much as suggestions. They aren't a truly civilized society (in my eyes), and they're entirely of no consequence. In short, they are beneath her.[/quote]Ya...That's why all of the cool things that westeros isn't advanced enough to produce themselves come from the free cities, a myrish spyglass, that crossbow Joff was given from one of the free cities, etc. If you paid a shred of attention during any part you've read about the free cities it would be clear that they are just as, or even more advanced than Westeros. What gives you the idea their laws are more like suggestions? there is no text in the books even beginning to explain that. The free cities are definitely not beneath some street rat either.

[The_BlauerDragon]

You have your opinion, I have mine.

I may just be biased though. I like Westeros, and the North in particular. I related to it. It is kind of like my "America" of the ASoIaF world... I am comfortable there... and in my view, that makes Arya above anyone in the free cities... and it makes their laws, their lives, and their thoughts on the matter of absolutely no importance...