the trees have eyes

9 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

She killed Daeron too.  Arya's actions are not justified.  Arya is insane.  I don't know if she can use her insanity to get herself out of the gallows when she gets caught. 

She killed Daeron because he was a deserter from the NW.  You can disagree with her actions on a moral level (I do here) but it's not insanity, it's a harsh interpretation of justice brought about by her experiences.

6 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

That's interesting, I was always under the assumption that all of the gems in the hairnet were poison.  What leads you to conclude that only one was?

Well, unless you mean to strike at more than one target you only need one.  More is waste - or overkill if you prefer.  I assume the poison is rare and expensive and not something that is available in large amounts to be wasted so casually.  And the black amethysts only work as a disguise to smuggle the poison in if Sansa can walk around wearing the hairnet without anyone becoming suspicious as to what those peculiar gems are or, for the initiated (Oberyn or Pycelle, say), what the hell she is doing with a hairnet full of poison at a wedding feast.

19 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So the only thing stopping the reader from coming to the conclusion that Sansa is the poisoner is that we're given her POV in the next chapter and she never acknowledges that she tried to poison either Joffrey or Tyrion.  Which makes me wonder if George is deliberately making Sansa an unreliable POV.  Which is what he teases later when she falsely remebers getting a kiss from the Hound.  In this case her unreliable POV would take the form of her repressing her action, that she committed a murder.  And the clue to her repressing this action is the hysterical laughter that threatened to come up when she was told that she had a good heart.

An interesting take on things.  I would say that's not the only thing stopping the reader from coming to that conclusion.  The one thing everyone seems to agree on (I hope) is that 1) Sansa wore the hairnet, 2) Olenna fiddled with it under the pretence of straightening it and 3) post-murder Sansa realised that one of the amethysts was missing. 

The obvious inference (one for the careful reader, no doubt ) is that Olenna removed the strangler and either administered it later herself or handed it off to an agent or co-conspirator to administer.  If we're going to be picky we can question how Olenna new which amethyst to remove (is it obviously larger or different to the others? I think slightly larger) and how the poison was administered without anyone noticing it but these are procedural issues rather than conceptual ones.

But if we're questioning Sansa's perception of reality, i.e. that she poisoned Joffrey, then we have to question whether Olenna ever fiddled with her hairnet, whether Sansa knew (and how she knew) that she had poison in her hairnet and how she would have any idea what kind and how quick or effective a poison.  And the problem of how she could fiddle with her hairnet and apply the poison to chalice or pie without being spotted is just as germane for her as anyone else.

Unless you reject Olenna taking the amethyst from her hairnet Sansa is not in possession of it during the wedding feast.

4 hours ago, Aebram said:

I knew this thread was headed for trouble as soon as I saw the title.  

I knew this thread was headed for trouble when a certain person arrived. 

10 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

It is not what I think. It is what the actual facts, all of the facts, confirm as the truth. Some people just have to be told what to think while others think for themselves.

I invited you to start a different thread so you would avoid hijacking this one but it seems you just can't let it go.  It's truly remarkable you constantly conflating opinion with fact but no matter how you jump up and down it doesn't make it so.  You think you're right.  We get that.  We don't agree.  Agree to disagree and move on 

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

You really don’t get GRRM’s interview style at all.  George loves to talk about his books, he just doesn’t like committing to anything.  So for the most part, it’s kind of a waste of time to try and figure out “the truth” of anything George writes via his interviews.  He intentionally likes keeping things ambiguous, and letting his readers debate it out.  For all we know, he himself hasn’t completely decided on the culprit behind the purple wedding, because at the time of the interview he probably hasn’t completely figured out how he wants the story to conclude.  

That's all well and good but it really only deals with the first part of the quote and not the second part:

The reason I bring this up is because that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Is it a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know. That’s what I want the reader or viewer to wrestle with, and to debate.

That's not refusing to confirm anything or leaving something open.  It's choosing to bring something up and inviting the reader to think about these things.  Just as he mentions both Jaime and Cersei and expounds on the theme of redemption, he specifically says this about Olenna.  Why invite that if Olenna doesn't need redemption?  If he misleads us in the text and misleads us in interviews it never ends surely?

Is LF wanting to kill Tyrion a big enough mystery to conceal in story and go to these lengths of obfuscation outside of it over?  Just whisper in Joffrey's ear and he would oblige.

On 5/25/2022 at 12:46 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Eh, not really.  Like everything else George dances around the topic quite skillfully.

I will add that George has made commentaries on the HBO series in the past.  In one of the commentaries he talks about how his mother was always able to spot the plot twists in the shows they watched before they were revealed.  GRRM added that when he wrote Ice and Fire, he wrote it wanting to surprise careful viewers (or readers) like his mother.

So what are we to take from this: that we should read the books carelessly? 

That thoughtful analysis and extrapolation and logic are all just pointless as the rug pull is his objective?  I mean there's something in the idea that he subverts expectations and wrong foots the reader but aren't the people claiming that certain mysteries aren't solved after all basing their arguments on their own careful reading of the text?  Which would leave them where exactly?

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Nonsense. This is just more Martin dissembling. No one chokes on wine. You can only choke on food, so there is no way the murderers would expect anyone to think he choked when he is only drinking, not eating.

Die on this hill if you want, but the abundance of facts in the book makes it perfectly, irrefutably clear: the poison was in the pie and Tyrion was the target.

I'm curious as to how you think Cressen died and how you think everyone present think he died.

And if the facts of the book make it irrefutably clear why do so few people agree with you?

We know what you think.  Let's leave it at that.

17 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I've been on this board a long time. 

The OP brought up the poisoning first, but he incorrectly stated it was solved. I was merely correcting that claim in accordance with the facts in the book.

You were lecturing everyone on your theories.  Most people do consider them solved so whether you consider the OP's statement "incorrect" or against your view of the "facts in the book" it's just your subjective interpretation.  Not the unvarnished truth of the story, just a view that most people don't agree with.

23 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I have started threads on this, lots of them. At this point, we'll just have to wait for the text to clearly and unambiguously reveal the truth -- and then how fun it will be reading the posts from all the people who, kof, kof, knew it all along.

I didn't read anything except this.  I'm aware of your insistence on your own reasoning being correct and was obliquely and maybe not so tactfully inviting you to take it elsewhere.  You're welcome to wait but you may be disappointed.

22 hours ago, James West said:

@the trees have eyes

Bowen Marsh has a good understanding of the roles and duties of the Watch.  Jon's understanding is almost as good.  The main difference between the two is dedication to duty and fitness for command.  Those things which Jon never had.  While Jon may have began with the idea of saving mankind, he took the wrong turn after his little sister married Ramsay.  He could no longer function as a man of the night's watch because he was an emotional man who was too loyal to the Starks to be any good at commanding an army who came from many different backgrounds.  Jon was an unfit basically.  It was mistake to vote him to lead the Watch.  Jon is incapable of objectivity.  He's too emotionally bound to the Starks.  To Arya more than the others.  Bowen Marsh is the better man in those last chapters.  He understood the true duties of the Watch. 

I think the problem with finding a common language or understanding on what's happening in the NW stems from essentially different readings of the characters and motivations of those involved.

The "For the Watch" argument, as best I understand it, sees the NW in an heroic light, men of honour serving with dignity as the knights in black to defend civilization from the terrible wildlings.  It seems a fairly partial reading to me and has a kind of band of brothers appeal to it but it's essentially an institutionalist view with the NW having both a vital duty and a glorious purpose to fulfil, provided it's sacrosanct nature is preserved by strict neutrality from politics in the 7K. Slynt / Thorne / Marsh  are seen to some degree or other as protagonists in that they are trying to preserve the NW's duty to allow if to fulfil it's mission.  Enter stage left, Jon, a man who puts at risk this vital purpose so our heroes act to preserve the NW.  Exit stage right, Jon.

I disagree with almost all of that.  The purpose of the NW is to defend the realms of men from the Others & wights, a purpose they have forgotten and, on rediscovery of that purpose, Mormont so memorably said to Sam "You don't build a thousand foot wall to stop savages in skins from stealing women".  The more limited and time-serving members of the NW cannot abandon a lifetime's hostility to the wildlings and seem more intent on keeping as many of them as possible north of The Wall, as seen in Jon's confrontation with Marsh and the latter's indifference as to how many wildings might die at Hardhome and be raised as wights.  In short Jon has the vision to see what the NW's true purpose is and is versatile enough to work towards that while Marsh can only think of preserving what tiny ineffective fragment of the NW remains because that's what a large part of his life has been dedicated to.

And of course all of Slynt, Thorne and Marsh are hip deep in the politics of the 7K, receiving correspondence from Cersei and Tywin and acting as their surrogates.  The Lannisters care not a hoot for the NW and consider any difficulties at The Wall a good way of punishing the North for it's rebellion.  It is they who see Jon as a threat and determine to neutralise him, a similar view taken by the Boltons.  Given Marsh's opposition to Jon's wildling policies, the veiled hostility from the IT and the open threat from Ramsay provide the excuse for him to assassinate Jon.

What Marsh missed and where two groups of people talk past each other is that the NW is virtually annihilated.  It's purpose was to guard The Wall until forces could come up from the south to assist with dealing with the threat.  As it turns out forces came from both the north - the Wildlings - and the south - Stannis - and Jon has gone about using both to hold The Wall.  Preserving the NW is unimportant except emotionally to the NW members themselves, preserving the realms of men from the existential threat of The Others is everything.  In order to preserve the NW as he sees it Marsh has endangered the far greater purpose of defending mankind by undermining Jon's whole coalition.

The NW just isn't that important at this point in the story.  The coalition to defend The Wall is.

9 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

So honestly? You think Lady Olenna Tyrell can be the real power in Highgarden while also being so incredibly gullible?

Everyone in this series thinks they're smart and have things under control until they get cleaned up by the trap / betrayal / unexpected development they didn't see coming.  And everyone trusts LF because he is so obliging and clever yet not important enough to be taken seriously as a threat until too late.  Maybe start another thread on the purple wedding if you want to convince people of your take on it.

10 hours ago, Nevets said:

Now, thanks to Mance, Ramsay thinks Jon is his enemy and out to get him.  That probably wasn't true before; it certainly is now, and Jon is forced to respond. 

Everyone believes Jon to be the son of Ned Stark.  He has a target painted on his chest the moment Roose / Ramsay supplant the Starks.  Whatever he does there are people who will look to him for leadership or see him as a threat.  House Mormont's response to Stannis that they know no king whose name is not Stark (sic) shows this.

Jon's position with the Boltons in charge is pretty much the same as Gendry's in KL after Robert's death with Cersei on the hunt for any of Robert's offspring: fight, flight or die.

On 5/15/2022 at 10:38 PM, EggBlue said:

not many admirers but a little less hate! Walder is like the teammate who shows up at the very end of the project and expects gratitude and full credit 

Hmm, I've worked with some of those...

But if the project manager was Ivan the Terrible or Vlad the Impaler what followed would be memorable but it wouldn't be pretty 

2 hours ago, Rondo said:

Mellisandre and Val are the ones who are evil enough to murder Shireen.  The NW members are good people for the most part.  

To be fair, most of the NW are criminals given the option of the axe, some other dismemberment or The Watch.  I'm personally rather glad Rorge and Biter didn't make it but they were en route with Yoren.  They are not noble or glamorous.  Tyrion dispelled those illusions for Jon before he even reached The Wall.

12 hours ago, Wm Portnoy said:

The Wildlings will do as they wish and ride to the south to confront Ramsay and Roose.  Wildlings are not law-abiding people.  They do as they please.  Our hope then is for them to run into trouble before they get too far.  We don't want them to stir up more chaos in Westeros.

Bowen Marsh will need to assure the people of Westeros that the Watch will observe the laws of neutrality and it will not interfere with politics.  Only then can he save the watch from Jon's wreckless decisions. 

I feel I have to point out the obvious: Ramsay is a sadistic murderer who skins the corpses of the women he rapes, if he doesn't skin them alive.  Roose himself casually recounts how he raped Ramsay's mother right after he hanged her husband simply because he wanted to and that seemed the easiest way to proceed.  So who is law-abiding and who does as they please?

The North is already in the middle of a war between Stannis and the Boltons.

This isn't about saving the NW, all 200 of them, as some kind of pristine and totemic institution, it's about saving the realms of men from The Others.  Jon is forging along the second path, Marsh only seems capable of seeing the first.

3 hours ago, EggBlue said:

to play devil's advocate , what poor old Walder did at Trident wasn't that different from how Tywin Lannister sat tight for the whole war till he moved his ass to sack a rich city , murder kids and propose a marriage alliance for his daughter... but no one in Westeros calls him Late Lord Tywin! granted though, Walder was no big scary Hand for years Tywin Lannister. what is ironic is that if Walder never moved his troops and instead announced neutrality in war , he wouldn't have been scolded quite as much.

It's really not that different, no.  Which would no doubt make poor old Walder positively apoplectic. 

Problem is the Lannisters are well-established (Kings of the Rock of old and Lords Paramount in the Westlands) and hold all the Westlands in check behind them during the Robellion.  So it looks like considered statesmanship, if cynical.  Walder is merely a Tully bannerman and sits on the fence unlike the Targaryen loyalists like the Goodbrooks and Darrys or the rest who follow Hoster Tully.  It's hard to be the odd one out and not attract scorn. 

The Lannisters have the prestige and the power that Walder lacks and do eventually come off the fence and get their hands dirty even if at the eleventh hour.  Walder doesn't and just looks like a cynical opportunist.  Which is what he is of course. 

Idk if principled neutrality wins you much respect in medieval warfare.  It's a feudal pyramid and unless you are at the very top you owe loyalty somewhere and pay homage to someone, i.e. promise military service in return for the lands you hold.  The conflict between the immediate oath to your direct lord and the ultimate loyalty you owe the monarch is played on in the series but abandoning both wouldn't win many admirers.

The Freys are looked down on by others because they are a newer house and the root of their wealth and rise is their tolls over The Crossing - parvenus are always looked down on by the establishment and feudal nobles whose wealth came from land traditionally looked down on those whose wealth came commerce or trade.  Take how Janos Slynt's elevation is regarded.

Given the Freys are landed this isn't a significant problem except they have grown more powerful than most of their contemporary Riverland Houses so those Houses retaliate by clinging to their prestige rather than their power; even if the Freys are richer and more powerful than they, at least they have their pedigree and family histories.

It's exacerbated by Walder Frey who chafes under this patronising attitude and who is ambitious, proud, irascible, vindictive, selfish and unreliable.  So he makes a good number of very good marriages both for himself and his children / grandchildren but it's never enough to satisfy him unless he can marry into the Tully family so removing the chip from his shoulder.

Of course his unreliable nature means he turns up late to The Trident so earning the scorn of Hoster Tully and, we can assume, the other Riverland Lords as "the late Lord Frey".  The one moment he needed to show his loyalty and reliability that chip on his shoulder and the resentment he felt at not being given his due led him to hold back and that only confirmed his and his House's unreliability to others.

The sense of grievance we see when Catelyn goes to meet him to secure his alliance with Robb in AGOT is almost overwhelming and leads by twists and turns to The Red Wedding.  Ironically, Walder Frey can't see that his conduct has made the Freys reviled even by their allies: his need for recognition and the elevation of his House's status has doomed him and it.

On 5/14/2022 at 5:55 AM, The Bard of Banefort said:

How did this turn into a Purple Wedding truthers thread?

Has anyone suggested it was Tywin yet?  Because Joffrey was difficult and Tommen was biddable.....

But I agree with your list.  1 - 3 are proven in the text* although as with everything ASOIAF (and as this thread has demonstrated) there are always a few dissenters.  4 seems to be revealed but Varys is so opaque and his motives unclear that I would not be surprised by a twist.  5 is supported outside the main series.

*to most people's satisfaction

GRRM did say that the internet / his readership would come up with some explanations that they preferred to what he had actually imagined / written and that does seem to be the case here.

6 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The red wedding was a war strategy to get rid of a rebellious lord who got into his head to declare a portion of Westeros as his own kingdom.  It may have saved a lot of loyalists' lives.  Many more lives on both sides would have been lost if they had fought a traditional battle. 

The Freys were rebels themselves.  They then betrayed the Starks-Tullys to join the side that appeared to be winning.  Even Jaime throws this in their faces at Riverrun when they are besieging it later on.  I hope you are not insinuating the Freys are loyalists as it's not at all the case.

Is it understandable to change sides in warfare?  Yes.  Is it considered honourable?  No.  And the price of the Freys turning their cloaks was murdering a lot of men who had been granted safe conduct.  It makes perfect sense for Tywin as the infamy attaches to Walder Frey and Roose Bolton but they have just painted targets on themselves as the families of their victims will not forget.

On 4/29/2022 at 12:04 AM, Darth Sidious said:

I don’t know what will happen to WW. What made him go all out nuts?  Patrek is not stupid enough to attack the giant. WW started that fight.  

Patrek of the Mountain is most definitely stupid.  He's one of the sycophants around Mel who has decided that marrying Val, "The Wildling Princess" will make him a powerful figure, as if the wildlings followed kneelers' rules.  Wun Wun is Val's protector and Patrek probably figured he could press his suit better by going around or most likely through Wun Wun and got educated otherwise.

2 hours ago, James West said:

Immediate consequences will be a storm of swords between the brave men of the watch and the barbaric free folk.  Bowen Marsh may not survive the storm.  He knew and he willingly risks his life "for the watch" to remove his crazy lord commander Jon Snow.

This kind of post baffles me.  Maybe my humour detector is off of course.  The story is ASOIAF not the story of The 300 or so men of the NW.  The Wildlings are not the enemy, the Others and the wights are.  Right before he died Mormont relayed to Sam that the NW had forgotten it's true purpose.  Marsh clearly didn't get the memo.  Jon has built a coalition to defend the Wall against the Others.  Marsh is doing his best to destroy that coalition.

3 hours ago, James West said:

The dangerous Jon Snow was killed to save the watch.  He had to be removed"for the watch" and by that, for the sake of humanity.  Bowen risks capital punishment to save the watch.  He did it for the watch to save mankind from Jon's bad decisions.  

Yeah, he did it for the watch, based on his limited and flawed understanding of what the Watch was created to do.  He was wrong.  That was forgivable before The Others struck, unforgivable after.  His myopia and intransigence is why he's a quartermaster and is unfit for overall command.  Jon is actually working on saving mankind.  Allying with Stannis after the latter arrives is unavoidable - and highly beneficial.  Giving in to Ramsay's unmeetable demands is impossible.  Striking when threatened by Ramsay but using wildlings not NW keeps the NW out of it.  Bowen just reveals himself as a pawn of Cersei and the Boltons.

The NW at this moment in story is militarily insignificant and is not combat ready.  It lost it's fighting strength on The Fist of The First Men.  It needs allies which Stannis and The Wildlings provide.  I don't get this obsession with "For the Watch" even if there's only a few men left.  It's served it's purpose in holding the wall and giving warning until military power could finally come from the south to assist.  The least we could expect is that guys like Marsh not now screw everything up. Or that people cheer them on while they do it.

#Team Wun Wun

On 2/23/2022 at 2:29 AM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

The Starks will demand revenge on the Freys and might even make it a condition to peace.  

On 2/25/2022 at 10:22 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

The Freys already lost Stevron, Petyr, Merrett, Little Walder, Aegon, and Jared to the Starks and their bannermen. Enough of revenge.  What crime was done as a result of the RW has been repaid. 

There are a lot of posts in this thread making it out as some sort of Stark vs Frey feud. 

The real picture is that the Freys butchered a good deal of the Northern and Riverlands nobility and took a bunch more prisoner for ransom and as hostages.  In other words Robb Stark broke a promise of a marriage alliance and Walder Frey (and Roose Bolton) responded by starting a blood feud with practically every House in The North and The Riverlands.

Saying enough Freys have died and we should call it dibs isn't going to work with Great Jon Umber and Edmure Tully any more than with Wyman Manderly.  It's not a Stark / wild child Arya vengeance thing, it's far bigger than that.

The Freys will lose Riverrun and The Twins.  Given Walder Frey has, what, 100 children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and they are married into any number of Houses in The Riverlands, Westerlands and Vale, plenty will survive but there will be either judicial or extra-judicial "proceedings" against those who took part in The Red Wedding who haven't yet met the BWB or a cold welcome in the North.   

On 12/13/2021 at 11:49 PM, Rondo said:

She has other options.  She could continue to sell seafood.  She could work as a servant.  There is the option to join the church and become a Septa.  And why not become a Silent Sister?  It is no more challenging compared to what she does with corpses for the faceless men.

She had no other credible options when she chose to use the coin to go to Braavos.  Right beforehand she sells her horse and gets well under the real value because she's a ten or so year old girl who can be taken advantage of.  That's what she is trying to avoid continuing as a pattern and Jaqen H'ghar is the closest thing to a friend she has so she follows his instructions.  I'm not sure if you're serious about her option to become a septa or a silent sister but these clearly hold no appeal for her and are lifelong commitments she would not want to be encumbered by.  Braavos represents the unknown but also hope and she has not given up, she is making the best and only choice she can see available to her.

Once in Braavos she finds the FM tread a dark path and so does she but it's a means to an end while she learns what she can from them and gains some stability and the chance to consider her next moves.  Could she sever any ties with them and work as a seller or servant?  Possibly, if the FM were prepared to let her.  Isn't the occupation and the contacts she has provided for her by the FM?  She's otherwise still an orphan and a refugee in a strange city, more human flotsam and an apparently easy target putting herself back in the same position she was in getting taken advantage of by the woman who bought her horse in the Riverlands. Not a srtong move in other words.

On 12/13/2021 at 11:49 PM, Rondo said:

Her murders of Dareon and the Insurance man were acts of evil.  They have not wronged her and have not threatened her any harm.  Arya is both insane and slightly evil.  

They are questionable acts and I consider them both murders but I don't see any evidence of insanity.  The first is the carrying out of a sentence she has no right to impose but it is nevertheless the outcome Dareon would receive under Westerosi law.  Dareon states his intention to desert and Sam argues with him publicly (and ends up in the canal because of it).  Arya follows all this and acts accordingly: vigilante justice like the BwB hanging Freys after The Red Wedding.  They aren't mad either, just ruthless and desensitised to violence as is Arya.  The second she carries out as instructed and she rationalises the act on the basis that he is defrauding his clients.  You don't have to approve of her actions or agree with her rationalisation - I wish she had refused - but she thinks carefully about why he deserves to die before she acts.  That doesn't present as insanity but as harsh vigilante justice.

On 11/24/2021 at 5:33 PM, Rondo said:

The evidence are the things Arya does.  She joins up with a cult of killers who worships the bringing of death to people and kills people as its purpose for existence.  She murders an old business man who was no threat to her.  She can't claim self-defense for poisoning him.  It's followed by murdering a bard who has done no harm to her person.  I'd say that's evidence of Arya's insanity.

She goes to Bravos because she has no other options.  Everyone she knew and trusted is dead and even Sandor, her dubious captor-protector, is dead or dying.  All she has is the coin Jaqen H'ghar left her with instructions how to use it - so she does.  How deeply she will be ensnared by the FM remains to be seen but my bet is she will determine whether the target deserves to die rather than becoming a blank biddable footsoldier determiend to carry out every mission. 

Her murders of Dareon and the insurance salesman (and they are murders) are shocking but she deems one a deserter whose life is forfeit for breaking his oath and the other an exploiter or defrauder of his clients.  It's harsh and ruthless but vigilante justice often is and that doesn't mean it's exponents are insane.

What Arya wants is to go home to her family and for everything to be like it was before.  Up until The Red Wedding she was focused on this goal to the extent it was achievable (asking Beric if he could bring back a dead man who didn't have his head was one of the more poignant scenes).  Given, post-Red Wedding, she knows this can't happen she wants justice for her family and friends and a safe place to work out what to do and how to do it.  This has taken on an obviously dark sheen of vengeance and has shaded towards professional assassination with her apprenticeship to The Faceless Men.

But why would this be seen as madness?  It's dark for sure and I hope she won't be consumed by it but to some extent she is acting as a protector of the weak or avenger of the wronged.  Killing the insurance salesman is an uncomfortable act but that is how she rationalises it.  She is unquestionably desensitised to violence and regards taking a life as justified if expediency requires it: the stableboy in Kings Landing is the first, Lorch's men attacking the NW recruits in the holdfast follow, Jacqen's three lives and the weasel soup, the Bolton Guard at Harrenhall (Hot Pie is shocked, Gendry understands the need for it), The Tickler and the Squire at the Inn, Daeron for deserting the NW, and then the insurance salesman.

Even if she does become an assassin this does not imply madness, merely that she has lost the sense that human life has value and that taking it unless in need or without good reason is a taboo.  That's actually a pretty common state of affairs in Westeros but it's seen as being bad not mad.  Or entirely calculated and intentional as a tactic in warfare.  In any case her agenda is not that of the Faceles Men and she is only here out of lack of options.  If she finds that the Faceless Men take contracts from anyone - to assassinate someone she sees as just or good at the behest of someone she sees as an exploiter or oppressor - I imagine she'll reconsider her relationship with them.

I also feel the abandonment of the five year gap hinders assessment of her actions and that it's the incongruity of seeing a child, and a girl too, act as a killer, that makes it hard to assess her.  For example, does anyone consider Beatrice Kiddo (Kill Bill) mad or perfectly entitled to (fictionally!) seek bloodthirsty vengeance on those who betrayed her and destroyed her family?