Is kinslaying ever forgiven in Westeros?

[dmo862000]

I find it interesting people always refer to RW as horrific because it breaks "guess right". Even if guess right didn't exist the Frey's committed a big diplomatic no-no when they invited the Starks over and killed them. That would be like one country inviting the leaders of another country over and killing them at dinner.

But it is still a big diplomatic no-no without it being specifically referred to as 'guest right.' So GRRM had a different name for it. But regardless there are many international treaties and laws that would specifically punish people for executing diplomats. Even after the Pearl Harbor attacks on the United States Japanese diplomats were arrested but not executed. There's diplomatic immunity. There's a million IR laws protecting diplomats. It doesn't have to be called 'guest right.'

[Gneisenau]

:agree:

I don't think any house would be comfortable going over to another house for negotiations or making deals anymore. All that got thrown out of the window with what the Freys/Boltons did. Even Dany over in Essos understands that it would be a big faux pas.

OT: Are the Lannisters like the most treacherous house ever in the series? They have been involved in every oath breaking there is to break. Kinslaying (Tyrion), Kingslaying (Jaime), breaking guest right (Tywin). adultery and treason and maybe even Kingslaying (Cersei). I am surprised that other houses still trust them or deal with them.

The Lannisters, when led by Tywin were probably the most treacherous. In general I think Tywin's brutality is a flaw in that, if you were fighting Tywin, why surrender and sue for peace, when you know you will just get killed by Tywin anyway ?

[dmo862000]

There's established protocol for dealing with diplomats. And those protocols are based off laws. Otherwise Daenarys wouldn't have received heads in a basket when she sent out riders. Laws that apply in Westeros don't necessarily apply in Essos.

[Vaxis]

People still deal with the Lannisters because A: They have to, they're the richest family in the realm and they control the Throne (or they did, anyways). Also because B: Much of that is not common knowledge. Most do not know Tywin had a hand in the RW, and many do not believe the accusations against Cersei. They also still maintain a strong reputation of rewarding their servants well.

Thus far, the Lannisters have always paid their debts, both in blood and coin. This consistency is rare and valuable in the realm, and their biggest selling point.

[shiola]

Will someone explain me why do we think that guest right is a big deal in the North, and not in the South, when we have so many proofs against it. It seems that both Northerners and Southerners look at the guest right equally.

I guess I just thought since the Northerners were more superstitious and traditional that guest right mattered to them more. I don't know. I misremembered something apparently.

[Tall Tyrion Lannister]

:agree:

I don't think any house would be comfortable going over to another house for negotiations or making deals anymore. All that got thrown out of the window with what the Freys/Boltons did. Even Dany over in Essos understands that it would be a big faux pas.

OT: Are the Lannisters like the most treacherous house ever in the series? They have been involved in all kinds of breaking oaths and vows. Kinslaying (Tyrion), Kingslaying (Jaime), breaking guest right (Tywin), adultery and maybe even Kingslaying (Cersei). I am surprised that other houses still deal with them.

Tywin never broke guest right, Robb wasn't his guest and so no problem for his to kill Robb there. It's the Frey responsibility to defend Robb, but Tywin and Roose can kill Robb without breaking guest right.

[Mladen]

Tywin never broke guest right, Robb wasn't his guest and so no problem for his to kill Robb there. It's the Frey responsibility to defend Robb, but Tywin and Roose can kill Robb without breaking guest right.

Given the fact how he died, and how Purple wedding was "Lannisters paying the debts", I would actually think that GRRM considered Tywin very much accursed just as Walder Frey.

[dmo862000]

Tywin never broke guest right, Robb wasn't his guest and so no problem for his to kill Robb there. It's the Frey responsibility to defend Robb, but Tywin and Roose can kill Robb without breaking guest right.

He absolutely did and I have been one of his biggest defenders. I think strategically it was a good decision as long as the fallback never hit him. However just because you dont directly break guest right doesnt mean you arent guilty of it. If I hire a hitman to kill someone I am still guilty of murder.

[Sansa_Stark]

He absolutely did and I have been one of his biggest defenders. I think strategically it was a good decision as long as the fallback never hit him. However just because you dont directly break guest right doesnt mean you arent guilty of it. If I hire a hitman to kill someone I am still guilty of murder.

Didn't Tyrion break guest right?

I mean, when he sent those guys to free Jaime?

By proxy of course.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The Lannisters, when led by Tywin were probably the most treacherous. In general I think Tywin's brutality is a flaw in that, if you were fighting Tywin, why surrender and sue for peace, when you know you will just get killed by Tywin anyway ?

There are numerous instances when Tywin spares former enemies. After the Blackwater and the Red Wedding many Houses bent the knee and were allowed to keep their heads and lands. People are perfectly willing to surrender to Tywin

[dmo862000]

Didn't Tyrion break guest right?

I mean, when he sent those guys to free Jaime?

By proxy of course.

Not meant as sarcasm. I'm having a tough time recollecting. Tyrion offered bread and salt?

[Sansa_Stark]

Not meant as sarcasm. I'm having a tough time recollecting. Tyrion offered bread and salt?

No. He sent some guys to Riverrun to free Jaime.

"I allowed them freedom of the castle, and forthree nights they ate my meat and drank my mead"

"That big brute killed two guards with naught but those ham hands of his, caught them by the throats and smashed their skulls together while the skinny lad beside him was opening Lannister's cell with a bit of wire."

[krtmd]

No. He sent some guys to Riverrun to free Jaime.

"I allowed them freedom of the castle, and forthree nights they ate my meat and drank my mead"

"That big brute killed two guards with naught but those ham hands of his, caught them by the throats and smashed their skulls together while the skinny lad beside him was opening Lannister's cell with a bit of wire."

Absolutely. They were sent as "envoys" and the Tulllys treated them accordingly, but they were really there to bust Jaime out.

[dmo862000]

No. He sent some guys to Riverrun to free Jaime.

"I allowed them freedom of the castle, and forthree nights they ate my meat and drank my mead"

"That big brute killed two guards with naught but those ham hands of his, caught them by the throats and smashed their skulls together while the skinny lad beside him was opening Lannister's cell with a bit of wire."

Guest right not broken IMO. Guest right has specifically been attributed to salt and bread. Neither were offered.

[Trigger Warning]

In battle it probably is, but underhanded murder probably not.

[Tall Tyrion Lannister]

He absolutely did and I have been one of his biggest defenders. I think strategically it was a good decision as long as the fallback never hit him. However just because you dont directly break guest right doesnt mean you arent guilty of it. If I hire a hitman to kill someone I am still guilty of murder.

I disagree. Murder isn't always a direct link, I can hire a man to kill you and be guilty. Guest right IS a direct contract, between guest and host. Neither will raise arms against each other. Both are under each other's protection, the contract doesn't involve anyone else.

Your hitman analogy is misleading. Guest right is different from murder. 2 scenarios:

1, If I hire a hitman to kill my brother. I am a kinslayer, despite not doing the deed.

2, If I hire a hitman to kill the hitman's brother, then am I a kinslayer? No, I caused the death but he was not my brother. The hitman who chose to do the deed is the kinslayer.

The red wedding was situation 2, sure Tywin (indirectly) killed a guest, but Robb wasn't his guest, so no trouble.

Guest right not broken IMO. Guest right has specifically been attributed to salt and bread. Neither were offered.

You've contradicted yourself. If guest right is specifically about eating salt and bread, then Tywin can't have broken guest right. He never ate/offered salt or bread.

[Ramsay Gimp]

He absolutely did and I have been one of his biggest defenders. I think strategically it was a good decision as long as the fallback never hit him. However just because you dont directly break guest right doesnt mean you arent guilty of it. If I hire a hitman to kill someone I am still guilty of murder.

Given the fact how he died, and how Purple wedding was "Lannisters paying the debts", I would actually think that GRRM considered Tywin very much accursed just as Walder Frey.

Like Tall Tyrion^ says, Guest Right is a very technical thing. That's why bread and salt are so important, and why Manderly can slay the Freys at White Harbor as soon as he's given them "guest gifts," and then sleep soundly. Tywin and Roose are not guilty of it, and the "curse" isn't real anyway. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy at most

[Ramsay Gimp]

There definitely seem to be "degrees" of kinslaying, depending on how close the relation is and the context in which it happens.

Few people would take Rickard Karstark's claim seriously that Robb was committing kinslaying by executing him. If they did, that means Robert would be considered a kinslayer for killing Rhaegar or vice versa. And GRRM said it would be a gray area if Stannis had been killed in battle against Renly. Not to mention Tywin was prepared to execute Tyrion, despite trying to find a way to avoid it.

[Annara Snow]

Is breaking guest right worse? The Freys have still been allowed to live and operate. Almost all kinslayers are essentially wanted men.

Bloodraven wasn't a wanted man, he became the Hand of the King. Killing your kin during a battle, especially one your side won, isn't going to get you in trouble, it will just make you the subject of gossip by smallfolk.

Tyrion is a wanted man because that's what you get for being accused of murdering a king and murdering the Hand of the Kin, when his people are still on the throne.

The Freys are allowed to live and operate because their side hasn't lost yet and the side they destroyed has been, well, destroyed so there's no one to punish them. Otherwise they would certainly be punished by every law - Westerosi or 21st century real life one. We don't have specific beliefs about guest rights, but we still see a premeditated mass murder of people you've tricked by inviting them to come to a festivity as a dreadful and particularly morally repugnant crime. Our morality and theirs is not that different in that area.

I don't see any evidence that kinslaying or breaking guest right is legally punished (or not punished) in different ways than 'ordinary' murder - it seems mostly to be about people thinking that the person is "accursed" by the gods.

[grand old duke of stark]

They are both all but unforgivable. Both kinslaying and breach of guest right are abhorrent in the eyes of Westerosi, but also IRL. These crimes impinge on rituals that hold the social fabric together. In a dangerous world, it's nice to know your 'safe' among your kin and among people who offer you their shelter and hospitality. So when these rules are violated so is your relationship with your fellow man/family. Would Cain's crime had been quite as terrible if he had merely mugged a passing stranger? No, he killed his own brother. Oedipus (unknowingly) killed his own father. As to guest right, the Scottish story of the massacre at Glencoe is the best analogue I can think of. During a blizzard in the 1690s some Campbells found refuge in the village of the MacDonalds in Glencoe. The MacDonalds gave them food, drink, dry clothes, beds etc. During the night the Campbells rose up (as previously agreed) and killed their hosts, including women and children. A few escaped to spread the dire tale far and wide. In theory, to this day there's hatred between the two clans and a dreadful cloud hanging over the Campbells.