Did Dareon deserve to die?

[Dany Girl]

Just because someone doesn't have the ability to earn as much money as you doesn't mean that you're responsible for taking care of them.

In this case he was though. He was a sworn member of the NW, Sam and Aemon are his brothers. He was sent by Jon to not only recruit new members but to help Sam and Aemon get to Oldtown. Not only did he desert his sword duty ge directly deserts 2 brothers in dire straits. If he would have at least helped them get to Oldtown maybe I'd feel different, instead he's just shown himself to be an irredeemable douche bag IMO.

And for people saying he *might* be innocent so he has every right to run, just remember, without the NW men like Dareon would have no other options, and Dareon would have been gelded or killed for his "crime " regardless of guilt. The NW is a safe place for people who wrongfully end up on the wrong side of a Lord.

[Lord Reaver]

The NW is a safe place for people who wrongfully end up on the wrong side of a Lord.

"Safe place" isn't exactly the description I'd use for the NW.

[Fat Trell]

"Safe place" isn't exactly the description I'd use for the NW.

Hell of a lot safer than being strapped to a table, getting gelded.

Most of the time.

[ground_control]

C'mon . . . He did his duty for the Night's Watch. Nobody ever questioned his service. Which is why Jon rewarded him with Yoren's old recruiters position. Who's to say he wouldn't have realized his duty after wilding out in Braavos for a bit and commenced collecting rejects for the wall. He didn't deserve to die.

1) LC Mormont himself says that the NW would be screwed if they considered everybody going to Mole's Town a deserter.

2) *Sam* or Maester Aemon could probably legitimately call him a deserter (and kill him) with some legal/moral justification -- that Sam is trying to convince Daeron to get back on track shows that he hasn't written off Daeron as a deserter

3) Arya has neither the legal right nor enough knowledge of the situation to justify her killing Daeron. A lot of us were happy to see him go b/c we don't think he would have ever got back with the program, and his actions cause harm to characters we like, but we also care about what doing this is doing to (or showing us about) another character that we like.

IMO, Arya doesn't kill Daeron because he deserves to die, Arya kills him because she needs to kill him, because *nobody* wouldn't care if a man deserted the NW, but a Stark of Winterfell would.

[JesterX]

See but he was. He was a member of the Night's Watch. Aemon and Sam were his superior officers.

Anything he earned was property of the Night's Watch.

And leaving two people alone in a foreign land when neither one of them speaks the language and they have a sickly old man and an infant to care for is tantamount to leaving them to die.

Your original argument was that he would have came to his senses. While this is obviously wrong, it implies you yourself think that desertion is wrong.

So you think that his desertion itself was wrong but his abandonment of his superior officers and a few month old child was ok?

Hard to follow your logic bud.

There's no law or rule I've ever read about the NW that says everything a sworn brother earns belongs to his superior officers or to the watch. And Dareon himself, wasn't anymore fluent in speaking Braavosi than Sam and Gilly. Same point, they had the same opportunity to earn money for themselves as he did.

My overall point is that Dareon is a guy who was unjustly sentenced to the Watch, served bravely, fought both white walkers and wildlings. He finally gets to a place of peace and happiness, and he gets killed for it. Do I think desertion is wrong, yes. But did he deserve to die for it? Absolutely not.

[JesterX]

In this case he was though. He was a sworn member of the NW, Sam and Aemon are his brothers. He was sent by Jon to not only recruit new members but to help Sam and Aemon get to Oldtown. Not only did he desert his sword duty ge directly deserts 2 brothers in dire straits. If he would have at least helped them get to Oldtown maybe I'd feel different, instead he's just shown himself to be an irredeemable douche bag IMO.

And for people saying he *might* be innocent so he has every right to run, just remember, without the NW men like Dareon would have no other options, and Dareon would have been gelded or killed for his "crime " regardless of guilt. The NW is a safe place for people who wrongfully end up on the wrong side of a Lord.

Sure but if Dareon was innocent of rape and effectively "sentenced" to the NW, wouldn't he have every right to skirt that sentence as he would've had from being gelded or put to death?

[Dany Girl]

"Safe place" isn't exactly the description I'd use for the NW.

Relatively, it is safer than what they would face. Without the Wall., Dareon would be gelded or dead, instead he had a chance to live and to something valuable with hus life. Then he's given a plum assignment and instead of being happy with it and wandering the world looking fir recruits while being able to sing and whore around, he essentially spits in Jon's face.

Satin, Sam, and many others would have faced death or maiming without the Wall as an option. Many of those people are a hell of a lot more innocent than Dareon, yet they're keeping their vows.

Dareon has no one to blame but himself for getting sent to the Wall. He knew the risks if sleeping with the daughter of a lord, did it anyways, and got caught. That or he actually did tape her, knowing the consequences, and got caught. The first option may not be fair, but that's the world he lives in, he knew what he was doing when he did it.

He also knew the consequences for desertions, but thought he'd be safe to to so in Braavos. He was wrong. Arya having the "right" to kill him isn't really important in a decision of whether or not he deserved to die. Arya's actions I believe warrent their own thread, because it has no barring on whether or not Dareon deserved death.

[TurkeyRod]

deserved it

[PrinceHenryris]

Arya thought so. That's good enough for me.

[Dany Girl]

Sure but if Dareon was innocent of rape and effectively "sentenced" to the NW, wouldn't he have every right to skirt that sentence as he would've had from being gelded or put to death?

Not after he says his vows IMO. If he had ran away before saying his vows I'd have no issue with it. But he did vow to serve. Part of that serving included helping Sam and Aemon, which he blatenly doesn't care about doing.

Furthermore, if every NW member that was sent to the Wall under false allegations deserted, that would likely cripple the Wall. If a deserter isn't punished for deserting, then what's to stop the truly dangerous people from deserting? If desertion cannot be controlled, then lords will no longer send criminals, and innocent men will instead be killed or maimed, and the Wall would be in even worse shape than it currently is.

With no NW, who is left to stop turn Others?

I'm not saying it's fair. It's definitely not fair for a lot of people, but without the institution, the whole country is in terrible danger.

[Lord Reaver]

Relatively, it is safer than what they would face. Without the Wall., Dareon would be gelded or dead, instead he had a chance to live and to something valuable with hus life. Then he's given a plum assignment and instead of being happy with it and wandering the world looking fir recruits while being able to sing and whore around, he essentially spits in Jon's face.

This is what I from now on will call "It could have been worse" defense. I have seen it used quite a bit here, from arguing Theon should have been happy for his gilded cage, because you know "it could have been worse" and Eddard could have had him flogged every day and locked in a basement.

Problem is, that doesn't really work. One injustice doesn't disappear simply because there was a potential for it to have been even worse. That line of thinking leads to conclusions like "Theon should have been thankful for Ramsay only taking 5 fingers. After all, he might have taken all 10", which I hope is untenable for most.

If Dareon was innocent (and note here, I say if, I am by no means convinced of that), then sending him to the Wall is an injustice, regardless of whether he could have suffered worse or not.

[Dany Girl]

This is what I from now on will call "It could have been worse" defense. I have seen it used quite a bit here, from arguing Theon should have been happy for his gilded cage, because you know "it could have been worse" and Eddard could have had him flogged every day and locked in a basement.

Problem is, that doesn't really work. One injustice doesn't disappear simply because there was a potential for it to have been even worse. That line of thinking leads to conclusions like "Theon should have been thankful for Ramsay only taking 5 fingers. After all, he might have taken all 10", which I hope is untenable for most.

If Dareon was innocent (and note here, I say if, I am by no means convinced of that), then sending him to the Wall is an injustice, regardless of whether he could have suffered worse or not.

If he's innocent, then yes, it was an injustice. I'm sure there are many Watchmen that are at the Wall when they shouldn't be. But that isn't the point of this thread because it's part of a much bigger fundamental issue in Westeros, where Lords are able to dole out justice without any sort of oversight what so ever. If a thread like that opens, I'm sure I will agree with you that Dareon deserved more than just being shipped off to the Wall with no thought being put onto it.

Alas, this thread is about the here and now though. Dareon said his vows, and knew the consequences for breaking them. No matter if he's guilty or innocent, because everything from the past is whipped clean after vows are said. If he felt he was innocent, he should have run before taking his vows.

Once vows are said he owes his loyalty to the Watch and his brothers. He turns his back on both in Braavos. He easily could have helped Sam and Aemon find passage, then bounced, but instead he contributed to Aemon's death by prolonging their stay in Braavos.

And again, if the threat of death for desertion is removed, then what is there to stop every members if the Watch from up and leaving? What incentive do lords have to send criminals to the Wall if the Wall can't keep them?

Yes, it's unfair innocent men are sent to the Wall, but until the entire justice system in Westeros is overhauled, it's a better alternative to death /maiming.

[JesterX]

Not after he says his vows IMO. If he had ran away before saying his vows I'd have no issue with it. But he did vow to serve. Part of that serving included helping Sam and Aemon, which he blatenly doesn't care about doing.

Furthermore, if every NW member that was sent to the Wall under false allegations deserted, that would likely cripple the Wall. If a deserter isn't punished for deserting, then what's to stop the truly dangerous people from deserting? If desertion cannot be controlled, then lords will no longer send criminals, and innocent men will instead be killed or maimed, and the Wall would be in even worse shape than it currently is.

With no NW, who is left to stop turn Others?

I'm not saying it's fair. It's definitely not fair for a lot of people, but without the institution, the whole country is in terrible danger.

Well to join the NW, one MUST take the vows. No one serves without taking them. So if your choice is join the watch or death, how much of a choice is that, really? Jaime faced the same dilemma with the vow he gave Catelyn about never taking up arms against the Starks or Tulleys. At least up to this point he's kept that vow but he was pretty much ready to break them if he had to at Riverrun. And for the same reason, any vow someone is forced to take under threat of death isn't a real vow.

[Victor227]

Technically, he was guilty of desertion, and made his intent pretty clear. He was as far from the Wall as one could be, and was in line for a pretty cushy life. No real indication he would ever go back.

He definitely deserved to be tried by the Watch, or a lord of Westeros acting on the Watch's behalf (as Ned apparently had the power to execute deserters). Did he deserve to be murdered because Arya was feeling particularly petulant that night? Well, I don't know what to say on that front. Does Braavos even uphold Night's Watch vows? Is deserting the Night's Watch a crime there? As has been said, 'your house, your rules', regarding guests and hosts and such, and both Arya and Dareon are effectively under the laws of Braavos while there.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It is not illegal to have consensual sex with a Lord's daughter, even in Westeros, which is why the accusation of rape was made instead. The alleged rape was a he says/she says situation (or more accurately, a singer says/the Lord says). Dareon was not subjected to anything resembling a fair trial; legal fairness would dictate that the rape would have had to been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As it was, he was subjected to a kangaroo court, and so he was threatened with mutilation or the Watch. Even leaving aside the basic assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty', I'd be inclined to think that if it really had been a rape, there wouldn't have been the Watch option. So I agree with those who think Dareon is innocent, the oath was coerced, and morally there is nothing wrong with him wanting to escape.

If we adopt the strict legal approach that he was convicted, and deserted, Arya still had no business killing him. She had no legal authority to do so, and was outside Westeros jurisdiction. What Arya committed was extra-judicial murder.

Finally, Jon Snow deserted. We know this because the text says he was riding south with intent to join Robb. He gets away with it because Mormont chose to be wilfully blind.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Oh yes, and to those who say "he deserted, and deserved to die, and we shouldn't bring in modern perspectives":

Fair enough. Ned Stark was a convicted traitor and as such deserved to die.

[kephv]

It is not illegal to have consensual sex with a Lord's daughter, even in Westeros, which is why the accusation of rape was made instead. The alleged rape was a he says/she says situation (or more accurately, a singer says/the Lord says). Dareon was not subjected to anything resembling a fair trial; legal fairness would dictate that the rape would have had to been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As it was, he was subjected to a kangaroo court, and so he was threatened with mutilation or the Watch. Even leaving aside the basic assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty', I'd be inclined to think that if it really had been a rape, there wouldn't have been the Watch option. So I agree with those who think Dareon is innocent, the oath was coerced, and morally there is nothing wrong with him wanting to escape.

If we adopt the strict legal approach that he was convicted, and deserted, Arya still had no business killing him. She had no legal authority to do so, and was outside Westeros jurisdiction. What Arya committed was extra-judicial murder.

Finally, Jon Snow deserted. We know this because the text says he was riding south with intent to join Robb. He gets away with it because Mormont chose to be wilfully blind.

Logic and compelling arguments. It will surely be disregarded.

[RK Rajagopal]

If Jon had learnt the truth of Daeron's situation, what would he do? He would execute him for desertion!

I think he was unfortunate, but he did desert and betray his oaths and thus by the law should be killed. However, I think Arya had no right to kill him. I'm actually a little worried about what she's becoming.

[The Golden Wolf]

Dareon deserved to die for desertion. He did not deserve to die by Arya's hand.

Whether or not he joined under duress does not invalidate his vow once made. Once he made the vow that was it. And yes Jon came close but he changed after his friends and brothers reminded him of his duty. Dareon turned his back on both and this was after being given the best duty a Crow could get. So he gets no sympathy from me.

Sam did his duty as did others. Dareon gets death for callously disregarding his.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

It is not illegal to have consensual sex with a Lord's daughter, even in Westeros, which is why the accusation of rape was made instead. The alleged rape was a he says/she says situation (or more accurately, a singer says/the Lord says). Dareon was not subjected to anything resembling a fair trial; legal fairness would dictate that the rape would have had to been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As it was, he was subjected to a kangaroo court, and so he was threatened with mutilation or the Watch. Even leaving aside the basic assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty', I'd be inclined to think that if it really had been a rape, there wouldn't have been the Watch option. So I agree with those who think Dareon is innocent, the oath was coerced, and morally there is nothing wrong with him wanting to escape.

If we adopt the strict legal approach that he was convicted, and deserted, Arya still had no business killing him. She had no legal authority to do so, and was outside Westeros jurisdiction. What Arya committed was extra-judicial murder.

Finally, Jon Snow deserted. We know this because the text says he was riding south with intent to join Robb. He gets away with it because Mormont chose to be wilfully blind.

What does Arya killing him have to do with whether or not he deserves to die? She might be acting immorally, or even illegally. But that has nothing to do with Dareon's crime.

Dareon's innocence of the crime that got him sent to the Wall is immaterial. Once you're at the Wall all prevous crimes are wiped clean, the crime he is guilty of, beyond a doubt, is desertion. Whether you wish to argue that he was morally justified in abandoning is a different matter.

Again, it seems like people are conflating legal concerns and moral ones. Law involves ethics, but they're not mutually inclusive.