Did Dareon deserve to die?

[Faydra]

Even if he truly deserted, Arya had no right (moral or legal) to kill him.

[The Golden Wolf]

Remember when Ned rebelled against Aerys? Totally illegal stuff, according to all of the "Law is the law" people here he deserved to die for it, period.

What about hiding Jon Snow from Robert? Another treason, so he deserved death twice. What a horrible person.

I am only saying that as king Joffery had that right. was he in the right to execute Ned? yes because he had the power to back up his authority and Ned just confessed to trying to steal the throne.

Jon is only an act of treachery if he is the legitimate son of Raeghar and Lyanna. if not then Robert has no right to know about him. and as he was being raised in the North far from anyone who could use him to rally swords under the Targ Banner there was no threat.

Aerys had it coming when he started calling for innocent heads and roasting people in their armor. He was no longer fit to be king and had to be put down. it would have been great if freaking Raeghar had done it himself. but he was off at the tower of joy with Lyanna shirking his responsibilities.

[Naturally Low Highborn]

Arya, as a Stark, was one of only a few people on that continent to have to legal right to kill a deserter. If she had not right, Ned had no right at the beginning of the story. As a member of the House of Stark, Wardens of the North, strongest supporters of the NW, she had the moral and legal obligation to uphold the NW's laws about desertion. Just because she's in exile does not relieve her of her Stark obligation to wield the sword of justice to the deserters of the NW. We cannot apply our sense of morality and legalism to a fantasy world which is patterned after the historical dark ages of our world or to the sci-fi fantasy world of Star Wars. We cannot apply our modern sense of morality to the 1960's, to the 1830's, to the Roman Empire, to the Greek civilization or to any other time in history (real or imagined). Her decisions and actions are inline with the moral, societal, and legal systems in place at the time.

[Naturally Low Highborn]

TECHNICALLY, no it was not treason. The "king" has no more legal right to the throne than any other bastard or child of adultery (not even mentioning incest). Joff KNEW at this time that who he was, IMHO, and the threat of loosing his ill-gotten throne was one of the motive of his executing Ned.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Arya, as a Stark, was one of only a few people on that continent to have to legal right to kill a deserter. If she had not right, Ned had no right at the beginning of the story. As a member of the House of Stark, Wardens of the North, strongest supporters of the NW, she had the moral and legal obligation to uphold the NW's laws about desertion. Just because she's in exile does not relieve her of her Stark obligation to wield the sword of justice to the deserters of the NW. We cannot apply our sense of morality and legalism to a fantasy world which is patterned after the historical dark ages of our world or to the sci-fi fantasy world of Star Wars. We cannot apply our modern sense of morality to the 1960's, to the 1830's, to the Roman Empire, to the Greek civilization or to any other time in history (real or imagined). Her decisions and actions are inline with the moral, societal, and legal systems in place at the time.

Kindly point out the passage where Arya is appointed Warden of the North, and receives permission from the Sealord of Braavos to execute the criminal.

[The Marquis de Leech]

TECHNICALLY, no it was not treason. The "king" has no more legal right to the throne than any other bastard or child of adultery (not even mentioning incest). Joff KNEW at this time that who he was, IMHO, and the threat of loosing his ill-gotten throne was one of the motive of his executing Ned.

Joffrey went to his grave believing he was Robert's son. Recall that he castigates Tywin for hiding under Casterley Rock, while his "father" (Robert) was winning the battles. He also refers to Uncle Jaime, IIRC,

And again: Joffrey was the King people recognised. Which made him the legal King.

[JesterX]

TECHNICALLY, no it was not treason. The "king" has no more legal right to the throne than any other bastard or child of adultery (not even mentioning incest). Joff KNEW at this time that who he was, IMHO, and the threat of loosing his ill-gotten throne was one of the motive of his executing Ned.

I can't recall Joffrey ever truly KNOWING Jaime was his father. He was aware of the rumors but that's not the same as knowing.

[Lord Reaver]

Arya, as a Stark, was one of only a few people on that continent to have to legal right to kill a deserter. If she had not right, Ned had no right at the beginning of the story. As a member of the House of Stark, Wardens of the North, strongest supporters of the NW, she had the moral and legal obligation to uphold the NW's laws about desertion.

There is only one Warden of the North, it's not an inherited title, nor does it extend to the title bearer's family. The current Warden is Roose Bolton.

Ned Stark had the right to kill NW deserters because he, as the Lord Paramount, is the highest authority in the North, charged with carrying out the King's justice on his behalf. His sons are not, his daughters are not, his wife and his dogs are not. It's all on him.

Having the surname Stark gives you the right to kill absolutely noone. It's the actual title that confers authority, and Arya has none.

Her decisions and actions are inline with the moral, societal, and legal systems in place at the time.

No, they are clearly not in line with the societal or legal system of Braavos.

[MyaStoned]

Kindly point out the passage where Arya is appointed Warden of the North, and receives permission from the Sealord of Braavos to execute the criminal.

Starks are always Wardens of the North. They were under the last legal king and so continue to be.

[Lord Reaver]

Starks are always Wardens of the North. They were under the last legal king and so continue to be.

Arguing against the books again, I see ? Why am I not surprised...

[MyaStoned]

Oh for goodness sake. The legal King is the one recognised as such. And Joffrey is recognised as such, just like Robert before him.

Joffrey is NOT recognized as such. What books are you reading? A billion claimants to the throne spring up from all sides immediately after his ascension to the throne. Literally every place in Westeros but Casterly Rock and King's Landing are in open rebellion and following other kings, PLUS there are multiple claimants (with their own legal rights) overseas. PLUS one beyond the wall.

The idea that just because Joffrey happens to be holed up in King's Landing on the IT means he's recognized as king is crazy. The kingdom is split.

[MyaStoned]

Arguing against the books again, I see ? Why am I not surprised...

Which part? Please quote me the passage where a legally sitting king names someone other than the Starks as Wardens of the North. Or where Arya has compelling reason to believe she is not the last Stark alive (or certainly the last 'acting' Stark).

[Lord Reaver]

Which part?

Pretty much everything you post, really.

I could, but you'd just say Joffrey isn't the legal king, in which case there is no legal king. If there is no legal king, there can be no new Warden appointed, in which case since Ned is dead there is no Warden.

Again, it's not a title that's inherited, it's by appointment. Jaime was appointed Warden of the East, not Robert Arryn. How hard is that to grasp ?

[MyaStoned]

Pretty much everything you post, really.

I could, but you'd just say Joffrey isn't the legal king, in which case there is no legal king. If there is no legal king, there can be no new Warden appointed, in which case since Ned is dead there is no Warden.

Again, it's not a title that's inherited, it's by appointment. Jaime was appointed Warden of the East, not Robert Arryn. How hard is that to grasp ?

IS Joffrey the legal king (while he lives)? Is that your contention?

Stannis is the legal king, or there is no legal king.

And I missed where in the books it says that if a Warden dies, the title doesn't automatically fall to his heir. Perhaps you could point it out. It's implied in the discussion between Ned and Robert concerning Lord Arryn's son that that is indeed the custom - it goes to the heir automatically. It's a shock to Ned and an offense that it would go elsewhere. It IS an inherited title, from what we see. That's the custom. "The Arryns have always been Wardens of the East." What an incredible and unlikely coincidence that all those consecutive Arryns happened to be appointed independently of one another, without inheritance of the title being involved.

You are willfully mistaking crimes and aberrations for rules and customs.

[Cas Stark]

We know that Joff is an illegitimate king, by Westeros standards, and that he held the thrown illegally because he is not a son of Robert Baratheon. We know that Cersei illegally usurped the rule as regent from Ned Stark, against the specific declaration in Robert's last order. The fact that he sat on the throne and was recognized doesn't make him "legally" the king any more than it make somebody who has stolen your identity as "legally" using your credit cards. The Lannisters are perpetrating an illegal scam. However, until his family is put out of power this illegal and illegitimate reign of fake Baratheons will continue to be recognized as a legal authority, despite the fact that it is not. And when the fake Baratheons are put off the Iron Throne you can be that all decrees they have made will be open for renegotiation.

However, I'm not sure what this has to do with Dareon's death, since we know for an absolute fact that he was guilty of deserting the NW and that the penalty for deserting the NW was death. Ned Stark does not give him a trial, or the option of trial by combat, he executes him, he does it in a legalistic manner, but there is nothing there to indicate there is any "out" for the deserter, any way of mitigating the sentence. This may or may not be fair, but it's clearly Westerosi law.

It seems unclear what level of authorities are legally allowed to conduct an execution, it would seem it would need to broader than the Warden of the North, its doubtful that if some deserter headed a different way and got caught somewhere else they would be sent all the way back to Winterfell. It might only need to be a lord.

In which case, given that Arya Stark believes her entire family is dead, she would be Lady of Winterfell and empowered to execute a NW deserter whereever she found him.

[BitsOfBrains]

If they don't have extradition treaties (and they don't), killing Dareon is murder, and as such is undeserved.

As for being a Stark, Ned executed deserters because he is Lord of Winterfell, and so authorised to pass sentence and execute someone. Arya isn't.

Eh, Thats like saying a criminal is no longer deserving of punishment so long as they can escape to Venezuela or some such place.

And when Jon was thinking about deserting he thought something like, "EVERY hand will be turned against you".

I take that to mean that if someone is KNOWN to be a deserter, they are fair game

[David Selig]

Arya knows that House Stark is not in power anymore, thus she has no legal or executive powers of any kind, even if the rest of her family is dead. Nobody ever put her in charge of anything, nor did she claim any title for herself. She never thought she has a legal right to execute anyone. Whether Joff or Tommen are "legal kings", whatever that means, is irrelevant.

[Lord Reaver]

IS Joffrey the legal king (while he lives)? Is that your contention?

My contention is it doesn't matter. Either Joffrey is, and he has appointed another Warden, or he is not, and no new Warden has been appointed. Either way, none of thes alternatives includes Arya Stark being named Warden of the North.

And I missed where in the books it says that if a Warden dies, the title doesn't automatically fall to his heir.

(AGOT ch. 12):

"And if by some mischance he does, we will throw him back into the sea. Once you choose a new Warden of the East—"

The king groaned. "For the last time, I will not name the Arryn boy Warden. I know the boy is your nephew, but with Targaryens climbing in bed with Dothraki, I would be mad to rest one quarter of the realm on the shoulders of a sickly child."

[GHOSTSTARK]

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.

if Arya could tell that he was a deserter and broke his vows, he deserved to die. just like what Ned said "If you would take a man’s life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die"

[MyaStoned]

We know that Joff is an illegitimate king, by Westeros standards, and that he held the thrown illegally because he is not a son of Robert Baratheon. We know that Cersei illegally usurped the rule as regent from Ned Stark, against the specific declaration in Robert's last order. The fact that he sat on the throne and was recognized doesn't make him "legally" the king any more than it make somebody who has stolen your identity as "legally" using your credit cards. The Lannisters are perpetrating an illegal scam. However, until his family is put out of power this illegal and illegitimate reign of fake Baratheons will continue to be recognized as a legal authority, despite the fact that it is not. And when the fake Baratheons are put off the Iron Throne you can be that all decrees they have made will be open for renegotiation.

However, I'm not sure what this has to do with Dareon's death, since we know for an absolute fact that he was guilty of deserting the NW and that the penalty for deserting the NW was death. Ned Stark does not give him a trial, or the option of trial by combat, he executes him, he does it in a legalistic manner, but there is nothing there to indicate there is any "out" for the deserter, any way of mitigating the sentence. This may or may not be fair, but it's clearly Westerosi law.

It seems unclear what level of authorities are legally allowed to conduct an execution, it would seem it would need to broader than the Warden of the North, its doubtful that if some deserter headed a different way and got caught somewhere else they would be sent all the way back to Winterfell. It might only need to be a lord.

In which case, given that Arya Stark believes her entire family is dead, she would be Lady of Winterfell and empowered to execute a NW deserter whereever she found him.

Thank you for a completely reasonable post. Agree on all points.