Jump to content

Does Brynden Rivers counts as deserter?


Recommended Posts

In order being a deserter, he needs to be met two conditions: first he had to leave his position without permission, second he must have an intention to leave his position, Brynden met the first condition, I am not sure about the second, we do not know his missing was under what kind of circumstance, my opinion is it is too early to call him a deserter now


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall I disagree with beheading as a punishment for desertion. Especially for people who were not sentenced to the NW but joined freely.

I don't really see why joining freely makes a difference. You swear a vow, and if you desert it's as bad - if not worse - for those who chose to join than it is for those who were sentenced. Ultimately in a medieval society there's not much else you could do to folk who deserted an order like The Night's Watch other than execute them. You can't trust them if you send them back, and you wouldn't imprison them for the rest of their lives; you also need to send a detriment to other possible deserters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see why joining freely makes a difference. You swear a vow, and if you desert it's as bad - if not worse - for those who chose to join than it is for those who were sentenced. Ultimately in a medieval society there's not much else you could do to folk who deserted an order like The Night's Watch other than execute them. You can't trust them if you send them back, and you wouldn't imprison them for the rest of their lives; you also need to send a detriment to other possible deserters.

It just seems extreme to me. Especially if said institution does not live up to it's name. If you join under certain pretenses, but then find out all of that is total BS, and that you might get killed by a brother, raped, eaten by a WW, and none of those things are in the original contract you signed and you want to leave, because you felt you were dooped into the whole thing, shouldn't you be able to? Proper work conditions and all that.

Plus you have to make vows to be a Maester and a KG, do they also get beheaded if they choose to leave? I cant recall what happens in those situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems extreme to me. Especially if said institution does not live up to it's name. If you join under certain pretenses, but then find out all of that is total BS, and that you might get killed by a brother, raped, eaten by a WW, and none of those things are in the original contract you signed and you want to leave, because you felt you were dooped into the whole thing, shouldn't you be able to? Proper work conditions and all that.

Plus you have to make vows to be a Maester and a KG, do they also get beheaded if they choose to leave? I cant recall what happens in those situations.

I can´t think of any maester who tried to leave, only of one who was kicked out (Qyburn), and we haven't heard about any KG who tried to leave the order, but KG get punished from breaking any of their vows, so I'd say that trying to leave the order would be heavily punished as well.. I guess it would depend on the King (in the KG case) making the decision.. a milder King might send you to the Wall, like Jaehaerys did with Lucamore Strong for breaking his vows, but a more harder King might execute you, like Aegon did with Terrence Toyne when he broke his vows of celibacy. Of course, one might argue that breaking a vow of celibacy is something different from deserting your king. Cristone Cole, according to Septon Eustace, wanted to leave for Essos with Rhaenyra, but there, it is only mentioned that Viserys couldn't touch him once in Essos... Nothing about a specific punishment.

For a maester, I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, those who join willingly can still leave up until they have said their vows. Using Jon as an example, he is warned about the Wall by Tyrion before he gets there, is at the Wall by chapter 19, and doesn't say his vows until chapter 48. I am not sure how much time is supposed to have passed between his arrival and taking his vows, but it was probably more than enough time, before he ever made his vow, to learn the consequences of desertion.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems extreme to me. Especially if said institution does not live up to it's name. If you join under certain pretenses, but then find out all of that is total BS, and that you might get killed by a brother, raped, eaten by a WW, and none of those things are in the original contract you signed and you want to leave, because you felt you were dooped into the whole thing, shouldn't you be able to? Proper work conditions and all that.

Plus you have to make vows to be a Maester and a KG, do they also get beheaded if they choose to leave? I cant recall what happens in those situations.

Well, no. You shouldn't be able to leave if you decide The Night's Watch isn't for you, for whatever reason. If folk could then The Watch would be even further depleted than it already is at the start of ASOIAF. Vows aren't to be sworn lightly.

You can't voluntarily leave the Kingsguard either; the vows are sworn for life. Lucamore The Lusty was gelded and send to The Wall for breaking his vows, but other than him the only other guy to have his cloak removed without being killed for a form of treason was Barristan Selmy. And his indignation at being stripped of his white cloak is because the vows are sworn for life. Same goes for Maesters too. Just like at The Wall, you get to a point at The Citadel where you either swear your vows and commit for life, or you choose to leave (like Oberyn did).

It's a medieval setting, not a modern day one. There really is no alternative to dealing with deserters other than execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no. You shouldn't be able to leave if you decide The Night's Watch isn't for you, for whatever reason. If folk could then The Watch would be even further depleted than it already is at the start of ASOIAF. Vows aren't to be sworn lightly.

You can't voluntarily leave the Kingsguard either; the vows are sworn for life. Lucamore The Lusty was gelded and send to The Wall for breaking his vows, but other than him the only other guy to have his cloak removed without being killed for a form of treason was Barristan Selmy. And his indignation at being stripped of his white cloak is because the vows are sworn for life. Same goes for Maesters too. Just like at The Wall, you get to a point at The Citadel where you either swear your vows and commit for life, or you choose to leave (like Oberyn did).

It's a medieval setting, not a modern day one. There really is no alternative to dealing with deserters other than execution.

I guess in a faux-medieval setting that is true, yeah.

But even so, there should be some form of trial, or the right of the deserter to know why they are being executed (see Gared, as an example). That's probably my biggest problem with Dareon (it is Dareon, btw, to whoever said Daeron(?) before), the fact that it was just a sort of "hey there!" *shank* Not to mention, i tend to take Dareon's side in his story, in that he should never have been sent to the Wall in the first place. But thats much more subjective...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deserters generally do know why they're being executed. The difference with Daeron is that he was murdered - Arya had no juristiction to punish him for desertion. (Which I think highlights the problem for Arya clinging to her Stark identity in her current situation.)

As for whether Daeron "should" have been sent to The Wall? He still chose to take the vow to join The Watch. Sure, he may not have meant it as the other option was death, but it's a vow sworn nevertheless. Had he been caught and executed by someone like Bronze Yohn it would have been different from what was essentially cold blooded murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Arya did was illegal, but I don't think she's old enough to understand all the legal nuance of the situation. As a deserter Dareon had an outstanding death sentence, and she carried it out. The idea that they were in Braavos, which has no such laws, or that Dareon needed to be told what he was being executed for, or that the deed needed to be done by someone acting on behalf of the king's authority obviously didn't really occur to her. Which kind of shows the danger of instituting summary execution as a punishment for a particular crime, with no legal allowances for circumstances or even a real trial. You teach a child, "everyone who does this gets executed without trial and that is just," and she's going to take you at your word. Yes, Arya technically murdered someone and did not enact a legal execution. But I would say the problem is the system, not her. She was performing justice as she understood it. As for the ethics of the situation Arya was following the ethical system taught to her by Ned. I don't agree with it, but that's the thing about ethics--not everyone has the same ones. Arya did break the law of Braavos, but she was true to the ideas of justice and ethics she'd been taught, so while I think that what she did was wrong according to the law of the land and my own system of ethics, I don't think killing Dareon makes Arya an unethical person.



As to the OP: I don't think we have enough info on BR's circumstances to say whether he was technically a deserter or not. But even if he did leave the NW on purpose, he clearly has stuck to the spirit of his vows, very much unlike Dareon, so I strongly doubt Bran would feel an ethical duty to execute him.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically he is, I suppose. But you know what Qhorin Halfhand said: You should put the good of the realm before your own honor.



It is likely BR did just that. Does he still deserve to be executed according to the rules? Then it means there's something wrong with those rules. Really, this slavish adherence to the rulebook reminds me of modern-day bureaucracy; it's no longer a tool to solve problems systematically and more easily, it's going by the rules for the sake of the rules no matter how stupid and absurd and useless they are.



If BR is still fighting on the side of humanity, maybe more efficiently and certainly longer (isn't he like in his 120's during the course of the main series?) than he would have had he stayed with the NW, what kind of idiot would seriously consider punishing him for it? :dunno:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to demand union representation for all NW members so their grievances can be heard!!

lol, I think there are many unions Westeros could benefit from.

I can´t think of any maester who tried to leave, only of one who was kicked out (Qyburn), and we haven't heard about any KG who tried to leave the order, but KG get punished from breaking any of their vows, so I'd say that trying to leave the order would be heavily punished as well.. I guess it would depend on the King (in the KG case) making the decision.. a milder King might send you to the Wall, like Jaehaerys did with Lucamore Strong for breaking his vows, but a more harder King might execute you, like Aegon did with Terrence Toyne when he broke his vows of celibacy. Of course, one might argue that breaking a vow of celibacy is something different from deserting your king. Cristone Cole, according to Septon Eustace, wanted to leave for Essos with Rhaenyra, but there, it is only mentioned that Viserys couldn't touch him once in Essos... Nothing about a specific punishment.

For a maester, I have no idea.

Well, no. You shouldn't be able to leave if you decide The Night's Watch isn't for you, for whatever reason. If folk could then The Watch would be even further depleted than it already is at the start of ASOIAF. Vows aren't to be sworn lightly.

You can't voluntarily leave the Kingsguard either; the vows are sworn for life. Lucamore The Lusty was gelded and send to The Wall for breaking his vows, but other than him the only other guy to have his cloak removed without being killed for a form of treason was Barristan Selmy. And his indignation at being stripped of his white cloak is because the vows are sworn for life. Same goes for Maesters too. Just like at The Wall, you get to a point at The Citadel where you either swear your vows and commit for life, or you choose to leave (like Oberyn did).

It's a medieval setting, not a modern day one. There really is no alternative to dealing with deserters other than execution.

Right, thanks for the posts. And I see your points. It is a very harsh world.

So then you both agree that BR should be executed as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jon infiltrating the Wildlings did not deserve beheading, then Bloodraven joining the Children doesnt either (unless, of course, you follow the line of thought that BR and the CotF are not working against the Others, which I personally dont)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your insights. My thoughts on Brynden Rivers evolved over this thread.



1) He disappeared not deserted.. Technically Jon Snow not counted as deserter because he acted on QH orders (QH, ordered what best for wall protection) Who commands Lord Commander?



2)Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death (Still watching) . I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory (None broke by BR). I shall live and die at my post (BR is lord commander, his post is now with trees). I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls(Still watching) . I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men (I don't think he neglected this duty) . I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.



3) Regarding beheading. If one feels like so, they've to know where BR is and have to pass white walkers, best of luck to them. I don't think Bran will feel to look into BR's eyes to behead him.



4) Meera, Jojen and Hodor will do as Bran says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





lol, I think there are many unions Westeros could benefit from.





Right, thanks for the posts. And I see your points. It is a very harsh world.




So then you both agree that BR should be executed as well?




Hmm... difficult to say. If the rules were followed strictly, no member of the NW would be allowed to interfere with stuff that is going on elsewhere. Yoren broke that rule, and Bloodraven did too. Personally, I don´t think that Yoren should receive a punishment for what he did.. He did not let it interfere with his duties for the NW. For Bloodraven, it was different.. As LC, he had important duties, and when he `vanished`, he abandoned those duties. So punishment is definitly in order.



But whether execution is necessary... I know that in medieval times, execution was rather normal, and in some cultures today, it still is... But I wonder whether it is the best way of extreme punishment.. Not only for Bloodraven, but for all deserters, perhaps being locked up all alone, in isolation, would be a better punishment...



What do you think?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no. You shouldn't be able to leave if you decide The Night's Watch isn't for you, for whatever reason. If folk could then The Watch would be even further depleted than it already is at the start of ASOIAF. Vows aren't to be sworn lightly.

You can't voluntarily leave the Kingsguard either; the vows are sworn for life. Lucamore The Lusty was gelded and send to The Wall for breaking his vows, but other than him the only other guy to have his cloak removed without being killed for a form of treason was Barristan Selmy. And his indignation at being stripped of his white cloak is because the vows are sworn for life. Same goes for Maesters too. Just like at The Wall, you get to a point at The Citadel where you either swear your vows and commit for life, or you choose to leave (like Oberyn did).

It's a medieval setting, not a modern day one. There really is no alternative to dealing with deserters other than execution.

also the recruits for the nights watch have time before they take their vows to decide if they're going to stay or not so the idea that just because they watch might not be what they expect doesn't matter because they know full well what it is by the time they swear their vows
Link to comment
Share on other sites








Hmm... difficult to say. If the rules were followed strictly, no member of the NW would be allowed to interfere with stuff that is going on elsewhere. Yoren broke that rule, and Bloodraven did too. Personally, I don´t think that Yoren should receive a punishment for what he did.. He did not let it interfere with his duties for the NW. For Bloodraven, it was different.. As LC, he had important duties, and when he `vanished`, he abandoned those duties. So punishment is definitly in order.



But whether execution is necessary... I know that in medieval times, execution was rather normal, and in some cultures today, it still is... But I wonder whether it is the best way of extreme punishment.. Not only for Bloodraven, but for all deserters, perhaps being locked up all alone, in isolation, would be a better punishment...



What do you think?









^^^ :)



Thanks for asking. As I said before I still do think beheading is an extreme punishment, but I see yall's points about how there is really no other option. With that being said, technically BR did desert, he is still alive and no longer physically occupy the seat of LC in the Castle Black.



However if we were to find out that everything he is doing in the cave he did all for the benefit of the NW and to protect his brothers from there, then I might feel differently, but I somehow doubt that was the case. I think his reasons for going to the cave had more to do with personal curiosity and a desire to maybe explore his warging abilities, namely for personal reasons instead of for the greater good of the NW.



Do I personally wish him dead, no. But if Ned cut that guy's head off for running from the WW's then that really sets a precedent. And even if BR is doing great work for the kingdom up there, he still left his watch. So we can't bend the rules just because we like him more than others right?



But one thing I dont understand, I'm sure you guys do. Do deserters only get executed if they flee south of the wall instead of north of it? Because none of the people who fled north of the wall seem to get punished for it. BR, Craster, Mance.......


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...