In Defense of Freys

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, INCBlackbird said:

so walder murdered people, manderly murdered people.... again, not even taking the pie thing into account...

Tell me, if the story had been told from the Frey's perspective, would you be saying the same thing? I don't think so. honestly, I'm trying to be objective here....

In fairness Wolves has always been very consistent in his perspective. He has never tried to be objective and has always been honest about being biased towards the North and celebrating Northern/Stark actions that he would condemn Lannisters/Boltons/Freys for.

[watcher of the night]

22 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

No, I understand. I have been quite clear throughout this thread. Both parties did something wrong. When Aegon V made an marriage alliance with the Lyonal Baratheon and he broke his word the Storm King went to war. (and no Baratheons died or fought for that broken promise)

I just find it funny and a little hypocritical how you will focus on Guest Rights and then downplay what Robb did. They both screwed each other.

The Freys should have no complaints for what Wyman or the Brotherhood do just like Robb should have no complaints for what the Freys did.

Yes. The Red Wedding was a military surprise attack.

Allies? Would an ally say this? " but Ser Ryman took him with the rest. All their strength. The Greatjon urged me to attack them . . ."

or this; "I never meant to. Ser Stevron died for me, and Olyvar was as loyal a squire as any king could want. He asked to stay with me, but Ser Ryman took him with the rest. All their strength. The Greatjon urged me to attack them . . ."

They were not allies. Robb needed the Freys, nothing more.

At that point they were still allies.

To me it seems that you don't want to understand the difference between a sneak attack on an enemy vs. backstabbing of an ally who came to a wedding. I am not saying this is puzzling since admitting the difference won't fit your narrative. Ignore it as much you wish there is still a difference.

[Buried Treasure]

 

3 minutes ago, INCBlackbird said:

so walder murdered people, manderly murdered people.... again, not even taking the pie thing into account...

Tell me, if the story had been told from the Frey's perspective, would you be saying the same thing? I don't think so. honestly, I'm trying to be objective here....

Manderly murdered people not under his protection. Frey murdered people under his protection. The latter is worse.

 

I understand the moral of Manderly's murder and cannabalism as that he broke taboos, but lesser taboos, and  that the gods would forgive that in revenge because the scales needed righting from the greater taboo of the guest-slaying.

[watcher of the night]

16 minutes ago, INCBlackbird said:

and the red wedding was a reaction to Robb's betrayal. just because it was a reaction doesn't make it right. Like I said, it's stooping to his level, by doing that Maderly lowered himself, showed himself to be no better then Walder himself. And he might not have broken guestright but he did practically the same thing, he just waited till when they were outside his house.

and I wanted to reply this was well:

I see this all the time, things are excused because "in the story" they are normal or stuff like that. people bring up honor as if it's the most important thing in the world because in the story it's considered valuable. I don't live in the story, I don't live in a society like that, I don't have those morals and I don't agree with those morals, so why should I judge situations based on those flawed morals?

I would like to add that when it comes to judging character's actions, I do consider those morals when judging the characters, because they live in a society where those "morals" are considered the norm. I'm not going to judge a slaver for being a slaver when he lives in a society where slavery is normal for example. But when it comes to Walder, he felt wronged and took revenge, I don't agree with his revenge (and in general I'm not a big fan of revenge) and I think he's a bad person for all the innocent people who died by his hands, but I don't give a crap if he killed people while being bound by guest right or not.... it doesn't make killing any better or worse.

Flawed morals? You mean the guest right? So let's just kill anyone anywhere? 

Apparently you are not considering the morals of the society since you blatantly ignore guest right.

Again if you don't want to understand the difference between a sneak attack on an enemy vs. slaugthering of your own allies at a wedding then there is no point to argue any further.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Just now, watcher of the night said:

At that point they were still allies.

They were still 'allies' when the Greatjon wanted to attack them.

Just now, watcher of the night said:

To me it seems that you don't want to understand the difference between a sneak attack on an enemy vs. backstabbing of an ally who came to a wedding.

I see the difference. The Freys were worse but that does not change the fact that the Freys had legitimate grievance with Robb's broken word that resulted hundreds of Frey deaths and their very House being in danger.  It also does not change the fact that Robb's military career was full of times when he caught his enemies with their pants down.

Just now, watcher of the night said:

 

I am not saying this is puzzling since admitting the difference won't fit your narrative. Ignore it as much you wish there is still a difference.

Never claimed there was not. But they both did wrong. Yet you seem to downplay Robb's actions as just a refusal to marry ignoring the price the Freys paid for that alliance and it was a price they could never get back.

It is one thing to pay a dowry in Gold and have a marriage called off and it is quite another when that marriage dowry was hundreds of Frey lives.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

4 minutes ago, Buried Treasure said:

 

Manderly murdered people not under his protection. Frey murdered people under his protection. The latter is worse.

 

I understand the moral of Manderly's murder and cannabalism as that he broke taboos, but lesser taboos, and  that the gods would forgive that in revenge because the scales needed righting from the greater taboo of the guest-slaying.

Lesser taboos in the North, not necessarily the South.

One notable custom that the Northmen hold dearer than any other is guest right, the tradition of hospitality by which a man may offer no harm to a guest beneath his roof, nor a guest to his host. The Andals held to something like it as well, but it looms less large in southron minds. In his text Justice and Injustice in the North: Judgments of Three Stark Lords, Maester Egbert notes that crimes in the North in which guest right was violated were rare but were invariably treated as harshly as the direst of treasons. Only kinslaying is deemed as sinful as the violations of these laws of hospitality.

 

[Ygrain]

9 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

Again if you don't want to understand the difference between a sneak attack on an enemy vs. slaugthering of your own allies at a wedding then there is no point to argue any further.

It's basically the same as claiming that it is perfectly alright to invite someone to parley and then kill them instead of parleying.

[watcher of the night]

2 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

It's basically the same as claiming that it is perfectly alright to invite someone to parley and then kill them instead of parleying.

Who claimed that?

 

ps. and yes honor matters.

[khal drogon]

13 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

Who claimed that?

 

ps. and yes honor matters.

I'm sure Manderly never cared about honor when he baked Freys into pies and fed it to his family. No "he didn't break the guest right" doesn't count. 

I have no issues with Northmen taking revenge but please don't claim any moral high ground. 

[The Wolves]

40 minutes ago, INCBlackbird said:

so walder murdered people, manderly murdered people.... again, not even taking the pie thing into account...

Tell me, if the story had been told from the Frey's perspective, would you be saying the same thing? I don't think so. honestly, I'm trying to be objective here....

Even if the story had been told from the Freys perspectives I would still be hating and saying the exact same thing. 

But it was Robb who broke his oath to the Freys yet it was also Wyman's son and White Harbor men who was murdered along with other kin. 

Wyman went after the Freys who he think played a part in his sons/kin/men murders. That is the big difference between Walder and Wyman. 

And the Freys knew it was Robb and Robb alone who wronged them yet they didn't differentiate between Robb, his men, River men, even family members and when they massacred them. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

24 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

It's basically the same as claiming that it is perfectly alright to invite someone to parley and then kill them instead of parleying.

Or killing sleeping children in their cells. Yet another reason why the Freys would want revenge.

And can I ask who said the Red Wedding was 'perfectly all right'? No one has made that claim, some are just pointing out that the Freys were betrayed first and were getting revenge just like the Manderlys are with the Freys. None of these actions are ''perfectly all right' but they can be justified in a world were there is little recourse to get suitable justice for when you have been wronged.

 

[The Wolves]

34 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Lesser taboos in the North, not necessarily the South.

One notable custom that the Northmen hold dearer than any other is guest right, the tradition of hospitality by which a man may offer no harm to a guest beneath his roof, nor a guest to his host. The Andals held to something like it as well, but it looms less large in southron minds. In his text Justice and Injustice in the North: Judgments of Three Stark Lords, Maester Egbert notes that crimes in the North in which guest right was violated were rare but were invariably treated as harshly as the direst of treasons. Only kinslaying is deemed as sinful as the violations of these laws of hospitality.

 

Of course it doesn't matter much in the South. 

Say what you want about the North but I rather sit at a table with them than any Southron lord. 

[Ygrain]

45 minutes ago, watcher of the night said:

Who claimed that?

Just trying to give a modern day parallel to what the Freys did.

[norwaywolf123]

35 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Of course it doesn't matter much in the South. 

Say what you want about the North but I rather sit at a table with them than any Southron lord. 

Should stay in teh North then

[Ygrain]

3 minutes ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Should stay in teh North then

Lol, the Freys should have stayed South then.

Really, it was their own chutzpah that got them killed - so satisfied with themselves, thinking Wyman cowed and themselves untouchable. Funny how those who disregarded guestright in the first place were so complacent about themselves being protected by it after rubbing shit in their host's face. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

6 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Lol, the Freys should have stayed South then.

Yep, they should have. Though I imagine that part of their deal with the Crown and Roose was to support Roose in his bid to rid the North of Stannis. The Freys, unlike other unnamed parties, at least try to honour agreements they have made.

6 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Really, it was their own chutzpah that got them killed - so satisfied with themselves, thinking Wyman cowed and themselves untouchable. Funny how those who disregarded guestright in the first place were so complacent about themselves being protected by it after rubbing shit in their host's face. 

True. They have no one but themselves to blame for what happened when they ventured North. The North, like the Freys, want revenge for being betrayed.

[The Wolves]

16 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Lol, the Freys should have stayed South then.

Really, it was their own chutzpah that got them killed - so satisfied with themselves, thinking Wyman cowed and themselves untouchable. Funny how those who disregarded guestright in the first place were so complacent about themselves being protected by it after rubbing shit in their host's face. 

Word none of them bitches going back to the Twins. 

Winter, Stannis, and Northmen gone make sure of that. 

Kill them all and let the gods sort them out  

 

 

 

[ForTheNorth]

21 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

What I find hilarious is that it is not so much the killing that people find offensive but the breaking of guest rights.

Robb is allowed to attack a sleeping army and kill with abandon and that is perfectly justified but because Robb was offered Tea and Crumpets before he was attacked then all Freys, regardless of their involvement,  should die.

The fact that you can't see the difference is scary. Is that you Tywin?

[ForTheNorth]

Guest Right probably means just as much today on our world as Martin's at least in some parts of the world in Asia and the middle east in particular even in war. It's also historically apart of European history. In Scotland there are examples that are still a sore point amongst clans today.

 

Arguing for the Freys is ignoring the narrative of GRRM's story and morality in our world of which alot of Martin's story is based 

[dRagonese]

22 hours ago, JonisHenryTudor said:

Fair enough. Personally I dislike the Frey's because I love the Starks . For me, they are the only interesting part of the story. I like Tyrion, Gendry, Stannis, and perhaps a few others (yes even the Others ) I admit my animoxity is for taking out one of my favorite characters, however, I will say that I don't necessarily want every Frey taken out...just Walder and the main perps. The random Frey who was probably gnawing on carrots somewhere doesn't deserve to suffer, but I think part of the issue is we see houses, not necessarily people. If that makes any sense.... 

are you saying some people only see broad things like family name or  race .... thats preposterous