North defeat war of five kings

[cpg2016]

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

I don't think Walder agreed to Catelyn's deal in bad faith to be honest.

The Freys, after all, serve Robb better than any other House pre-Jeyne Westerling.

No, they explicitly do not.  Even before they hear of the wedding to Jeyne, they are searching for a way to jump ship.  We hear them being spineless cowards who want to sue for peace when they debate it with Roose.  So actually, by almost any way of looking at it, they're one of the very worst of Robb's bannermen.

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

Stevron, Walder's heir and House Frey's only hope for stability once the old man croaks dies serving Robb, Frey men are present at pretty much every single one of Robb's battles and die for him.

Ditto every single other noble House?  The fact that they fight for Robb isn't a demonstration of loyalty - it's literally the bare minimum.

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

Not only that, but by allowing Robb to pass, Walder becomes the sole reason that the Northern Rebellion is allowed to perdure more than a couple of months.

He doesn't "allow" anything.  His help is bought, which is in direct contradiction to every single other House.  He's the ONLY Riverlord or Northerner who doesn't willingly give aid to Robb.  The only one!  

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

House Frey committed high treason by siding with Robb, and painted a massive target on his back. Greed took over him and he went all in on the Northern gamble, which ended up screwing him over. Not to mention, even after the Tyrells flock to Joffrey's side, when Arya overhears the Freys talking in secret at Harrenhall, they do not speak of betrayal, but of convincing Robb that the cause is lost and that bending the knee would be the smart thing to do.

Again, "cause is lost, bend the knee" isn't "most loyal vassal" talk.  It's opportunistic swindler talk.  The Freys exacted a heavy price for their loyalty and almost immediately go back on it.  And at the time, House Frey commits no treason - Lannister forces (not royal forces, you'll note) are illegally vandalizing the Riverlands, and allowing an equal power to come through to help is not treason.

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

Robb first entering the deal in good faith and then acting like an overly sentimental idiot doesn't make his betrayal any less of a betrayal, or any less of a slap in the face for a man who uncharacteristically risked it all on him.

Walder Frey didn't "risk it all" for Robb, as we very clearly see.  Walder Frey drove an incredibly hard bargain that he shouldn't have been in a position to do in the first place - he's only able to drive said bargain because he was welching on his feudal obligations to the Tullys!  Again, his entire position of strength is built on a well-deserved reputation for cowardice, double-dealing, and keeping an eye out for the main chance.

So no, Walder Frey is not acting in good faith.  He is deliberately withholding his troops from the conflict so that he can extract the best possible price from any suitors for his support, despite his obligation to be helping Edmure.  Right off the bat, he's a bad actor.

And yes, Robb "betrays" his deal with Walder, but given that Walder is not actually a loyal supporter, but actually a mercenary willing to switch sides, it sort of lessens Robb's moral obligation.

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

Leaving Robb after he makes it clear he can no longer fulfill his end of the bargain (by his own volition) is not betrayal on the Frey's part either, it's common sense. 

I didn't say it was.  But the Freys are planning on leaving Robb before his marriage to Jeyne.  While he couldn't know it, Robb has already been liberated from the restrictions of his vow, because the Freys have betrayed their end of it first, by advocating a conciliatory line to the Lannisters and plotting to desert Robb's cause.  Which, again, is the victory at the Blackwater, not Robb's wedding.

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

Robb's attempts to make amends can hardly be said to be in good faith either, he's not doing it because he feels sorry for going back on his word for the most superficial of reasons, he's doing so because his idiocy lost him the war if Frey doesn't agree to join back with him again.

He's making amends because he thinks it is the right to do, and also because it is militarily and politically intelligent.  His commentary and attitude could not be more clear on this.

But I also have to say, I don't think you understand the concept of "good faith".  Whatever Robb's motives, he is committed to making amends with Walder Frey.  That is good faith bargaining; the idea that at the time, he means to keep to his deal, which is unquestionably true, both in the first place and when he tried to make amends.  Walder Frey is NOT acting in good faith because he is only intending to keep his word for as long as it is to his benefit, as we see repeatedly throughout his tenure as Lord of the Crossing.  That is bad faith.

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

In any case, Frey was an assh*le for taking a side in the first place, he should have simply let the Stark and Baratheon-Lannister forces duke it out in the first place, he was right to assume early on that the whole thing was none of his business and that whatever side he chose he'd be an oathbreaker. The smart thing would have been to do nothing.

You seem to have as little idea of what an oath entails as Walder Frey, and as little understanding of the chronology of the books as someone who hasn't read them.

Walder Frey is obligated to take a side.  That is Lord Tully's side, which is, when Robb shows up, being attacked without provocation by the Lannisters.  He does not heed Edmure's call to arms, which is not a legal choice for him, it is his feudal duty.  As I said, he's already in violation of his oaths, which was why he was able to sell his support so dearly in the first place.

So actually, the whole thing very much IS his business.  But he is a mercenary who changes sides based off what benefits him in the moment (e.g. a bad actor), so he sits it out.

The smart thing to do is to fight for the Tully's when asked, which is his duty and won't be held against him, and when it becomes clear Joffrey has won, trade on his close Lannister connections and make amends.  The profitable thing to do is nothing, and wait to commit to the winning side.

[falcotron]

@cpg2016, I agree with 99% of what you say, but two little quibbles:

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

And yes, Robb "betrays" his deal with Walder, but given that Walder is not actually a loyal supporter, but actually a mercenary willing to switch sides, it sort of lessens Robb's moral obligation.

Agreed, of course, but it also makes Robb's betrayal a bigger mistake. If you let someone like Walder Frey down, you're giving him an opportunity and a rationalization to damage your cause. At the very least you should expect him to insist that he's no longer bound by the original deal and strike a new bargain, and now he has a position of greater strength, and a petty motive to stick it to you added to his usual selfish motives.

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

Walder Frey is obligated to take a side.  That is Lord Tully's side, which is, when Robb shows up, being attacked without provocation by the Lannisters.  He does not heed Edmure's call to arms, which is not a legal choice for him, it is his feudal duty.  As I said, he's already in violation of his oaths, which was why he was able to sell his support so dearly in the first place.

So actually, the whole thing very much IS his business.  But he is a mercenary who changes sides based off what benefits him in the moment (e.g. a bad actor), so he sits it out.

The smart thing to do is to fight for the Tully's when asked, which is his duty and won't be held against him, and when it becomes clear Joffrey has won, trade on his close Lannister connections and make amends.  The profitable thing to do is nothing, and wait to commit to the winning side.

Walder actually was pretty smart here. While Edmure complains that he's done nothing, that isn't quite true. His men captured some of Addam Marbrand's outriders, which is enough to prove that he is fighting the Lannisters, and also to argue that the road to the Twins needs to be protected. It's the least possible contribution he could make, but he's careful to make that least possible contribution rather than none at all. And he's even later able to parlay that contribution into seeming like more than it was, when Cat says that keeping Marbrand from learning that Robb split his forces is the most important thing. He's sleazy, and about as far from being a "leal and true" lord as you can get without actual treason, but he's not stupid.

[cpg2016]

45 minutes ago, falcotron said:

@cpg2016, I agree with 99% of what you say, but two little quibbles:

Agreed, of course, but it also makes Robb's betrayal a bigger mistake. If you let someone like Walder Frey down, you're giving him an opportunity and a rationalization to damage your cause. At the very least you should expect him to insist that he's no longer bound by the original deal and strike a new bargain, and now he has a position of greater strength, and a petty motive to stick it to you added to his usual selfish motives.

Walder actually was pretty smart here. While Edmure complains that he's done nothing, that isn't quite true. His men captured some of Addam Marbrand's outriders, which is enough to prove that he is fighting the Lannisters, and also to argue that the road to the Twins needs to be protected. It's the least possible contribution he could make, but he's careful to make that least possible contribution rather than none at all. And he's even later able to parlay that contribution into seeming like more than it was, when Cat says that keeping Marbrand from learning that Robb split his forces is the most important thing. He's sleazy, and about as far from being a "leal and true" lord as you can get without actual treason, but he's not stupid.

I'm not arguing he's stupid.  I think he's smart, but greedy and shortsighted, which is why his House is likely to be more or less exterminated by the end of the books.  Penny wise, pound foolish, as they say.

As for Robb.... well, look.  The guy had suffered physical and extreme emotional trauma in a short period of time.  Robb's actions are understandable from that perspective, and to his credit, he immediately offers a major dynastic prize in Edmure.  Walder's price was exorbitant in the first place, and probably cost Robb the war (as in, marrying some more powerful noble lady would have been FAR more advantageous; if he marries Margaery, he probably ends up sitting on the Iron Throne).  So in many ways, Walder's avarice dooms the Stark cause from the start.

And mind you, Walder DOES demand a new deal and Robb agrees!  Hence the whole point about good faith.  Obviously in the second case, Walder is actively working to massacre the Starks, but we have a pattern of behavior here which must inevitably point to the fact that Jeyne Westerling marriage or no, Walder was going to find a way to betray Robb.

[falcotron]

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

As for Robb.... well, look.  The guy had suffered physical and extreme emotional trauma in a short period of time.  Robb's actions are understandable from that perspective

Sure, Robb's mistakes are understandable, judging him as a person. But they're still mistakes, and they're still why he lost the war. I don't think that makes him a bad person or anything. It's just that objectively, those mistakes (plus some bad luck, obviously) are why he lost the war, far more than any brilliance by his enemy, or incompetence by his underlings, or anything he did that was actually wrong rather than mistaken, etc.

[Sullen]

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

No, they explicitly do not.  Even before they hear of the wedding to Jeyne, they are searching for a way to jump ship.  We hear them being spineless cowards who want to sue for peace when they debate it with Roose.  So actually, by almost any way of looking at it, they're one of the very worst of Robb's bannermen.

Treacherous bannermen wouldn't have discussed how they could convince Robb the war was lost, they would have automatically discussed how they were going to betray him. They're not trying to jump ship, they're thinking of saving their, and everyone's, asses by making Robb bend the knee.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Ditto every single other noble House?  The fact that they fight for Robb isn't a demonstration of loyalty - it's literally the bare minimum.

House Frey is the House fielding the most out of any of Robb's allies if you believe most estimations of the makeup of Robb's forces. 

While "proud Northern Houses" like the Dustins, the Manderly's, or the Boltons specifically withhold some of their forces, House Frey pretty much goes "All In" in order to maximize the chances that Robb comes out of the War the victor, seeing as they have so much to gain from it.

It's entirely self-serving on their part, but they remain the number one contributors to Robb's cause once he manages to buy their loyalty.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

He doesn't "allow" anything.  His help is bought, which is in direct contradiction to every single other House.  He's the ONLY Riverlord or Northerner who doesn't willingly give aid to Robb.  The only one!  

His help is bought, yes, it still is the only thing allowing Robb and the Northern cause's survival. Without Frey being tempted, Tywin wins, and all of the big players are well aware of that. Again, it's self-serving on Walder's part, but it still a massive game changer that paints Frey as guilty for keeping the rebellion alive from King's Landing's PoV.

Also, to say that he's the only one not to willingly give Robb aid is disingenuous. Many Northern lords weasel out of truly aiding Robb's cause, and Lord Umber pretty much has to be threatened with death after suggesting committing high treason before he comes on Robb's side.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Again, "cause is lost, bend the knee" isn't "most loyal vassal" talk.  It's opportunistic swindler talk.  The Freys exacted a heavy price for their loyalty and almost immediately go back on it.  And at the time, House Frey commits no treason - Lannister forces (not royal forces, you'll note) are illegally vandalizing the Riverlands, and allowing an equal power to come through to help is not treason.

If they buy that the cause is truly lost, then yes, discussing how they can convince Robb to bend the knee is not treason or opportunistic swindler talk, it's common sense. For the record, I share the same view of Alester Florent for doing the same thing on Stannis's side, though Florent ended up acting without his King's approval.

Also, that the forces are only Lannister forces is only true while Robert was still alive, by the time Robb gets there and Walder decides to side with him, it's perfectly clear who Joffrey and the Crown sides with in the whole conflict. Allowing declared rebels to cross his lands and then sending most of his army with them very much is treason.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Walder Frey didn't "risk it all" for Robb, as we very clearly see.  Walder Frey drove an incredibly hard bargain that he shouldn't have been in a position to do in the first place - he's only able to drive said bargain because he was welching on his feudal obligations to the Tullys!  Again, his entire position of strength is built on a well-deserved reputation for cowardice, double-dealing, and keeping an eye out for the main chance.

By siding with the Tullys against the King's family, he'd be betraying the King. Again, whose loyalty lies with whom can end up being very grey in feudal society, and Walder is simply pointing out that he'd rather not anger anyone powerful by declaring for one side above another.

It's smart, and it's perfectly justifiable on his part.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

So no, Walder Frey is not acting in good faith.  He is deliberately withholding his troops from the conflict so that he can extract the best possible price from any suitors for his support, despite his obligation to be helping Edmure.  Right off the bat, he's a bad actor.

Not really, initially he has no intentions whatsoever to let Robb and the Northerners pass through, he's not initially trying to get the most out of the situation, but is trying to risk as little as possible. It takes Catelyn a full day of talks before she can even get him to consider declaring for a side.

And again, as Walder points out, he has obligations to help Edmure, he has obligations to help the King.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And yes, Robb "betrays" his deal with Walder, but given that Walder is not actually a loyal supporter, but actually a mercenary willing to switch sides, it sort of lessens Robb's moral obligation.

Why the quotation marks? Robb's betrayal can be explained by him being young, dumb, and emotional, but they're no less a betrayal.

"Mercenary" only really describes Walder post-agreeing to serve Robb, before that he's entirely characterized by trying to stay as out as he can out of everything that poses the least bit a risk to him and his House, and until the betrayal, to say that he is willing to switch sides is untrue, the fact that he entered the deal as a third party makes Robb having to uphold his end of the bargain even more necessary, it doesn't lessen Robb's moral obligation whatsoever, hell, you could argue that Robb screws over ALL of his vassals by driving Frey away for nothing, he lost them their most precious allies and endangers all of them, simply because he couldn't keep it in his pants.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I didn't say it was.  But the Freys are planning on leaving Robb before his marriage to Jeyne.  While he couldn't know it, Robb has already been liberated from the restrictions of his vow, because the Freys have betrayed their end of it first, by advocating a conciliatory line to the Lannisters and plotting to desert Robb's cause.  Which, again, is the victory at the Blackwater, not Robb's wedding.

They're not planning to leave, they're planning to convince Robb to surrender, that is not betrayal.

Also, to say that Robb doesn't have to uphold his end of the bargain because the Freys think the cause is lost is blatant apologism.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

He's making amends because he thinks it is the right to do, and also because it is militarily and politically intelligent.  His commentary and attitude could not be more clear on this.

Considering how vehemently he defends his decision to marry Jayne (as well as the comment about Westerling blood being "purer" than Frey blood), it absolutely isn't because he understands how wrong what he did was.

He's doing it because otherwise he's done for, this cannot be argued.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

But I also have to say, I don't think you understand the concept of "good faith".  Whatever Robb's motives, he is committed to making amends with Walder Frey.  That is good faith bargaining; the idea that at the time, he means to keep to his deal, which is unquestionably true, both in the first place and when he tried to make amends.

Walder also meant to keep up his end of the bargain initially, not his fault that Robb willingly broke his end of it.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Walder Frey is NOT acting in good faith because he is only intending to keep his word for as long as it is to his benefit, as we see repeatedly throughout his tenure as Lord of the Crossing.  That is bad faith.

If by "As long as it is to his benefit" you mean "As long as he gets his marriage with Robb and Arya out of it", I completely agree with you.

Alas, that boat had sailed, with no fault of Walder's.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You seem to have as little idea of what an oath entails as Walder Frey, and as little understanding of the chronology of the books as someone who hasn't read them.

Mate, I'm not the one with so little knowledge of the series' chronology as to claim that by the time Walder takes Robb's side, the Lannisters don't have the King's backing or who is too close-minded and stubborn as to ignore the notion that Walder swore an oath to the Crown as well as to House Tully.

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Walder Frey is obligated to take a side.  That is Lord Tully's side, which is, when Robb shows up, being attacked without provocation by the Lannisters.  He does not heed Edmure's call to arms, which is not a legal choice for him, it is his feudal duty.  As I said, he's already in violation of his oaths, which was why he was able to sell his support so dearly in the first place.

So actually, the whole thing very much IS his business.  But he is a mercenary who changes sides based off what benefits him in the moment (e.g. a bad actor), so he sits it out.

The smart thing to do is to fight for the Tully's when asked, which is his duty and won't be held against him, and when it becomes clear Joffrey has won, trade on his close Lannister connections and make amends.  The profitable thing to do is nothing, and wait to commit to the winning side.

Keep your head hidden in the sand and ignoring Walder's obligations to the Crown, mate.

He sits out and does the bare minimum as to not piss off anyone and uphold his oaths, he'd prefer not to have to take any risks at all, that's whole crux of his character. That's why he sits out of Robert's Rebellion rather than try to profit off of it, that's why he wanted to sit out of the whole Lannisters v. Tullys affair, that's why it was so hard for Catelyn to convince him to uncharacteristically take a risk on Robb.

[Bowen 747]

On 10/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, Sullen said:

I don't think Walder agreed to Catelyn's deal in bad faith to be honest.

The Freys, after all, serve Robb better than any other House pre-Jeyne Westerling. Stevron, Walder's heir and House Frey's only hope for stability once the old man croaks dies serving Robb, Frey men are present at pretty much every single one of Robb's battles and die for him. Not only that, but by allowing Robb to pass, Walder becomes the sole reason that the Northern Rebellion is allowed to perdure more than a couple of months. House Frey committed high treason by siding with Robb, and painted a massive target on his back. Greed took over him and he went all in on the Northern gamble, which ended up screwing him over. Not to mention, even after the Tyrells flock to Joffrey's side, when Arya overhears the Freys talking in secret at Harrenhall, they do not speak of betrayal, but of convincing Robb that the cause is lost and that bending the knee would be the smart thing to do.

Robb first entering the deal in good faith and then acting like an overly sentimental idiot doesn't make his betrayal any less of a betrayal, or any less of a slap in the face for a man who uncharacteristically risked it all on him. Leaving Robb after he makes it clear he can no longer fulfill his end of the bargain (by his own volition) is not betrayal on the Frey's part either, it's common sense. 

Robb's attempts to make amends can hardly be said to be in good faith either, he's not doing it because he feels sorry for going back on his word for the most superficial of reasons, he's doing so because his idiocy lost him the war if Frey doesn't agree to join back with him again. To add insult to injury, he specifically mentions that he needs the Frey men (who have already died for him in considerable numbers) for his suicidal assault on Moat Cailin against Victarion's forces, which are fully garrisoned at that point, seeing as the Kingsmoot has yet to be called.

In any case, Frey was an assh*le for taking a side in the first place, he should have simply let the Stark and Baratheon-Lannister forces duke it out in the first place, he was right to assume early on that the whole thing was none of his business and that whatever side he chose he'd be an oathbreaker. The smart thing would have been to do nothing.

I will take Walder Frey's side over the Stark side any day.  The Freys had no choice.  They had to either let Robb pass or they can look forward to the northern barbarians attacking The Twins.  Prospects for his house would look mighty grim if Robb and the Tullys should come out of this war on top.  Robb put Walder in a very difficult position.  Supporting Robb and the Tullys meant betraying a the higher authority of the king.  I do not blame the Freys for the red wedding.  They never asked to go to war in the first place.  Hoster's daughter took it upon herself to kidnap the son of the most powerful man in the kingdom for the sake of one crippled little boy.  Robb decides to take his banners to war instead of bending knee to his king.  Ned confesses to treason.  The Starks looked like the instigators of this war from the point of view of the public.

I don't think Walder was being greedy.  He's in the same situation that Eustace Osgrey was during the Blackfyre wars.  Sitting this one out was not an option.  He had to choose and he chose to side with the party that had his castle already surrounded.  And on the matter of sealing the deal with a marriage oaths, yeah, that is pretty standard practice.  Hoster asked the same from Jon Arryn before he joined the rebellion. 

Catelyn should have taken the matter to Robert and let him decide instead of taking it upon herself to take Tyrion to trial. 

Robb was going to lose this war because his judgment is poor.  He doesn't know when to flex and show mercy and when to get tough.  Breaking his oaths to Walder Frey is an abandonment of his duties as the leader of his men.  Losing an ally due to his own horrible behavior put his men in greater danger because they have now lost their most powerful ally.  He does something that really hurt their cause and then executes his loyal bannerman for something relatively minor.  Robb forgave himself for breaking his vows to the Freys and so he should have forgiven Karstark.  You cannot please everybody and make them happy, but the smart leader will keep the people that supports him or her happy and displease the enemy instead. 

[The Frosted King]

Honestly, Robb was screwed by the plot, as much as by what he didn't know.

Now, lets just assume Jon Snow is the trueborn son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. That kind of political currency would straight crack Westeros in half.

Now lets also assume that Ned Stark had true, viable proof of Jon's parentage. If Robb had that in his backpocket, he could leverage a potential Targaryen restoration over the heads of the southern kings, and nearly all would bend over backwards to remove the dragon shaped shadow from the playing field.

The Lannisters/Baratheons agree to release the north and riverlands from the grasp of the iron throne, and Jon Snow proclaims his blood, and disavows his family claim to Dragonstone and the Red Keep.

Robb had potentially the best coin in his purse, better than Lannister gold, or Tyrell grain or Baratheon fervor.

But he didn't know what he had, and couldn't maximize the potential.

[Blackfish Tully]

On 10/5/2017 at 9:44 AM, Bowen 747 said:

 

Robb was going to lose this war because his judgment is poor.  

Robb lost the war because a shadow baby killed Renly , it had nothing to do with his judgement . Before Renly died Robb had beaten the Lannister's in several battles , driven them out of the Riverlands (except Harrenhall ) and had a army ravaging the Westerlands . Tywin was the one who was losing the war badly until the shadow baby handed him a massive Reach army on a silver platter . 

 

Ser Kevan did as he was bid. Lord Tywin unrolled the leather, smoothing it flat. "Jaime has left us in a bad way. Roose Bolton and the remnants of his host are north of us. Our enemies hold the Twins and Moat Cailin. Robb Stark sits to the west, so we cannot retreat to Lannisport and the Rock unless we choose to give battle. Jaime is taken, and his army for all purposes has ceased to exist. Thoros of Myr and Beric Dondarrion continue to plague our foraging parties. To our east we have the Arryns, Stannis Baratheon sits on Dragonstone, and in the south Highgarden and Storm's End are calling their banners."

Tyrion smiled crookedly. "Take heart, Father. At least Rhaegar Targaryen is still dead."

 

[cpg2016]

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

Treacherous bannermen wouldn't have discussed how they could convince Robb the war was lost, they would have automatically discussed how they were going to betray him. They're not trying to jump ship, they're thinking of saving their, and everyone's, asses by making Robb bend the knee.

Well we (and presumably they, since the Freys are privy to Robb's councils) know that bending the knee isn't possible.  Demanding a peace which they know cannot be had is just a way to give themselves an excuse to jump ship.  After Robb declares himself, not one other person seems to speak of peace.  So the fact that the Freys do is more than suggestive.  Besides, and I'll repeat this, Martin has said that Walder would have switched sides with or without the Jeyne Westerling marriage.  That's the voice of god, right there.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

House Frey is the House fielding the most out of any of Robb's allies if you believe most estimations of the makeup of Robb's forces. 

While "proud Northern Houses" like the Dustins, the Manderly's, or the Boltons specifically withhold some of their forces, House Frey pretty much goes "All In" in order to maximize the chances that Robb comes out of the War the victor, seeing as they have so much to gain from it.

It's entirely self-serving on their part, but they remain the number one contributors to Robb's cause once he manages to buy their loyalty.

Well, I am in the camp that believes this is a major mistake on GRRMs part (he's rather contradictory about the relative power of the Freys and other Houses).  In fact, the only way to reconcile would kind of make sense for the Freys; they're troops aren't levies, they are permanent forces paid for by the tolls they charge, and thus, those men aren't needed in the fields for harvest (the explicit reason Robb doesn't march with all his bannermen's forces). 

Point being, more likely is that GRRM made a worldbuilding error in making the Freys so strong, relatively, but even if not, they're the only House that has no excuse not to provide a full complement of forces.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

His help is bought, yes, it still is the only thing allowing Robb and the Northern cause's survival. Without Frey being tempted, Tywin wins, and all of the big players are well aware of that.

This is obviously untrue.  Without Walder's hell, Robb doesn't have the absolutely smashing victory at the Whispering Woods and the Camps.  That being said, he also probably does better at the Green Fork, which helps offset.

Walder Frey has a feudal obligation to let Robb pass, in the sense that Robb is going to help Frey's feudal overlord (which Walder pointedly doesn't do).  He is essentially actively declaring his independence from the Tullys by not only not actively helping himself, but actively restraining their allies from helping.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

Also, to say that he's the only one not to willingly give Robb aid is disingenuous. Many Northern lords weasel out of truly aiding Robb's cause, and Lord Umber pretty much has to be threatened with death after suggesting committing high treason before he comes on Robb's side.

Whole bunch of nopes, here.  First off, Umber's respect is earned through threat of strength/violence, but his support is willingly given.  We know of two Houses that act like the Frey's; the Boltons, and to a lesser extent, the Dustins.  But either way, when Robb calls, they answer.  Maybe as little as they dare, but they come in force.  When the Tullys call, the Freys don't answer, at all.  A level of feudal disloyalty unmatched.  There is a strong argument to be made that Hoster's mental instability and Edmure's capture means that, currently, Brynden and potentially even Catelyn should be considered Lord/Lady of Riverrun.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

By siding with the Tullys against the King's family, he'd be betraying the King. Again, whose loyalty lies with whom can end up being very grey in feudal society, and Walder is simply pointing out that he'd rather not anger anyone powerful by declaring for one side above another.

OK, couple things here.  First, the Lannisters are very explicitly not the King's family.  He is a Baratheon, or he's not the king (I mean, we know he isn't, but you get the point).  Second, while you are right about the theoretical conflicting loyalties, in practice we've seen that loyalty flows up the feudal food chain, so to speak.  When it does not, it's a sure sign that the lower house is looking to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their liege.  Look at the Blackfyre Rebellions, where the major supporters were Houses look to supplant the regional Lord Paramount.  Walder is explicitly holding out for the best bargain, which isn't loyalty at all; he's a mercenary.  If he committed to fighting for Joffrey, or Stannis, then that is being loyal.  Committing to no one and fighting for the highest bidder is contemptible and erases any claim you might make to his loyalty.  He's bought, and he only stays bought as long as the opponent doesn't offer more.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

Not really, initially he has no intentions whatsoever to let Robb and the Northerners pass through, he's not initially trying to get the most out of the situation, but is trying to risk as little as possible. It takes Catelyn a full day of talks before she can even get him to consider declaring for a side.

And again, as Walder points out, he has obligations to help Edmure, he has obligations to help the King.

Right, and you'll notice I come back to this - he's not fulfilling either of those obligations!  He's actively out there killing Lannisters, so he certainly isn't loyal to Joffrey's cause.  And he isn't helping his currently besieged lord, so he isn't doing that.  So the word loyalty doesn't apply to him from the word "go".  Even Stannis is willing to admit that people might fight for Joffrey or Robb believing it to be right; Walder isn't one of those people.  He's waiting to see which way the wind blows before he jumps, which is, again, the definition of disloyal.  So what do we know for a fact?  He has obligations to at least two parties, and is ignoring them.  The only reason he "fulfills" those obligations is because his help is explicitly bought.  And he wants to be bought, which is why he invites the Northerners in to parlay in the first place.  It's a negotiation on price.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

"Mercenary" only really describes Walder post-agreeing to serve Robb, before that he's entirely characterized by trying to stay as out as he can out of everything that poses the least bit a risk to him and his House,

He isn't a neutral third party though.  As you point out, he owes allegiance to someone.  And he isn't giving it.  He's waiting to see who wins, or who makes the better offer.  How is that anything but mercenary?  His lordship of the Twins is based on his oath to fight for the Tullys; he was obligated to help them the second they called their banners.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

If they buy that the cause is truly lost, then yes, discussing how they can convince Robb to bend the knee is not treason or opportunistic swindler talk, it's common sense. For the record, I share the same view of Alester Florent for doing the same thing on Stannis's side, though Florent ended up acting without his King's approval.

Also, that the forces are only Lannister forces is only true while Robert was still alive, by the time Robb gets there and Walder decides to side with him, it's perfectly clear who Joffrey and the Crown sides with in the whole conflict. Allowing declared rebels to cross his lands and then sending most of his army with them very much is treason.

Alester Florent is a traitor too, as we see, one who disobeys the orders of his liege lord.  Moreover, the circumstances are entirely difficult; Stannis was just crushed on the Blackwater, whereas Robb has never lost a battle.

And those selfsame Lannister forces are raiding the Riverlands while being attainted for treason.  And the Freys are fighting them, if desultorily.  So no matter what, Walder is committing treason.  He is committing treason in not responding to his liege lord's call for aid, and he is committing treason in not assisting the king's forces.

So lets point this out again, since you don't seem to understand the basic premise: if Walder Frey committed to the Lannisters from the word "go", I wouldn't fault him as much, because as you say, he does theoretically owe an obligation to the throne (though, it's almost certain that he doesn't, since oaths are given to the direct superior, generally: he holds the Twins through the Tully's, not the throne, as opposed to the Whents and Harrenhal).  But he doesn't.  He is explicitly supporting neither side, and his reaction when the Northerners show up makes it implicitly clear that he's waiting for the best offer.  Actually, re-reading the text, Walder himself is explicit - he will lend aid to whoever "asks" him, which in context very clearly means whoever offers him the most.  He's a mercenary from the very beginning.

On 10/5/2017 at 1:37 AM, Sullen said:

say that he is willing to switch sides is untrue, the fact that he entered the deal as a third party makes Robb having to uphold his end of the bargain even more necessary, it doesn't lessen Robb's moral obligation whatsoever, hell, you could argue that Robb screws over ALL of his vassals by driving Frey away for nothing, he lost them their most precious allies and endangers all of them, simply because he couldn't keep it in his pants.

OK, lets unpack this.  First off, Robb has no obligation to Walder Frey; Walder Frey has an outstanding obligation to Robb's cause (which, at the time, is the relief of Riverrun).  Walder Frey is selling what he already owed for free, and doing it under duress, which is morally reprehensible.

Second, you are having a lot of trouble understanding the concept of negotiating in good faith.  Walder Frey enters a deal that he is willing to exit the second a better one comes along.  This is the definition of bad faith negotiating.  Robb, by contrast, means to stick to his signature (as it were), and demonstrates this by being more than willing to make it up to Lord Frey when he (very understandably) breaks that contract.

It's more than a little unfair to say that "he couldn't keep it in his pants."  He was in extreme emotional and (presumably) physical trauma, and there is some indirect evidence that he may have been even coerced into it by chemical means as well (given Sybelle Spicer's involvement in the whole thing).

But most of all, we need to return to the concept of feudal obligation and loyalty.  Walder Frey owes his loyalty somewhere, and one of those somewheres (and given the extenuating circumstances and the reaction of all the other Riverlords and Northeners, that somewhere is Riverrun).  He isn't giving.  He's holding himself in reserve so he can sell himself to the highest bidder, by his own admission.  And by GRRMs own admission, Walder was going to figure out a way to be on the winning side, no matter what.  Which means abandoning Robb after the Blackwater/Sack of Winterfell, after which his chances of winning the War plummet dramatically.  So we have a guy who won't fulfull his obligations and who we know will jump ship, thanks to authorial intrusion, for his own benefit.  Any contract signed with a person like that is null anyway; negotiating in bad faith is a thing in real life, and from an obligation standpoint, a vassal who won't honor their commitment forfeits any rights in return.