LiveFirstDieLater Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 17 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Talk about adding insult to injury. First he gets his throat cut, then he has his professionalism questioned. Haha Questioned? He may have been a nice person, an outstanding friend, and a beloved father fondly remembered by Poor Orphans #1 through #6... but he definitely failed at guarding the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 30 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Talk about adding insult to injury. First he gets his throat cut, then he has his professionalism questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldve Taken The Black Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Haha Questioned? He may have been a nice person, an outstanding friend, and a beloved father fondly remembered by Poor Orphans #1 through #6... but he definitely failed at guarding the door. I just don't want you on the jury if I ever get murdered "bloody idiot, had it coming". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: So a few things... This is a warzone... so let’s not pretend she’s murdering poor door guard #1 on some whim in some safe and civilized place. If you want to debate the morals of killing the insurance broker, that’s one thing. But Door Guard #1, poor as his demise was, was a soldier in a war zone and on duty serving to keep people prisoner against their will. Frankly, he should have been a better guard, this wasn’t weasel’s first betrayal. He was a casualty, sad maybe but hardly an atrocity. She was right not to tell Bolton who she is. He was already plotting with Tywin, wether Arya “knew” or “suspected” this was the case, serving as his personal page, could be debated, but either way she surely made the right choice. Point is that he's a Northman, one of her pack, not the enemy. If she killed a Lannister guard to escape the Mountain you wouldn't hear a cheep out of me but the situation is more complicated. They are northmen but not men she knows or trusts and apparently that's enough for some to condone the murder. I struggle to give her a pass for it. 1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: He broke his vows and abandoned his duty and sworn brothers. Not just Jon, but her uncle Benjen, and ancestors for thousands of years... there is every reason to believe she would respect the ancient orders and the laws of her home. We could debate the morals of those laws, but if the standard you expect characters to meet is that of a fare free open trial, you will be disappointed. The man who casts the sentence should swing the sword. That’s her father’s ethos, you might not agree with it, but it is what it is. Daeron knew his life was forfeit. As for it not being her business, she saw a wrong and carried out what she’s been taught is justice. The idea that one shouldn’t act unless it’s “your business” is scary, that’s how you get Nazis... of course vigilante justice is scary in its own right as well, but she’s doesn’t have much reason to expect justice being delivered any other way. Did she look into his eyes and hear his last words and decide he deserved to die? Because in story Darreon ended up in the NW because Matthis Rowan's daughter falsely accused him of rape when she got caught with the hot singer she let into her bed chamber. Arya is doing what she wants here because she is angry with him not because it's a noble act. To be clear I don't blame Darreon for deserting: he never volunteered to join the NW and he was never a criminal, just some poor sod sent to the Siberian gulag as part of a miscarriage of justice. But Arya didn't bother to find any of that out before she killed him and dumped him in the canal. It's not an act I can approve of as "justice" the way others seem to. Wait a minute now. Saying Arya shouldn't unilaterally decide to murder / execute Darreon is the road to Nazism? That's tosh man, Darreon is not a threat to anyone and he isn't in Braavos for lebensraum, he's just having a few beers and meeting some ladies. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Talk about adding insult to injury. First he gets his throat cut, then he has his professionalism questioned. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Did she look into his eyes and hear his last words and decide he deserved to die? Because in story Darreon ended up in the NW because Matthis Rowan's daughter falsely accused him of rape when she got caught with the hot singer she let into her bed chamber. Arya is doing what she wants here because she is angry with him not because it's a noble act. To be clear I don't blame Darreon for deserting: he never volunteered to join the NW and he was never a criminal, just some poor sod sent to the Siberian gulag as part of a miscarriage of justice. But Arya didn't bother to find any of that out before she killed him and dumped him in the canal. It's not an act I can approve of as "justice" the way others seem to. Wait a minute now. Saying Arya shouldn't unilaterally decide to murder / execute Darreon is the road to Nazism? That's tosh man, Darreon is not a threat to anyone and he isn't in Braavos for lebensraum, he's just having a few beers and meeting some ladies. LOL! Dareon forswore his vows to the Night’s Watch. Whether there was a miscarriage of what we in the West, in the real world, in 2017, might consider to be a miscarriage of justice is not relevant in story, is it? In ASOIAF such an act is dishonorable, and it requires a mandatory death sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Did she look into his eyes and hear his last words and decide he deserved to die? Because in story Darreon ended up in the NW because Matthis Rowan's daughter falsely accused him of rape when she got caught with the hot singer she let into her bed chamber. Ya, life’s not fair... but he knew it was a crime to climb in her window too. It might not be fair that he ended up in that situation, but that doesn’t really change anything. Quote Arya is doing what she wants here because she is angry with him not because it's a noble act. I’m not calling it noble, but she’s following the version of “Justice” and “Law” she was raised to. Quote To be clear I don't blame Darreon for deserting: he never volunteered to join the NW and he was never a criminal, just some poor sod sent to the Siberian gulag as part of a miscarriage of justice. Again, I don’t disagree, life’s not fair, but I don’t know how this plays into it. Quote But Arya didn't bother to find any of that out before she killed him and dumped him in the canal. It's not an act I can approve of as "justice" the way others seem to. I don’t think it’s “Justice” in my own moral view... but again trying to but that view onto characters in this magic medieval world is unreasonable. This was clearly justice in Arya’s head and in the Laws of Westeros. Quote Wait a minute now. Saying Arya shouldn't unilaterally decide to murder / execute Darreon is the road to Nazism? No no it was clearly an exaggeration, but the point remains, saying “it’s none of her business” is a bad place to start any conversation on morals. Quote That's tosh man, Darreon is not a threat to anyone and he isn't in Braavos for lebensraum, he's just having a few beers and meeting some ladies. I have nothing against Darreon bailing on the watch and trying to get some, personally... but I’m not arya and I don’t live in a land that needs protecting from ice deamons and eternal night. So putting my morals on her is unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 Just now, Lost Melnibonean said: Dareon forswore his vows to the Night’s Watch. Whether there was a miscarriage of what we in the West, in the real world, in 2017, might consider to be a miscarriage of justice is not relevant in story, is it? In ASOIAF such an act is dishonorable, and it requires a mandatory death sentence. Jaime Lannister foreswore his vow to protect Aerys but he got a pass. Robb decided Jon should be released from his vows. Obviously these are exceptions for powerful figures with political considerations at stake not for the smallfolk but consider Arya's experiences. Isn't the idea of a miscarriage of justice central to her whole arc from Mycah's fate to her experiences in KL and HH leading to her kill list? Not as a legal concept but in how to act and how people should be treated. She has seen firsthand the destruction in the riverlands and how smallfolk are given no choice and suffer in the face of uncaring and brutal power. If she were really concerned about justice rather than angry that he deserted Jon she might have found this out and seen him as another victim rather than set on enforcing an inflexible law which legitimised her desire to punich him. I would like to think so but it looks like she chose anger and revenge. I'm not on board with her taking matters into her own hands so readily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philokles Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: Yet she doesn't reveal herself to Glover either. She wishes she had. Unfortunately he left before Arya, understandably cautious, had decided (again rightly) that he is trustworthy. Quote Why do you think Roose would abuse her? He can't mistreat her in front of other Northmen and he has no reason to do so either. Genuinely puzzled as to why you think she is in danger from hom once her identity is revealed. Because he is plotting to bring down House Stark and marry 'Arya' to his bastard son to secure the North for himself? All he needs to do is take her to be questioned about the veracity of her story, then claim she's a liar. Pretty simple for someone of his plotting ability. 38 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Did she look into his eyes and hear his last words and decide he deserved to die? Because in story Darreon ended up in the NW because Matthis Rowan's daughter falsely accused him of rape when she got caught with the hot singer she let into her bed chamber. Arya is doing what she wants here because she is angry with him not because it's a noble act. To be clear I don't blame Darreon for deserting: he never volunteered to join the NW and he was never a criminal, just some poor sod sent to the Siberian gulag as part of a miscarriage of justice. But Arya didn't bother to find any of that out before she killed him and dumped him in the canal. It's not an act I can approve of as "justice" the way others seem to. Poor Dareon. Sent to a Siberian gulag - then given the onerous task of touring the warm climates of the south in his pretty uniform, sleeping with all the women he wants for all anyone would care. Enough to make one want to desert despite knowledge of the impending apocalypse and a bunch of helpless dependents reliant on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted December 20, 2017 Share Posted December 20, 2017 14 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Jaime Lannister foreswore his vow to protect Aerys but he got a pass. Robb decided Jon should be released from his vows. Obviously these are exceptions for powerful figures with political considerations at stake not for the smallfolk but consider Arya's experiences. Isn't the idea of a miscarriage of justice central to her whole arc from Mycah's fate to her experiences in KL and HH leading to her kill list? Not as a legal concept but in how to act and how people should be treated. She has seen firsthand the destruction in the riverlands and how smallfolk are given no choice and suffer in the face of uncaring and brutal power. If she were really concerned about justice rather than angry that he deserted Jon she might have found this out and seen him as another victim rather than set on enforcing an inflexible law which legitimised her desire to punich him. I would like to think so but it looks like she chose anger and revenge. I'm not on board with her taking matters into her own hands so readily. As Stannis might say when it comes to ASOIAF style justice, it is not a matter of wanting. The administration of justice has always been uneven, no? Robert needed Tywin, and sending Jaime to the Wall would have complicated that. He could justify the pardon since, as he told Eddard, somebody had to kill Aerys. Even Robb acknowledged that he could not release Jon from his vows. He intended to trade 100 men to get the Night’s Watch to release Jon from his vows. Arya does have a sense of justice. The man at Door Guard No. 1 was an act of desperation to escape Harrenhall, Dareon was a confessed deserter from the Night’s Watch, and she decided that the insurer had failed to make good on a binder. Whether those justifications are sufficient is certainly debateable, but at least Arya tries to rationalize the killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 18 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Ya, life’s not fair... but he knew it was a crime to climb in her window too. It might not be fair that he ended up in that situation, but that doesn’t really change anything. I’m not calling it noble, but she’s following the version of “Justice” and “Law” she was raised to. Again, I don’t disagree, life’s not fair, but I don’t know how this plays into it. I don’t think it’s “Justice” in my own moral view... but again trying to but that view onto characters in this magic medieval world is unreasonable. This was clearly justice in Arya’s head and in the Laws of Westeros. No no it was clearly an exaggeration, but the point remains, saying “it’s none of her business” is a bad place to start any conversation on morals. I have nothing against Darreon bailing on the watch and trying to get some, personally... but I’m not arya and I don’t live in a land that needs protecting from ice deamons and eternal night. So putting my morals on her is unreasonable. A crime to sleep with a woman who wanted him to? No, that's not a crime. Honour for a woman means chastity and lack of chastity reflects poorly on her House (and on her marriageability) so she called it rape to protect herself and her House's interests when she got caught. Was it wise for Dareon to aim so high? Nope, but lack of wisdom is not a crime and she falsely accused him. Not fair but that doesn't change anything? I would argue that the whole Riverlands orgy of violence is meant to drive home that those in power and those who make the rules use that to their own advantage and that our characters are meant to choose compassion and justice over blind obedience to laws and oaths that seem to deliver the opposite. Arya's arc pretty much starts with the injustice of Mycah's death so it seems sad that she didn't learn about the injustice of Dareon's "conviction" before deciding to off him. I'm not trying to project my morals or notion of justice onto her, merely to say that her own experiences and concerns, justice for Syrio, her father, Yoren, Lommy, etc... should have caused her to look more deeply and conider more before resorting to the ultimate solution. Unless what she has really learned is that violence pays and her concern is to get revenge for her friends / packmates rather than justice. Maybe I'm projecting how I want her to act on to her, rather than really understanding her motivations but that makes it look even darker and more troubling. ETA: Does she know anything about ice demons and eternal night or are those merely children's stories to her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 18 hours ago, Horse of Kent said: She wishes she had. Unfortunately he left before Arya, understandably cautious, had decided (again rightly) that he is trustworthy. Because he is plotting to bring down House Stark and marry 'Arya' to his bastard son to secure the North for himself? All he needs to do is take her to be questioned about the veracity of her story, then claim she's a liar. Pretty simple for someone of his plotting ability. Poor Dareon. Sent to a Siberian gulag - then given the onerous task of touring the warm climates of the south in his pretty uniform, sleeping with all the women he wants for all anyone would care. Enough to make one want to desert despite knowledge of the impending apocalypse and a bunch of helpless dependents reliant on you. So Roose would claim she was a fraud and then maker her a closely guarded prisoner? Possible I suppose though there seems an inherent contradiction between keeping her under lock and key and denying who she was. It would also require that no other Northman be able to speak to her. After all a peasant girl in the Riverlands might at best know that Lord Stark came south to be Hand or that his elder daughter was betrothed to Prince Joffrey, she would not be able to recite the names of all his children and their pet wolves, the main features of Winterfell or the key figures in his Household and what happened to them in KL. A public declaration of who she is is not so easy to sweep under the carpet as you think. People are looking for Arya and a peasant girl or imposter cannot know what she does, it's too risky to name her a liar and try and keep her identity secret, rumours would spread. There is no need to keep her prisoner anyway, handing her over and taking her back at the Red Wedding would meet his goals well enough. Poor Dareon indeed. He has wrongly been given a life sentence and he takes the one chance he gets to regain his freedom and take sanctuary in Braavos free from the laws of the Seven Kingdoms that fitted him up and now demand his life. Why should we mock him for this? He's a singer, his weapon is his harp, it's fighting men you want who are willing and able to fight not civilians turned into convicts who will piss their breeches at the first sign of trouble. I guess it's easy for us to offer him up to the front line from the comfort of our armchairs but it seems to me that should be his choice. I don't think he deserved to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 18 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said: As Stannis might say when it comes to ASOIAF style justice, it is not a matter of wanting. The administration of justice has always been uneven, no? Robert needed Tywin, and sending Jaime to the Wall would have complicated that. He could justify the pardon since, as he told Eddard, somebody had to kill Aerys. Even Robb acknowledged that he could not release Jon from his vows. He intended to trade 100 men to get the Night’s Watch to release Jon from his vows. Arya does have a sense of justice. The man at Door Guard No. 1 was an act of desperation to escape Harrenhall, Dareon was a confessed deserter from the Night’s Watch, and she decided that the insurer had failed to make good on a binder. Whether those justifications are sufficient is certainly debateable, but at least Arya tries to rationalize the killing. Sure, but aren't both the readers and the characters meant to wrestle with what is right as opposed to what inflexible oaths and laws say. That seems GRRM's overriding message. Stannis chose Robert over his King, blood over duty, in any case so he's not the best to quote on inflexible laws! She has a sense of right and wrong, otherwise she would just be a cold-blooded and compassionless killer. But the awfulness of her experiences has darkened that sense and cheapened the value of life to her (very common in child soldiers). I came into this conversation in the first place to say that accusations or theories that she is a psycopath are wrong but that it's a dark path she is walking with some of her killings. I want her to realise she has gone too far, that some of these acts are wrong and to choose a different path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: A crime to sleep with a woman who wanted him to? No, that's not a crime. Honour for a woman means chastity and lack of chastity reflects poorly on her House (and on her marriageability) so she called it rape to protect herself and her House's interests when she got caught. Was it wise for Dareon to aim so high? Nope, but lack of wisdom is not a crime and she falsely accused him. Not fair but that doesn't change anything? I would argue that the whole Riverlands orgy of violence is meant to drive home that those in power and those who make the rules use that to their own advantage and that our characters are meant to choose compassion and justice over blind obedience to laws and oaths that seem to deliver the opposite. Arya's arc pretty much starts with the injustice of Mycah's death so it seems sad that she didn't learn about the injustice of Dareon's "conviction" before deciding to off him. I'm not trying to project my morals or notion of justice onto her, merely to say that her own experiences and concerns, justice for Syrio, her father, Yoren, Lommy, etc... should have caused her to look more deeply and conider more before resorting to the ultimate solution. Unless what she has really learned is that violence pays and her concern is to get revenge for her friends / packmates rather than justice. Maybe I'm projecting how I want her to act on to her, rather than really understanding her motivations but that makes it look even darker and more troubling. ETA: Does she know anything about ice demons and eternal night or are those merely children's stories to her? Laws and justice are not always the same thing. It seems to me that fathers have plenary power over arranging the marriages of the daughters. Perhaps the liege lord or head of a knightly or lordly house has the power, but in any case, for a low born singer to come in and spoil the goods most certainly would be a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 46 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Sure, but aren't both the readers and the characters meant to wrestle with what is right as opposed to what inflexible oaths and laws say. That seems GRRM's overriding message. Stannis chose Robert over his King, blood over duty, in any case so he's not the best to quote on inflexible laws! She has a sense of right and wrong, otherwise she would just be a cold-blooded and compassionless killer. But the awfulness of her experiences has darkened that sense and cheapened the value of life to her (very common in child soldiers). I came into this conversation in the first place to say that accusations or theories that she is a psycopath are wrong but that it's a dark path she is walking with some of her killings. I want her to realise she has gone too far, that some of these acts are wrong and to choose a different path. Absolutely. That's what we've been about here, nay? I don’t think she's done very bad things given the circumstances, but as I stated above, I admire your compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: A crime to sleep with a woman who wanted him to? No, that's not a crime. Honour for a woman means chastity and lack of chastity reflects poorly on her House (and on her marriageability) so she called it rape to protect herself and her House's interests when she got caught. Was it wise for Dareon to aim so high? Nope, but lack of wisdom is not a crime and she falsely accused him. First of all, we know he got caught after climbing in a window to the noble’s daughter’s room and she said he raped her. He denied it. We don’t know the truth of it... or if he was falsely accused. I’m not defending the legal system of Westeros, but it is what it is. Quote Not fair but that doesn't change anything? I would argue that the whole Riverlands orgy of violence is meant to drive home that those in power and those who make the rules use that to their own advantage and that our characters are meant to choose compassion and justice over blind obedience to laws and oaths that seem to deliver the opposite. Arya's arc pretty much starts with the injustice of Mycah's death so it seems sad that she didn't learn about the injustice of Dareon's "conviction" before deciding to off him. That’s a fair take, I’d argue that the difference between an oath and a duty is important. The letter of the law, the oaths they make you swear and swear, is far less important to me than doing ones duty. That is important, and it’s not all morally relative. Do I care that a brother of the nights watch sleeps with a woman? No. Just an oath... Do I care that they’ve abandoned an important task, the traveling companions left in their care, and the defense of the continent on which they were born, possibly the world, from doom and darkness? Yes, duty is meaningful. Quote I'm not trying to project my morals or notion of justice onto her, merely to say that her own experiences and concerns, justice for Syrio, her father, Yoren, Lommy, etc... should have caused her to look more deeply and conider more before resorting to the ultimate solution. Unless what she has really learned is that violence pays and her concern is to get revenge for her friends / packmates rather than justice. Maybe I'm projecting how I want her to act on to her, rather than really understanding her motivations but that makes it look even darker and more troubling. She let the hound live... he killed Micah, so I’m not sure this logic follows. I agree violence does pay, that’s why the knights in armor run the kingdom... hard to deny that. It’s hardly unreasonable for her to want to take justice into her own hands when she has seen it so often misapplied. Not a justification so much as a reason for her behavior. Quote ETA: Does she know anything about ice demons and eternal night or are those merely children's stories to her? Presumably she was told stories like Bran... It’s what the Brothers of the Nights Watch do, like her uncle... and Daeron certainly knew the threat he was bailing on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 10 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said: Laws and justice are not always the same thing. It seems to me that fathers have plenary power over arranging the marriages of the daughters. Perhaps the liege lord or head of a knightly or lordly house has the power, but in any case, for a low born singer to come in and spoil the goods most certainly would be a crime. Indeed they are not which is all the sadder. Rape is a crime, adultery may be (?), extra-marital sex when both parties are single is not. All these guys running round deflowering virgins are not criminals (Brandon & Robert spring to mind in particular), nor was Gatehouse Ami the victim of numerous crimes as opposed to a willing participant in a number of sexual adventures. I seem to remember she was found with three stablehands and as you say the goods were known to be spoiled and her father was forced to marry her off on the cheap. There's no crime though. The "crime" in Dareon's case is invented when Rowan's daughter decides (understandably but cynically and dishonestly) to protect herself and her standing by crying rape. 9 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: First of all, we know he got caught after climbing in a window to the noble’s daughter’s room and she said he raped her. He denied it. We don’t know the truth of it... or if he was falsely accused. I’m not defending the legal system of Westeros, but it is what it is. If you are going to question his veracity why accept any of the story? It comes from him after all. He claims she opened the window for him, so we only "know" that because he told us. I see no reason to doubt his story and certainly not to cherry pick parts of it but discount others. 9 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: That’s a fair take, I’d argue that the difference between an oath and a duty is important. The letter of the law, the oaths they make you swear and swear, is far less important to me than doing ones duty. That is important, and it’s not all morally relative. Do I care that a brother of the nights watch sleeps with a woman? No. Just an oath... Do I care that they’ve abandoned an important task, the traveling companions left in their care, and the defense of the continent on which they were born, possibly the world, from doom and darkness? Yes, duty is meaningful. But why is it his duty if he was forced to join the NW or hang for a crime he didn't commit? Are oaths made under duress or at swordpoint (as Jaime puts it when mulling over his promise to Catelyn) as morally binding as oaths made freely? If you held a gun to my head I'm sure I would agree to all kinds of things that I might decide not to do when the gun was removed and I'm pretty sure I would not consider it my duty to carry out those actions. We might want Dareon to be braver, we might want him to see the big picture and to be a good footsoldier in the army of heroes standing up to the Others and the wights but he isn't cut out for that. I'm going to opt for free will over compulsion here. If Westeros or Braavos introduces conscription then he'll have to bite the bullet (or would have had to....). 9 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: She let the hound live... he killed Micah, so I’m not sure this logic follows. She did but why? She left him off her list and then put him back on again and now she's not sure. I think she left him off because she got to know him and it's much harder to kill someone you know than a stranger. You see the person and the burning sense of anger or injustice is hard to hold onto when you see the complexity of a person close up over a period of time. Unless they are Vargo Hoat or Ramsay, say..... It's ironic she let the Hound off for killing Mycah but killed Dareon and the insurance broker (or fraudster) for lesser crimes. It was certainly easier for her but it doesn't make her rationalisations for acting any more valid. 9 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I agree violence does pay, that’s why the knights in armor run the kingdom... hard to deny that. That's pretty bleak, dude. The whole point of laws is that violence doesn't pay unless it's expressly authorised or justified. Otherwise you just have brutal tyranny or opportunist murders. That's not the lesson Ned or Catelyn would have taught her. Sure, Westeros has it's share of those but the idea is they are punished, later if not sooner so though it might pay in the short term (hello Vargo Hoat, Roose and Walder, even Aerys) it doesn't in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: Indeed they are not which is all the sadder. Rape is a crime, adultery may be (?), extra-marital sex when both parties are single is not. All these guys running round deflowering virgins are not criminals (Brandon & Robert spring to mind in particular), nor was Gatehouse Ami the victim of numerous crimes as opposed to a willing participant in a number of sexual adventures. I seem to remember she was found with three stablehands and as you say the goods were known to be spoiled and her father was forced to marry her off on the cheap. There's no crime though. The "crime" in Dareon's case is invented when Rowan's daughter decides (understandably but cynically and dishonestly) to protect herself and her standing by crying rape. We don't know what happened to Ami's stablehands, do we? A noble taking liberties with a lowborn gal is one thing. A low born dude banging a high born maiden is something else entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: If you are going to question his veracity why accept any of the story? It comes from him after all. He claims she opened the window for him, so we only "know" that because he told us. I see no reason to doubt his story and certainly not to cherry pick parts of it but discount others. This is a story full of unreliable narrators, let alone characters who lie... are you kidding? Not to mention it means dismissing the girl who said she was raped as a liar. They can’t both be telling the truth, we’ve just only heard one side of the story. Not to mention, it’s like the oldest joke about any prison that everyone is innocent... Sorry if he doesn’t come across as the honest upstanding reliable type. 13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: But why is it his duty if he was forced to join the NW or hang for a crime he didn't commit? Are oaths made under duress or at swordpoint (as Jaime puts it when mulling over his promise to Catelyn) as morally binding as oaths made freely? If you held a gun to my head I'm sure I would agree to all kinds of things that I might decide not to do when the gun was removed and I'm pretty sure I would not consider it my duty to carry out those actions. So back to the difference between oaths and duty... I don’t care about the oath not to sleep with woman. I care about his duty to the old man he left dying when he took all the money with him. I care about the hundreds or thousands on the wall who’s fate may rest on a message being delivered. 13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: We might want Dareon to be braver, we might want him to see the big picture and to be a good footsoldier in the army of heroes standing up to the Others and the wights but he isn't cut out for that. I'm going to opt for free will over compulsion here. If Westeros or Braavos introduces conscription then he'll have to bite the bullet (or would have had to....). They have conscription... that’s how you fill armies with peasants... 13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: She did but why? She left him off her list and then put him back on again and now she's not sure. I think she left him off because she got to know him and it's much harder to kill someone you know than a stranger. You see the person and the burning sense of anger or injustice is hard to hold onto when you see the complexity of a person close up over a period of time. Unless they are Vargo Hoat or Ramsay, say..... It's ironic she let the Hound off for killing Mycah but killed Dareon and the insurance broker (or fraudster) for lesser crimes. It was certainly easier for her but it doesn't make her rationalisations for acting any more valid. I mean killing people is bad? Ok but she’s shown she isn’t incapable of mercy and/or forgiveness. In the case of Daeron she even has the law clearly on her side. 13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: That's pretty bleak, dude. The whole point of laws is that violence doesn't pay unless it's expressly authorised or justified. Otherwise you just have brutal tyranny or opportunist murders. That's not the lesson Ned or Catelyn would have taught her. Sure, Westeros has it's share of those but the idea is they are punished, later if not sooner so though it might pay in the short term (hello Vargo Hoat, Roose and Walder, even Aerys) it doesn't in the long run. We’re talking about a medieval monarchy... it is a Tyranny. Rule of law says Daeron should die as a deserter, and rule of law sent him to the Wall. There are lots of reasons for laws, stopping violence might be one. The rule of law isn’t divested from tyranny... it can easily be both. In this case, violence literally put Robert on the throne... so yes, of course it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 14 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said: We don't know what happened to Ami's stablehands, do we? A noble taking liberties with a lowborn gal is one thing. A low born dude banging a high born maiden is something else entirely. We don't have any reason to suppose they were hanged or have been swapping stories with Dareon at the Wall about the perils of getting a bit of consensual action. If the act of sex outside marriage is a crime why is this not a feature at any point in story and what is the relevance of Dareon telling us that "under her father's eyes, she named it rape" [sic]? It's the accusation of rape that gets him sent to the Wall and that's what he's bitter about, the injustice, not the fact that he was a criminal who just happened to get caught in the act. We can imagine the low born dudes are turfed out unceremoniously, the stablehands being invited in no uncertain terms to seek employment and lodgings elsewhere, and Dareon to get a beating and told to expectmore of the same or worse if he was ever dumb enough to show up at Goldengrove again. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: This is a story full of unreliable narrators, let alone characters who lie... LOL, so we're back to the joke about Door Guard #1 are we? As in On 20/12/2017 at 4:09 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Talk about adding insult to injury. First he gets his throat cut, then he has his professionalism questioned. So 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: are you kidding? Not to mention it means dismissing the girl who said she was raped as a liar. They can’t both be telling the truth, we’ve just only heard one side of the story. Not to mention, it’s like the oldest joke about any prison that everyone is innocent... Sorry if he doesn’t come across as the honest upstanding reliable type. No I am not kidding, are you? The only person who tells us anything about Dareon is Dareon. You may as well disregard everything he says and brand him a serial killer. It seems you find it easier to excuse Arya killing him to brand him a rapist. I don't see a reason to disbelieve his story or any particular reason for him to share it with us except for us to question the idea that the NW are bound to their oaths and "honour and duty" the same way we have been led to question the way the Kingsguard acted out their vows through Jaime's recollectoins. Saying a vow's a vow and that's all there is to it is meant to strike us as inadequate. Dismissing Dareon as a rapist and a liar seems a way of avoiding having to confront this and hold on to simpler and more comfortable concepts. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: So back to the difference between oaths and duty... I don’t care about the oath not to sleep with woman. I care about his duty to the old man he left dying when he took all the money with him. I care about the hundreds or thousands on the wall who’s fate may rest on a message being delivered. That sounds like an awful lot to rest on one man's shoulders. Are you entirely sure this depends on him? If he took all the money then that is most definitely a point to hold against him. However I don't see how Aemon could have been saved, it was old age that took him. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: They have conscription... that’s how you fill armies with peasants... The NW does not have conscription. I'm sure you understood my point as that is what we were talking about after all so let's not play that game.... 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: I mean killing people is bad? Ok but she’s shown she isn’t incapable of mercy and/or forgiveness. In the case of Daeron she even has the law clearly on her side. Yeah, killing is bad, that's why you shouldn't be so casual and so quick to carry it out. Mercy and forgiveness? I think that the whole point was she spared Sandor when she got to know him not because cutting Mycah in two was any less awful. Strangers are still easy meat. Does she now? Do the laws of Westeros apply in Braavos or would she be arrested for murder if her act was known? I think you'll find the latter and she would be in a dungeon right now not being praised to the hilt as you are doing. And we are meant to question the law of it does not deliver justice. We are meant to look beyond the surface and superficial first impressions before we carry out capital punishment or murder. This is basic stuff. Maybe she learned the idea of wielding the sword herself from her father but if she did she did not learn the most important part - to look into a peson's eyes and hear their last words and decide whether they truly deserved to die. I suppose if you simply brand the person a liar you can skip that last part but I'm not keen on that approach. 2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: We’re talking about a medieval monarchy... it is a Tyranny. Rule of law says Daeron should die as a deserter, and rule of law sent him to the Wall. There are lots of reasons for laws, stopping violence might be one. Medieval monarchy was not a tyranny. That's why there are laws and kings could be and were opposed or deposed if they overstepped. Rule of law is a fine concept but it requires the truth in order to be effective. Tyrion was after allfound guilty of Joffrey's murder in the eyes of both Men and the Gods . I'm arguing that the truth of Dareon's conviction matters from a moral standpoint as that is the one Arya should be using before she stabs him with the pointy end. You seem to be arguing some or all of the truth being irrelevant as it was followed by a forced oath to the NW that is nonetheless binding, that the rule of law can be blind to the truth as upholding the law for it's own sake is more important than justice and that Dareon is a rapist and a liar (based on a hunch) and so can be the more easily and comfortably shanked as a criminal and deserter. This is why we have trials and hte like to get to the truth. 3 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: The rule of law isn’t divested from tyranny... it can easily be both. Indeed. Depends on who is in power and how they legislate and govern. 3 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: In this case, violence literally put Robert on the throne... so yes, of course it works. I believe the saying is live by the sword die by the sword. But yes of course some people "get away with it". I doubt you really take away the message that violence pays and it certainly isn't the one Arya was raised to believe though her experiences have set her on that path. Pretty sure it was a Grand Council that put Robert on the Throne and a propensity for ultra violence that cost Aerys the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveFirstDieLater Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said: LOL, so we're back to the joke about Door Guard #1 are we? As in So This story is full of people who lie... are you debating that? I don’t understand what that has to do with Door Guard #1 jokes. If you aren’t questioning what people are telling you in this series you aren’t doing it right. How is that even up for debate? Quote No I am not kidding, are you? The only person who tells us anything about Dareon is Dareon. Which is why you should question his story... Quote You may as well disregard everything he says and brand him a serial killer. Wtf are you talking about? He was sent to the Wall... I didn’t make that call... you can believe his story or not about being innocent but factually the law of the land found him guilty and conscripted him into the Night’s Watch. I have no idea if it was fair and just or not, but that’s not the point. Quote It seems you find it easier to excuse Arya killing him to brand him a rapist. I’m not branding him anything, I’m just saying his denial doesn’t make him innocent. Quote I don't see a reason to disbelieve his story or any particular reason for him to share it with us except for us to question the idea that the NW are bound to their oaths and "honour and duty" the same way we have been led to question the way the Kingsguard acted out their vows through Jaime's recollectoins. I guess that’s one take... Quote Saying a vow's a vow and that's all there is to it is meant to strike us as inadequate. Dismissing Dareon as a rapist and a liar seems a way of avoiding having to confront this and hold on to simpler and more comfortable concepts. I’m not dismissing him as anything! But that doesn’t mean he gets a free pass... the punishment for desertion is death, that’s the law. Quote That sounds like an awful lot to rest on one man's shoulders. Are you entirely sure this depends on him? Yes of course it is, but nobody asked him to do it alone... doing the right thing isn’t always easy. Doesn’t change what is right. He didn’t do his job, and put lives in jeopardy. You can debate to what extent or how many lives, but the point remains. What he did was wrong and he knew it. Quote If he took all the money then that is most definitely a point to hold against him. However I don't see how Aemon could have been saved, it was old age that took him. Aemon wasn’t dead yet, we are all gonna die one day, doesn’t mean we should give up. Quote The NW does not have conscription. I'm sure you understood my point as that is what we were talking about after all so let's not play that game.... What?!?!? Conscription is mandatory service... Daeron was conscripted. No games, that’s just what it means... if you mean something else then I don’t understand. Quote Yeah, killing is bad, that's why you shouldn't be so casual and so quick to carry it out. Mercy and forgiveness? I think that the whole point was she spared Sandor when she got to know him not because cutting Mycah in two was any less awful. Strangers are still easy meat. Seems like a fair perspective on Arya’s motives, hard to be sure, but that makes some sense to me. Quote Does she now? Do the laws of Westeros apply in Braavos or would she be arrested for murder if her act was known? I think you'll find the latter and she would be in a dungeon right now not being praised to the hilt as you are doing. Are we quibbling about jurisdiction now? Does that mean you accept it was a crime? Quote And we are meant to question the law of it does not deliver justice. We are meant to look beyond the surface and superficial first impressions before we carry out capital punishment or murder. This is basic stuff. Maybe she learned the idea of wielding the sword herself from her father but if she did she did not learn the most important part - to look into a peson's eyes and hear their last words and decide whether they truly deserved to die. I suppose if you simply brand the person a liar you can skip that last part but I'm not keen on that approach. Deserter, I’m branding him a deserter, which is pretty hard to argue with. The series begins with a very sympathetic character getting executed for desertion. Quote Medieval monarchy was not a tyranny. That's why there are laws and kings could be and were opposed or deposed if they overstepped. That is hilarious... the only way a monarchy isn’t a tyranny is if everyone agrees with all the King’s decisions... Laws based on the Divine Right of Kings? Please... Quote Rule of law is a fine concept but it requires the truth in order to be effective. No, a system of laws should be designed to deal with reality and the fact that rarely does anyone in a position to judge have access to the truth. That’s why you need the laws, of everyone knew the truth, judgement would be easy. Quote Tyrion was after allfound guilty of Joffrey's murder in the eyes of both Men and the Gods . Yes, he was. Quote I'm arguing that the truth of Dareon's conviction matters from a moral standpoint as that is the one Arya should be using before she stabs him with the pointy end. Are you denying he deserted? Quote You seem to be arguing some or all of the truth being irrelevant as it was followed by a forced oath to the NW that is nonetheless binding, that the rule of law can be blind to the truth as upholding the law for it's own sake is more important than justice and that Dareon is a rapist and a liar (based on a hunch) and so can be the more easily and comfortably shanked as a criminal and deserter. This is why we have trials and hte like to get to the truth. I said we don’t know what happened, I didn’t convict anyone of anything. We do a terrible job in 21st century America of getting judgements right... partially because we never know what is true. I don’t know where your expectation of justice through the law is coming from. Quote Indeed. Depends on who is in power and how they legislate and govern. I believe the saying is live by the sword die by the sword. But yes of course some people "get away with it". I doubt you really take away the message that violence pays and it certainly isn't the one Arya was raised to believe though her experiences have set her on that path. I’m not saying it’s ideal, but to deny the effectiveness of the use of force in achieving a goal is quinisential naivete. Quote Pretty sure it was a Grand Council that put Robert on the Throne and a propensity for ultra violence that cost Aerys the throne. Interesting theory, I think it was Robert winning a war and killing Rhaegar with his warhammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.