Jump to content

Archived

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

Canon Claude

Spare one of these villains from execution and explain why

Recommended Posts

On 2018-02-09 at 6:44 PM, Kandrax said:

Seriously, i want to know why OP put Black instead of Walder or Lothar or Roose.

Because I thought if I went with Lame Lothar or Walder, I’d just get repeated arguments of Robb Stark breaking his word and being a traitor to the realm. Black Walder isn’t just guilty of participating in the Red Wedding, he’s also committed multiple acts of adultery, some of which are incestuous. And he also murdered Stevron Frey, as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Black Walder is the only one of these who acted in the interest of the kingdom. 

We don't know what motivated Black Walder, but I severely doubt it was altruism and looking out for the kingdom. All the Freys we hear from make it pretty clear they were motivated by revenge at their dishonour. What little we know about Black Walder suggests he wouldn't give a damn about what's best for the kingdom. 

 

10 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

He followed the orders of King's Landing to remove the leader of the rebels from the north and bring a halt to the war.

That's an odd way to put it. From what I gather, Lord Walder approached the Lannisters with his plan, not the other way around. He wasn't just following orders, he did a deal, which was hugely beneficial to him and his house, in exchange for taking out Robb and his followers. We can debate whether he was in the right to do that, but "following orders" isn't really an applicable excuse in this case. He plotted with Tywin Lannister to betray the Starks. He was as complicit as it gets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

Black Walder isn’t just guilty of participating in the Red Wedding, he’s also committed multiple acts of adultery, some of which are incestuous. And he also murdered Stevron Frey, as far as I can tell.

1) Adultery isn't serious crime.

2) Incestuos by our standards.

3) We have no evidence that he killed his grandfather. Ryman could also be murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kandrax said:

 

3) We have no evidence that he killed his grandfather. Ryman could also be murderer.

There is zero evidence that Stevron was murdered. Despite being in enemy territory no one in Robb's camp., including the Freys, suspect that he died of foul play. Even Edwyn, who seems to be hugely paranoid when it come to Black Walder, does not suspect him of being involved. 

It is not even known if Black Walder was even with his grandfather given that Robb makes it clear that his forces were split up in the Westerlands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Do you consider it villainous to hold innocent people imprisoned, while you mutilate and experiment on them, until their eventual and resulting death?

Innocent? Qyburn does not get to judge on who is innocent or guilty, the crown does and (iirc, but I may be wrong on this) every person that has been sent to Qyburn has been done so by the Crown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Albeit?

Real classy. Attempting to shame someone for grammar errors, surely coincides with your blatantly false claim that you are trying to keep it on topic, and not trolling.

...My auto-correct is so hurt and offended!

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Innocent? Qyburn does not get to judge on who is innocent or guilty, the crown does and (iirc, but I may be wrong on this) every person that has been sent to Qyburn has been done so by the Crown. 

You're right, Falyse Stokeworth - of whom Qyburn convinced Cerei to give to him, and claimed she was not able feed herself, much less rule, after what he had done to her - wasn't innocent, and your trollish, irrelevant attempt to antagonize me, certainly invalidates my point that Qyburn is a villain.

ETA:

And again, another implication that you'll surely deny, but Qyburn has been experimenting on people long before he was involved with Cercei, and had his subjects sent to him by the Crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Innocent? Qyburn does not get to judge on who is innocent or guilty, the crown does and (iirc, but I may be wrong on this) every person that has been sent to Qyburn has been done so by the Crown. 

The. Crown in this case hasn't really done that; though; Cersi can declare them guilty of a crime and any punishment she'd ascribe could be legally just including what Qyburn had done to her; because she'd be guilty because yeah in a feudal society who is guilty and who is innocent is ultimately up to regent ; but she really hasn't done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I misspoke. Although Qyburn did convince Cercei to give him live, unwilling, human subjects to experiment on, he did not specifically convince her to give him Falyse. He was, however, completely aware of her innocence, yet still gladly used her to experiment on, before causing her to die while screaming in pain.

A Feast for Crows - Cersei VII

Quote

Qyburn arrived before the food. Lady Falyse had put down three more cups by then, and was beginning to nod, though from time to time she would rouse and give another sob. The queen took Qyburn aside and told him of Ser Balman's folly. "I cannot have Falyse spreading tales about the city. Her grief has made her witless. Do you still need women for your . . . work?"

"I do, Your Grace. The puppeteers are quite used up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Real classy. Attempting to shame someone for grammar errors, surely coincides with your blatantly false claim that you are trying to keep it on topic, and not trolling.

...My auto-correct is so hurt and offended!

Just trying to clarify your meaning. Please don't take these things so personally. 

Quote

You're right, Falyse Stokeworth - of whom Qyburn convinced Cerei to give to him, and claimed she was not able feed herself, much less rule, after what he had done to her - wasn't innocent, and your trollish, irrelevant attempt to antagonize me, certainly invalidates my point that Qyburn is a villain.

eh?

I'm not trying to antagonise you, I was pointing out that Qyburn takes his orders from the Regent. Similar to how I don't blame Ned for the death of Lady, he was just following orders. The Crown gets to decide who is innocent and guilty. 

As I have pointed out more than once in this discussion, I think Qyburn has been guilty of reprehensible actions, but he does not get to decide who is guilty or innocent. 

Quote

 

And again, another implication that you'll surely deny, but Qyburn has been experimenting on people long before he was involved with Cercei, and had his subjects sent to him by the Crown.

Has he? As I said in my original reply, I genuinely can not remember. Can you refresh my memory?

 

Quote

I misspoke. Although Qyburn did convince Cercei to give him live, unwilling, human subjects to experiment on, he did not specifically convince her to give him Falyse. He was, however, completely aware of her innocence, yet still gladly used her to experiment on, before causing her to die while screaming in pain.

Just like Ned was aware of Lady's innocence. Qyburn was obeying orders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Has he? As I said in my original reply, I genuinely can not remember. Can you refresh my memory?

A Feast for Crows - Cersei II

Quote

He is not Pycelle, that much is plain. The queen weighed him, wondering. "Why did the Citadel take your chain?"

"The archmaesters are all craven at heart. The grey sheep, Marwyn calls them. I was as skilled a healer as Ebrose, but aspired to surpass him. For hundreds of years the men of the Citadel have opened the bodies of the dead, to study the nature of life. I wished to understand the nature of death, so I opened the bodies of the living. For that crime the grey sheep shamed me and forced me into exile . . . but I understand the nature of life and death better than any man in Oldtown."

 

 

Quote

Just like Ned was aware of Lady's innocence. Qyburn was obeying orders. 

No, this is not only an equivalency fallacy, but it was not on Cercei's orders that he experimented on live, unwilling, human subjects. That is an necessity of the type of research he is, and has been doing his entire career - by his own incentives, and choice.

Besides, this is all irrelevant. None of whether he decides who is innocent or not, negates the fact that he willingly does experiment on those he knows are innocent.

----

And an interesting side note, revealed in the above quote. It is Qyburn's himself, that claims to be as skilled a healer as Embrose. This really puts into question the validity of this claim, and certainly cannot be considered evidence of this assumed, exceptional intelligence of his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

A Feast for Crows - Cersei II

 

No, this is not only an equivalency fallacy, but it was not on Cercei's orders that he experimented on live, unwilling, human subjects.

I'm sorry, I missed in your quote were it was claimed they were unwilling. They may well have been, but we don't know that. How would Qyburn, a Maester, be able to make this happen?

Quote

 

Besides, this is all irrelevant. None of whether he decides who is innocent or not, negates the fact that he willingly does experiment on those he knows are innocent.

eh? What is innocence? If the Regent says someone is guilty then they are guilty. The laws, such as they were, were pretty fluid. He is not in a position to tell the Queen Regent that she is wrong. 

 

edit: And now that we are 7 pages in do you want to actually answer OP's question? Which of the five would you spare?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2018 at 2:46 PM, Bernie Mac said:

I'm sorry, I missed in your quote were it was claimed they were unwilling. They may well have been, but we don't know that.

So, a process described as "...opening[ed] the bodies of the living." A process where people are mutilated, and die screaming in pain as a result of, and has been referred to in the text as torture, and as a crime.

This assumption, you are not willing to make? Really???

It's absurd to think anyone would volunteer, or be willing to partake in these types of experiments; Were that the case, it would not be deemed a crime, or an offence worthy of expulsion and exile. 

Do you really think Falyse was willing? I'm quite confident that we can say she wasn't a willing participant in her kidnapping, torture, and murder; her case is undeniable proof that Qyburn experiments on innocent, unwilling subjects.

Quote

How would Qyburn, a Maester, be able to make this happen?

What do you mean...how he gained access to his victims?

I really can't say, as there is no reference to this in the text. However, what we do know, for a fact, is that he did acquire them somehow; As Qyburn himself admits to performing these experiments on live subjects, and states that it was the crime he was expelled from the Citadel for.

I would assume he got these subjects the same way any predatory criminal does. Perhaps luring naive, young girls into his lab under false pretenses, perhaps he paid someone to bring him victims. I don't know, there are many plausible possibilities.

And perhaps there's a connection between why he prefers experimenting on female subjects, and the availability and means in which he acquired his past victims. :dunno:

Quote

eh? What is innocence? If the Regent says someone is guilty then they are guilty. The laws, such as they were, were pretty fluid. He is not in a position to tell the Queen Regent that she is wrong. 

Cercei didn't say Falyse was guilty of anything, nor did she order Qyburn to experiment on her. She offered him Falyse, as a means to have her murdered, and he was eager to oblige, knowing full well she was an innocent victim - so long as he got the subjects he wanted.

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on this issue of innocence anyway. I don't care if Qyburn was performing these experiments on the the most vulgar and guilty criminals the black cells had to offer, it's still wrong, and wouldn't negate the fact that he is a villain - which was the  point that I was making.

Quote

edit: And now that we are 7 pages in do you want to actually answer OP's question? Which of the five would you spare?

Why do you care? What makes you think I'm obligated to do so?

The reason I haven't answered the OP's question, is because I don't like to approach these types of matters in a way that is in spirit of what is laid out by the OP. This approach just doesn't work for me, and doesn't illicit a desire in me to choose one.

If I were forced to answer, my response would be something like: I don't think that any of the candidate's should go unpunished for their crimes, however I would spare all of them from the gallows, as I do not condone capital punishment, no matter the crime.

The thing is, an answer as such, isn't really an appropriate response to the question asked is a non sequitur, and I don't feel compelled to impose my views on such a subject, in a discussion that is not pertaining to that topic, and is meant to stimulate discussion of another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

So, a process described as "...opening[ed] the bodies of the living."

How else do you expect operations to be done?

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

A process where people are mutilated, and die screaming in pain as a result of, and has been referred to in the text as torture, and as a crime.

Is that said in the books? About his time at the Citadel? I genuinly missed it, please provide the quote so we can end this conversation. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

This assumption, you are not willing to make? Really???

Yes, really. But by all means add another question mark if you are that confused. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Do you really think Falyse was willing?

No. but then I never claimed that did I. This would be another example of you using a strawman argument, making up a claim that I never made. Are you Cathy Newman?

Poor wretched Falsye was punished by the Queen Regent. 

 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

I'm quite confident that we can say she wasn't a willing participant in her kidnapping, torture, and murder. 

Kidnapping? When was she kidnapped?

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

What do you mean...how he gained access to his victims?

Pretty simple. How did he get access to these people he operated on at the Citadel? At the Crown he has access to Gold Cloaks and other servants of the Crown. He has Cersei's support. How exactly was he doing this at the Citadel?

All we know is that he was operating on people at the Citadel. You seem to be jumping to conclusions that the text has not given us. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I really can't say, as there is no reference to this in the text.

So you just jumping to baseless conclusions. Quelle Surprise!

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

However, what we do know, for a fact, is that he did acquire them somehow;

No, we don't. We have no idea if they were willing or not, so acquire is totally the wrong word to know given the information we have at hand. If you can provide more quotes I would love to hear them as I'd absolutely love it for you to be right about something. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

As Qyburn himself, admits to performing these experiments on live subjects, and states that it was the crime he was expelled from the Citadel for.

What experiments? As you seem to be knowledgeable about what exactly these experiments are you will happily track down the relevant quotes from the books detailing if any of these people were killed or if they unwillingly subjected themselves to it. 

Otherwise you are just making up shit, all because you want my attention in a topic, 7 pages in, you still have refused to answer OP's question. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I would assume he got these subjects the same way any predatory criminal does.

You know why they say you should never assume?

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Perhaps luring naive, young girls into his lab under false pretenses, perhaps he paid someone to bring him victims. I don't know, there are many plausible possibilities.

Bingo! You don't know. 

Do you know how modern day experiments happen? People get paid to do them, often unemployed people with no other means of finance, sometimes it is people who ill and are desperate to be cured. 

The point is neither of us know the reason, as you said there is a whole host of possibilities. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And perhaps there's a connection between why he prefers experimenting on female subjects, and the availability and means in which he acquired his past victims. :dunno:

eh? Gregor is a girl now? What about the other men, Margaery's suitors?

And why would the Citadel not have him arrested and executed if that was the case?

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Cercei didn't say Falyse was guilty of anything, or order him to experiment on her. She offered her to Qyburn, as a means to have her murdered, and he was happy to oblige, knowing full well she was an innocent victim - so long as he got the subjects he wanted.

How is she innocent if the Regent of the land has sentenced her to death?

Ned and all other subjects regularly carry out orders of their superiors.

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on this issue of innocence anyway.

I'm not sure why you are either? Why are you?

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

I don't care if Qyburn was performing these experiments on the the most vulgar and guilty criminals the black cells had to offer, it's still wrong, and wouldn't negate the fact that he is a villain - which was the  point that I was making.

So then why did you reply to me when I brought up the word 'innocent'? If you are not bothered about the conversation, why have you been replying?

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Why do you care? What makes you think I'm obligated to do so?

I'm just curious. It is an interesting topic, one which you feature on every single page of. 

You are not obligated to do anything, stop getting so defensive. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

The reason I haven't answered the OP's question, is because I don't like to approach these types of matters in a way that is in spirit of what is laid out by the OP. This approach just doesn't work for me, and doesn't illicit a desire in me to choose one.

So why have you clicked on the subject? Why were your first words in the subject "Pfft! Give me a fucking break!" Seems a pretty passionate response to a subject that you don't have much desire for.

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

If I were forced to answer, my response would be something like: I don't think that any of the candidate's should go unpunished for their crimes, however I would spare all of them from the gallows, as I do not condone capital punishment, no matter the crime.

Seems a more than reasonable response. Thank You. 

26 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

The thing is, an answer as such, isn't really an appropriate response to the question asked, and I don't feel compelled to impose my views on such a subject, in a discussion that is not pertaining to that topic, and is meant to stimulate discussion of another matter.

Of course it is an appropriate response, I'm pretty sure at least one person gave a similar response to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

<snipped>

Lol. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Well, I'm not sure what made me think you were capable of having a mature, intelligent, and respectful dialogue with someone, but at least I can say that I gave you every chance to do so.

I guess it's back to the Charlie Brown treatment for you.

...and I know, I know. Spare me the childish taunts of how I'm insincere, and can't resist responding to you. Such text book troll tactics; shame on me for feeding you as I have. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kandrax said:

2) Incestuos by our standards.

I get the impression it's a bit worse than that. Daven seems to imply that Black Walder's pretty much had sex with every Frey girl who's hit puberty. Granted, he heard that from Emmon, who has an axe to grind, but if it's true it goes a bit beyond hooking up with a cousin or two, and makes him a serial molester. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I get the impression it's a bit worse than that. Daven seems to imply that Black Walder's pretty much had sex with every Frey girl who's hit puberty. Granted, he heard that from Emmon, who has an axe to grind, but if it's true it goes a bit beyond hooking up with a cousin or two, and makes him a serial molester. 

Edywn, not Emmon, and it is he who thinks Black Walder is somehow responsible for the deaths of Ryman, Petyr and Merrett when we the reader know it is down to the BWB who would sooner skin Black Walder alive than work with him. 

Edywn is paranoid, but instead of realising that they have BWB members among their camp who relayed the information that Ryman was sent home with a small guard he instead blames the person who he feels is his biggest threat. 

 

Merrett is the other source for Black Walder's infidelities and he paints a different picture

The poor lad had a wife, to be sure, but she was half the problem. Not only was she twice his age, but she was bedding his brother Waldertoo, if the talk was true. There was always lots of talk around the Twins, and only a little was ever true, but in this case Merrett believed it. Black Walder was a man who took what he wanted, even his brother's wife. He'd had Edwyn's wife too, that was common knowledge, Fair Walda had been known to slip into his bed from time to time, and some even said he'd known the seventh Lady Frey a deal better than he should have. Small wonder he refused to marry. Why buy a cow when there were udders all around begging to be milked?

Now obviously this is dickish behaviour, but the women seem to be willing (and when you consider that three of  the women are married to the ancient Walder Frey, the unfortunate looking Petyr Pimple and Edwyn who could blame them from looking elsewhere) and all  four of them being adults, with two of them likely older than him, it is hard to see why he'd be labelled a molester beyond him an enemy of the protagonists of the story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Edywn, not Emmon

My mistake. 

 

6 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

and it is he who thinks Black Walder is somehow responsible for the deaths of Ryman, Petyr and Merrett when we the reader know it is down to the BWB who would sooner skin Black Walder alive than work with him. 

Edywn is paranoid, but instead of realising that they have BWB members among their camp who relayed the information that Ryman was sent home with a small guard he instead blames the person who he feels is his biggest threat. 

Well, like I said, Edwyn has an axe to grind. However we're debating the severity of the accusation, not its reliability. 

 

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

the women seem to be willing

Not according to Merrett:

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Black Walder was a man who took what he wanted,

My point was that if  Edwyn was to be believed, then Black Walder was a molester. If Merrett's to be believed, then he's a sketchy bastard who sleeps with lots of family members. I suppose without a team of Westrosi social workers and detectives, we won't be able to know for sure the degree of coercion involved. However, a man who seems to be sleeping with several family members is usually a "red flag" when it comes to sexual conduct. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×