Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, George has implied in some SSM that Mormont wasn't exactly typical in his dealing with the whole Mole's Town whoring, either. That was oathbreaking, plain and simple, and there are likely Lord Commanders - like Brynden Rivers, perhaps? - who did not tolerate stuff like that.

Men don't need to be executed to prevent them from visiting a brothel. Castration can help, too. A severe beating. Ten days in an ice cell. Whatever punishments the Watch has to offer that is not execution.

Yes, it's perhaps implied that the lack of discipline is part of the reason that there was eventually a mutiny against his leadership.

You really get the impression Bloodraven would've had an iron fist of power.

[Adam Yozza]

10 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Probably not a lot. I mean Jon is merely confined to his cell after trying to strangle a superior officer. Discipline clearly wasn’t his forte

Jon was explicityly goaded into that reaction. Mormont knew that. Beyond which a failed attempt to hurt a fellow brother is not on the same level as explicitly refusing to obey the Lord Commander's orders.

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not talking about a pitched battle or open warfare. I'm talking about scores or hundreds of determined Northmen in Winterfell paying Roose and Ramsay a visit and ending the line of House Bolton for good and all. That could be done. And still can be done. And if, as @bemusedimplied, not even the Bolton men stand with House Bolton then this could be done rather easily.

Also note that it would be enough if a majority of the men at Winterfell simply did not care what happens to the Boltons. It would be enough if they would stand aside and look the other way while the mad dogs are put down. But apparently more people care about Roose than don't care about him. They fear him and Ramsay, and that keeps them in line.

I'm not so sure... After all, Bolton's men were there before everyone arrived. They know who the Boltons are and saw firsthand the squatters being slaughtered after doing repairs and whatnot. I would imagine that, apart from a couple of sick individuals, most of these men will turn on the Boltons the first decent chance they get.

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Jon was explicityly goaded into that reaction. Mormont knew that. Beyond which a failed attempt to hurt a fellow brother is not on the same level as explicitly refusing to obey the Lord Commander's orders.

I think Mormont wasn't like most LCs, or like those LC who were totally 'by the book'. But that is a good thing in my book, so... 

Also, no way Bloodraven would have given a fig about black brothers digging for buried treasure.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'm not so sure... After all, Bolton's men were there before everyone arrived. They know who the Boltons are and saw firsthand the squatters being slaughtered after doing repairs and whatnot. I would imagine that, apart from a couple of sick individuals, most of these men will turn on the Boltons the first decent chance they get.

Bolton's men down in the Riverlands all participated in the Red Wedding. On the victorious side, presumably. One assumes that helps them to get their loyalties straight, don't you think? If men have murdered their peers and comrades for you, they belong to you. Body and soul.

And those men who were Dreadfort men from the start would also know what this means. Men like Steelshanks Walton know their place. They know the Starks are but a name in distant Winterfell, and the flayed man of the Dreadfort is what rules and shapes their world. And it is a very stern master.

Roose's power may turn out to be build on sand is Stannis and his men have some success. If not, he'll triumph. The Northmen are not going to turn against them. They are too craven for that, apparently, and they do accept and follow strength.

If they had other ideas they would not need a Stark pretender or anything - they could just put the mad dogs down. It is not that hard. They are just two men. If Olenna Redwyne can kill Joffrey, why on earth cannot the people in Winterfell make an end with Roose and Ramsay?

Especially if Lady Barbrey were part of some anti-Bolton conspiracy - as some people strangely believe - it should be very easy to put Roose down. She should have access to his inner circle and the ability to get poison or assassins into his chambers. A few drops of the Tears of Lys (or some other poison) into his personal hippocras bottles/cask and Roose would be history.

Assassinations are not that hard to pull off. You don't even need a conspiracy to do it. 

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think Mormont wasn't like most LCs, or like those LC who were totally 'by the book'. But that is a good thing in my book, so... 

Also, no way Bloodraven would have given a fig about black brothers digging for buried treasure.

Bloodraven took heads for lesser offenses. And he killed children for lesser crimes. The man wouldn't have known what it meant to give scum like the men serving in the Watch the impression they could follow their desires. Those men all swore vows. 

28 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Jon was explicityly goaded into that reaction. Mormont knew that. Beyond which a failed attempt to hurt a fellow brother is not on the same level as explicitly refusing to obey the Lord Commander's orders.

Mormont didn't pardon Jon yet. He was hurt on a very personal level and disgusted by the way Jon behaved. There is no indication that he intended to let him get off the hook. He wouldn't have killed him, most likely, considering that he was a son of Lord Stark and thus 'special' enough so that other rules applied to him than to 'lesser men', yet one assumes he would have received a severe punishment, and his career at the Wall would have been over for good. No idea what a milder punishment for attempted murder would have been. Perhaps some disfigurement - cutting off the nose, perhaps? Or only a severe beating and imprisonment? He would have likely gotten only shitty duties thereafter, living a miserable and lonely life thereafter.

Why on earth Jon's later deed somehow made him a hero not deserving of punishment I actually never understood. In any proper society a criminal saving the life of some old judge is not going to not be punished for attempted murder just because he did that. Not to mention that essentially any sworn brother of the NW would have done what Jon did had he been in his position. Checking what's going on and trying to slay the monster to not die himself.

Mormont's justice clearly is completely arbitrary and based on favoritism instead of an impartial assessment of the crimes the people actually committed.

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bolton's men down in the Riverlands all participated in the Red Wedding. On the victorious side, presumably. One assumes that helps them to get their loyalties straight, don't you think? If men have murdered their peers and comrades for you, they belong to you. Body and soul.

I happen to disagree. I think there will be all sorts among the Bolton men, as is the case w/ any sampling we look at. And once the tide starts to turn, it will have a ripple effect and that will be it for the Boltons.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And those men who were Dreadfort men from the start would also know what this means. Men like Steelshanks Walton know their place. They know the Starks are but a name in distant Winterfell, and the flayed man of the Dreadfort is what rules and shapes their world. And it is a very stern master.

Stern? Stark raving mad, more like (intended, obviously). Still. Remember what Jaime said about Walton?

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Roose's power may turn out to be build on sand is Stannis and his men have some success. If not, he'll triumph. The Northmen are not going to turn against them. They are too craven for that, apparently, and they do accept and follow strength.

Not sure I follow... Who is "too craven"? 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If they had other ideas they would not need a Stark pretender or anything - they could just put the mad dogs down. It is not that hard. They are just two men. If Olenna Redwyne can kill Joffrey, why on earth cannot the people in Winterfell make an end with Roose and Ramsay?

Disagree. It's very hard for a common man to rebel, most won't even allow themselves to even think about it. 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Especially if Lady Barbrey were part of some anti-Bolton conspiracy - as some people strangely believe - it should be very easy to put Roose down. She should have access to his inner circle and the ability to get poison or assassins into his chambers. A few drops of the Tears of Lys (or some other poison) into his personal hippocras bottles/cask and Roose would be history.

Why would Barbrey do that? She kills Roose and then will have to deal w/ Ramsay. And we know how she feels about Ramsay. 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Assassinations are not that hard to pull off. You don't even need a conspiracy to do it. 

Well, I very steongly disagree, especially in this context. 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I happen to disagree. I think there will be all sorts among the Bolton men, as is the case w/ any sampling we look at. And once the tide starts to turn, it will have a ripple effect and that will be it for the Boltons.

There is no indication Roose took any men with him back North who would spread wrong tales. And there is no talk from 'Bolton men' about how Roose Bolton betrayed the Young Wolf, etc. Why is that? Most likely because there are no such men alive in the Bolton army.

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Stern? Stark raving mad, more like (intended, obviously). Still. Remember what Jaime said about Walton?

Roose isn't a madman.

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Not sure I follow... Who is "too craven"? 

Those lords sitting on their hands (and their asses) in Winterfell, waiting that Stannis does for them what they are too craven to do themselves.

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Disagree. It's very hard for a common man to rebel, most won't even allow themselves to even think about it.

Nobody said anything about common men rebelling - although they could do that, too. Common men can kill important men.

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Why would Barbrey do that? She kills Roose and then will have to deal w/ Ramsay. And we know how she feels about Ramsay. 

It is just an example. Ramsay is a moron, people should be able to poison him even more easily. Not to mention gut him or murder him some other way. Or just think how Jaqen turned Weese's dog against him. What a sight if somebody fed Ramsay's bitches the same poison...

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, I very steongly disagree, especially in this context. 

Sorry, but all great men brought low by lone assassins disagree with you. Abe Lincoln disagrees with you, JFK disagrees with you, Martin Luther King disagrees with you, Joffrey Baratheon disagrees with you.

And we actually see in the story how people who refuse to let death stop or deter them can kill anyone they want. The Caltrops got rid of the Two Betrayers, Roddy the Ruin put down Lord Ormund Hightower and his famous cousin. All they needed was some courage and the will to see the thing through.

And there are some Northmen who have that suicidal courage. The clansmen know most of them will die in the coming battles. They don't care. They only want to bathe in Bolton blood before they die (in winter). And that makes it not unlikely they will get their desire before they die.

If, say, Hother Umber had that kind of courage Roose and Ramsay would long be dead by now.

[Clegane'sPup]

@kissdbyfire, ever heard of the bait and switch technique? Does not matter what you say. The bait switcher turns it and spins it.

[Nowy Tends]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 JFK disagrees with you,

Odd choice. This the perfect counter-example. As if some random guy suddenly decided to kill the POTUS…

[Clegane'sPup]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Just saying - he also said 'mayhaps' at one point, did he not? And we all know what that means, right?

Perhaps he said what you said he said. I dunna know what martin speak is for mayhaps.

[867-5309]

On 4/17/2018 at 7:41 AM, Wolf's Bane said:

It is my opinion that Mance Rayder broke guest rights when he entered Winterfell and stole fArya from the Boltons. 

Jon Snow and Mellissandre convinced Mance Rayder to steal fArya Stark from her husband, Ramsay Bolton.

Mance lied and presented himself as a traveling entertainer (bard).

Mance and his women ate the food and drank the wine of their hosts, the Boltons.

They commit murder beneath the roof of their guests.  They murdered the Bolton serving men.  

They remove fArya from Winterfell, from her husband.

That's an egregious violation of guest rights.  That makes Mel and Jon indirectly guilt to the breaking of guest rights.

 

Jon is guilty of guest rights violation.  I agree with you.  Treason against the NW as well.  I don't think those were the precise reasons why his men killed him though.  They killed him to stop him from leading the wildlings to attack the Boltons.  That would cause too many problems for the watch and compromise their ability to stop the White Walkers.  

On 4/17/2018 at 9:04 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Abel/Mance was a guest of the Boltons. 

Yes the wildlings were guests who enjoyed the hospitality of the Boltons.  They sheltered under the same roof and shared the same food.  

 

[kissdbyfire]

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, but all great men brought low by lone assassins disagree with you. Abe Lincoln disagrees with you, JFK disagrees with you, Martin Luther King disagrees with you, Joffrey Baratheon disagrees with you.

I'm not gonna go over the whole post b/c we've danced this dance too many times already.

I made my points, you made yours, and we can agree that we disagree fundamentally on the vast majority of issues and topics. 

But this paragraph is so awesome it deserved a special mention... You managed to put together JFK, MLK, Lincoln, and Joff Baratheon!

[867-5309]

On 4/17/2018 at 5:02 PM, Bowen 747 said:

You know, even that on its own was wrong.  That is interfering with Ramsay Bolton's business.  

The laws of hospitality do not distinguish between good people and bad people.  Nor do they distinguish between who you like and do not like.  The rules applied to Roose Bolton and Mance Rayder.  And to Jon, because it was he who sent Mance to find Arya.  Mance didn't go south to take in the sights and sip margaritas.  He went to get Arya.

The Watch takes no part.  They are to remain neutral.  Hiding Arya from Ramsay is not neutral.

 

On 4/17/2018 at 5:48 PM, Nowy Tends said:

Jon didn't send Mance to WF, is that SO hard to understand? Jon guilty of guest rights violation is utterly ludicrous and grotesque.

Oh sure, so you're saying Mance Rayder escaped from Castle Black and took it upon himself to get Arya.  That's absurd.  Mance Rayder was acting under Jon's directions.  Jon told him to bring his sister to the wall so he can hide her from Ramsay.  

[Bernie Mac]

14 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

Jon is guilty of guest rights violation.  

How so?

"Your father would have had my head off." The king gave a shrug. "Though once I had eaten at his board I was protected by guest right. The laws of hospitality are as old as the First Men, and sacred as a heart tree."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Robb, listen to me. Once you have eaten of his bread and salt, you have the guest right, and the laws of hospitality protect you beneath his roof."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Eat. It's good."It was, though any stale crust would have tasted just as fine to Davos; it meant he was a guest here, for this one night at least. The lords of the Three Sisters had a black repute, and none more so than Godric Borrell, Lord of Sweetsister, Shield of Sisterton, Master of Breakwater Castle, and Keeper of the Night Lamp … but even robber lords and wreckers were bound by the ancient laws of hospitality. I will see the dawn, at least, Davos told himself. I have eaten of his bread and salt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "My son Wendel came to the Twins a guest. He ate Lord Walder's bread and salt, and hung his sword upon the wall to feast with friends. And they murdered him.

 

Jon was not a guest, he was not under Roose's roof nor did he have any bread or salt (or any other food) at Roose's roof. Jon has not broken this custom. Mance is another matter, a more complicated one, but Jon quite clearly did not break the custom of guest rights given he was hundreds of miles away. 

 

[867-5309]

On 4/18/2018 at 4:20 PM, Tagganaro said:

I don't know that a guest can really violate guest rights to begin with, especially to people who aren't the host.  Guest right seems to refer more specifically to the host not harming his guests, that is the crux of the story of the Rat Cook.  But yeah, even assuming that guest right is a mutual contract which applies to both host and guest, Mance and his spearwives did not harm the host so I don't think they violated guest rights.

Plus, I mean c'mon, the Freys and Boltons complaining about guest right being violated...pot meet kettle .

The wildlings murdered Roose Bolton's serving people.  Mance and his spearwives definitely violated guest rights.  

[867-5309]

1 minute ago, Bernie Mac said:

How so?

"Your father would have had my head off." The king gave a shrug. "Though once I had eaten at his board I was protected by guest right. The laws of hospitality are as old as the First Men, and sacred as a heart tree."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Robb, listen to me. Once you have eaten of his bread and salt, you have the guest right, and the laws of hospitality protect you beneath his roof."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Eat. It's good."It was, though any stale crust would have tasted just as fine to Davos; it meant he was a guest here, for this one night at least. The lords of the Three Sisters had a black repute, and none more so than Godric Borrell, Lord of Sweetsister, Shield of Sisterton, Master of Breakwater Castle, and Keeper of the Night Lamp … but even robber lords and wreckers were bound by the ancient laws of hospitality. I will see the dawn, at least, Davos told himself. I have eaten of his bread and salt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "My son Wendel came to the Twins a guest. He ate Lord Walder's bread and salt, and hung his sword upon the wall to feast with friends. And they murdered him.

 

Jon was not a guest, he was not under Roose's roof nor did he have any bread or salt (or any other food) at Roose's roof. Jon has not broken this custom. Mance is another matter, a more complicated one, but Jon quite clearly did not break the custom of guest rights given he was hundreds of miles away. 

 

Jon sent Mance on his mission.  As mission commander, Jon takes responsibility for his operatives.  Mance would not have rescued fake Arya if Jon had not ordered it.  As a matter of fact, that was his reason for being there.  

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, 867-5309 said:

Jon sent Mance on his mission.  As mission commander, Jon takes responsibility for his operatives.  Mance would not have rescued fake Arya if Jon had not ordered it.  As a matter of fact, that was his reason for being there.  

First, this is not a James Bond film. Just sayin'.

Second, you may blame Jon for sending Mance to retrieve Arya, but not of violating guest right. Know why? Because Jon is not Bolton's guest, Bolton is not Jon's host. Really, it isn't that complicated. 

[867-5309]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

First, this is not a James Bond film. Just sayin'.

Second, you may blame Jon for sending Mance to retrieve Arya, but not of violating guest right. Know why? Because Jon is not Bolton's guest, Bolton is not Jon's host. Really, it isn't that complicated. 

You can't get Jon out of this.  He has no excuse.  Mance Rayder is working for Jon.  Jon supplied him with who he needed for the mission.  Jon is responsible because if it were not for his orders, Mance Rayder would not be in Winterfell to start with.  Mance Rayder couldn't leave the wall without Jon's leave.  Dolorous Edd didn't decide on his own to bring the women to Mance.  It was all Jon's doing.

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, 867-5309 said:

You can't get Jon out of this.  He has no excuse.  Mance Rayder is working for Jon.  Jon supplied him with who he needed for the mission.  Jon is responsible because if it were not for his orders, Mance Rayder would not be in Winterfell to start with.  Mance Rayder couldn't leave the wall without Jon's leave.  Dolorous Edd didn't decide on his own to bring the women to Mance.  It was all Jon's doing.

You seem to be unable to grasp one very simple fact: nothing you said supports the preposterous idea that Jon violated guest right.