Jump to content
Frey Kings

If People still hate the Freys, they need to reconsider their life priorities

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

That is one way to look at it.  There is also a logical angle to the red wedding;

  1. RW was less risky for the Freys.  They stand to lose their bridge and their lives, depending on how Tywin chose to punish the rebels.  Why put it on the line for the Starks who never have shown the Freys any respect.  Robb didn't value Stevron's life enough to keep his oath.  No reason for Walder to stay loyal to Robb.
  2. RW was the most efficient way to end the Stark rebellion.  Letting the rebellion continue longer will cause more damage.  This way, only the north and the riverlands take the big hit.  And who really cares about the north.  
  3. Possible profit for the Freys.  And they got rid of the Tullys.

It is hard to blame Walder Frey.

Yeah, I totally agree. It was scummy and sneaky, but it's hard not to see why it was done.

Share this post


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

no salt or bread 

Lady Roxane never gave Dunk S&B, yet a septon still criticised her for slapping him.

 

Also, i found hypocritical when people say that all Frey must die because some of them commited sin, yet never want for Tyrion to be punished for kinslaying.

Share this post


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

Come on, it was more than just his honour being slighted, around 1,500 Frey men lost their lives, including his heir, because Robb fucked them over. 

True but we never really hear about that to we? We hear about dishonor

He shamed us, the whole realm was laughing, we had to cleanse the stain on our honor.

Stark dishonored us. That is what you northmen had best remember

And the author says it was the dishonor:

knowing old Lord Walder's character, it is likely he would have searched for some way to disentangle himself from a losing cause sooner or later, but his desertion would likely have taken a less savage form. The Red Wedding was motivated by his desire to wash out the dishonor that was done him...

No one actually talks about the men who died except Merrett and Lothar, who make fun of Stevron dying. While I am sure Walder wasn't thrilled to see his men die for an ultimately lost cause, the chance to regain his "honor" and vastly increase his house's holdings were the primary drivers. He didn't *have* to do the Red Wedding to realign with the crown. He did it because he wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

That is one way to look at it.  There is also a logical angle to the red wedding;

  1. RW was less risky for the Freys.  They stand to lose their bridge and their lives, depending on how Tywin chose to punish the rebels.  Why put it on the line for the Starks who never have shown the Freys any respect.  Robb didn't value Stevron's life enough to keep his oath.  No reason for Walder to stay loyal to Robb.

Tywin punishing the Freys would have been a slap on the wrist at most. Virtually every RL house was let back into the fold and the heaviest punishment was levied on the Blackwoods, who lost a few towns, a mill, and some bees. Tywin even tells this to Joffrey before (I think)  the RW:

Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.

1 hour ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:
  1. RW was the most efficient way to end the Stark rebellion.  Letting the rebellion continue longer will cause more damage.  This way, only the north and the riverlands take the big hit.  And who really cares about the north.  

This is very true and the Lannisters got the Freys and Boltons to take most of the heat, even though the smallfolk (and HS iirc) both lay it at the feet of the Lannisters.

1 hour ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:
  1. Possible profit for the Freys.  And they got rid of the Tullys.

It is hard to blame Walder Frey.

The Freys gambled their long term health for short term gains. They certainly got quite a bit but they are dropping like flies and no one likes, respects, or fears them. I see why Walder did it, but I disagree on it as a wise course of action.

Share this post


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

Well no, there have always been topics like this. I joined in 2011 (link), and was a lurker long before that and there have always been topics exploring the motives of the antagonists of the series.

Sure, there have always been a few.  And it's important to understand motivations.  Not that equals endorsing actions I hope you understand.  Now it seems genuine informative discussion is rare and we are left with justifying or endorsing the Red Wedding or weaseling around the margins as to whether mass murder and betrayal is ok because you had your fingers crossed when you agreed to restoring an alliance.

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is kind of pathetic for you to accuse others of being contrarian for the sake of it. 

It's beyond pathetic that you think betraying and slaughtering a few thousand men at a wedding celebration is a legitimate tactic.    Those responsible for planning the Red Wedding will be tried and executed, a process well under way already. 

It's a vile argument that the men "fucked themselves up" rather than being trapped and murdered.  If you make the argument expect to have it called for what it is.

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Please, save the condescension for someone else. 

No one else was making the argument you were so that's on you

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Except if you had bothered to read the thread you would know no salt or bread was given to the soldiers outside.

Edwyn cleared his throat. "We have chambers prepared for you in the Water Tower, Your Grace," he told Robb with careful courtesy, "as well as for Lord Tully and Lady Stark. Your lords bannermen are also welcome to shelter under our roof and partake of the wedding feast."

"And my men?" asked Robb.

 "My lord grandfather regrets that he cannot feed nor house so large a host. 

They were never protected by guest rights.

That is the Freys attempted "out".  Do you really buy it?  They erect the feat tents and provide all the food and drink for the men.  No bread and salt?  There's plenty of bread and salt at the feast, I think you are ignoring the fact that Edwyn is talking bollox but you bought it hook line and sinker.

Morally, where do you think this stands?

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol it is war, do you feel the same outrage over the sleeping green westerland boys massacred at Oxcross.

Don't be dumb.  The Starks and Lannisters are at war, there is no betrayal.  The Freys and Northmen are comrades in arms who fought together until Robb broke a marriage pact that is to be restored by Edmure's marriage to Walder's daughter.  They are welcomed and treated as friends and entertained as such until they are trapped and slaughtered.  It's a cynical and ruthless betrayal of unsuspecting allies that has correctly earned them the scorn of Westeros and the enmity of the North and Riverlands.

We understand why Frey did it.  We also (mostly) understand how wrong it was.

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Some of us like to delve deeper, explore the motivations of characters. Explaining to others why a character chooses the path he/she takes is not always defending the character, though for some reason many assume they are one and the same. 

Do you think Frey's motivations are lost on anyone?  It's not like they need to be pointed out, they are made obvious in the book.  So how are you "delving deeper" except to argue that the Northmen "fucked themselves over".  It's still a shitty argument, man, they are guests of their allies at a wedding feast.  And it's more than that, Walder is Edmure's bannerman and owes him fealty.  You don't expect the marquis to be rigged to collapse and then set on fire and then some tool to say it's ok because you are "at war" with your hosts.  We and Westeros understand why Frey does it but we also understand how vile an act it is.

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The North was not at war with the Westerlands/Crown when they attacked and defeated Jaime. They were officially allies. 

That's funny.  Ned Stark is in a cell at KL and Robb has raised his banners and marched south to fee him.  Jaime is besieging Riverrun and Tywin has marched an army up the Greenfork to engage Robb and prevent him coming further south.  It's a conflict between the Lannisters and Stark-Tullys that is clear and obvious and has been in progress for some time with armies mustering and marching around the kingdom to fight each other yet you think they are allies.  You understand why I might call you contrarian?  Make some sense man....

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And Robb's army was not invited to the wedding, Robb brought them along.

And where did the food and drink and the feast tents come from?  They were provided by the Freys.  If they were not intended for the northern army, if the northern army was not expected, why were the tents rigged to collapse and burn?  It's not an opportunistic move by the Freys, it's a plan they spent a deal of time working over from the crossbowmen in the gallery in the castle to the oiled canvas of the tents that was designed to burn with all the men trapped inside.

You seem to ignore the fact that Frey provided them with hospitality.  He had that choice.  If you plan and provide hospitality for a few thousand men it's very hard to turn round and say they weren't guests.  Why did you go to all that effort of providing for them if they weren't to be welcomed and entertained as guests?  Of course if he offered them nothing except an empty field to pitch their own tents it wold be much harder to kill them all.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

and?

They are an army, no one made them drink and get wasted. That is on them. Frankly considering that every significant victory Robb had was catching the enemy by surprise he really should have known better. 

Don't be silly.  They are not in the field, they are among allies at a place of safety with no enemy forces within striking distance.  They will enjoy the feast then be on their way north the next day.  It's what makes the betrayal so effective.  Arguing that they should have expected a betrayal is reader omniscience and the wisdom of hindsight.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

it is war, soldiers get murdered in battle. I really don't think I should be explaining this to anyone. 

I should not be explaining to anyone that welcoming an ally into your territory, providing them with food and entertainment and then turning on them and blowing up the building when they are sitting on the pot is not "war", it's betrayal and murder of friends and allies.  

Are we getting through yet?

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol victim blaming, what is this medieval SJW studies.

I have no idea why you think it is funny that you blame a man for being murdered.  Clearly the idea that the murderer alone is at fault is too progressive or complicated an idea for you to grasp.  The idea that the Northmen brought their fate on themselves by partaking of the food and drink provided by the Freys in bad faith and as part of a trap is so asinine as to beggar belief.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

learn to read. In those threads I have been pretty clear that Slynt is a shitty human being, my argument  had been pretty constant, his crime did not warrant the death penalty, not that he himself did not get what he deserves. 

Thanks, I think I already know how!  It's why you might come out so vociferously and repeatedly (and you do have a a high post count here) on these topics that interests me.

As to the bolded, maybe you should learn to write! :P

Share this post


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

Inside is a breach of guest's right, outside is a breach of an alliance.

At the very least, yes.  The fact that the Northmen were invited into tents provided by the Freys and provided with hospitality before the tents were torched makes a strong argument for the soldiers to be protected by guest right.  In any case Frey does not care about guest right so it's academic: the betrayal is both inside and outside and the manner of it is infamous.

13 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

That is one way to look at it.  There is also a logical angle to the red wedding;

  1. RW was less risky for the Freys.  They stand to lose their bridge and their lives, depending on how Tywin chose to punish the rebels.  Why put it on the line for the Starks who never have shown the Freys any respect.  Robb didn't value Stevron's life enough to keep his oath.  No reason for Walder to stay loyal to Robb.
  2. RW was the most efficient way to end the Stark rebellion.  Letting the rebellion continue longer will cause more damage.  This way, only the north and the riverlands take the big hit.  And who really cares about the north.  
  3. Possible profit for the Freys.  And they got rid of the Tullys.

It is hard to blame Walder Frey.

The logic above is fair but incomplete.  The prestige of House Frey has never been lower, nor it's enemies so many and implacable.  It's a gamble that relies on the Lannisters holding on to power and although we shouldn't use hindsight I think the Freys will come to regret that they did not simply raise the drawbridge and hold Robb and all his Lords prisoner.

I think his progeny will end up blaming him for all their problems and rightly so.

11 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The Freys gambled their long term health for short term gains. They certainly got quite a bit but they are dropping like flies and no one likes, respects, or fears them. I see why Walder did it, but I disagree on it as a wise course of action.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic:

The Frey pies scenerio is pretty similar.

Wyman Manderly hosted the Freys, gave them gifts after they left, then ambushed them on the side of the road sonewhere, butchered, cooked, and ate them (if that theory is concrete).

Same conditions of betraying a shakey ally, but didn't kill them in his house. (Again, speculation that this happened) but we're not sitting here condemning the Manderlys.

Why? Because it's funny :)

Share this post


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

While we're on the topic:

The Frey pies scenerio is pretty similar.

Wyman Manderly hosted the Freys, gave them gifts after they left, then ambushed them on the side of the road sonewhere, butchered, cooked, and ate them (if that theory is concrete).

Same conditions of betraying a shakey ally, but didn't kill them in his house. (Again, speculation that this happened) but we're not sitting here condemning the Manderlys.

Why? Because it's funny :)

Manderly avoided violating guest right. The pies were in revenge for the killing of his son, his king and the kidnapping of his heir; he also had a good cook so he guilt is reduced: "The best pie you have ever tasted, my lords," the fat lord declared. "Wash it down with Arbor gold and savor every bite. I know I shall."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dmfn said:

While we're on the topic:

The Frey pies scenerio is pretty similar.

Oh no, it isn't, it's almost the exact opposite. It references the RW, but Wyman flagged it up in big red letters for the Freys to see. First he gives them guest right at White Harbour, and honours it whilst they're under his roof.

11 minutes ago, dmfn said:

Wyman Manderly hosted the Freys, gave them gifts after they left, then ambushed them on the side of the road sonewhere, butchered, cooked, and ate them (if that theory is concrete).

See the bolded - he gave them gifts as they left. The 'guest gift' is given as a marker to say 'now you are no longer a guest'. I can't find the quote now, but somewhere I read that this parting gift was falling out of fashion, even though guest right itself is still held strongly (outside the Twins, obviously). Being given a guest gift should have made the Freys question 'why?'  Because Wyman is saying, "Until now, you had guest right, NOW YOU DON'T"

11 minutes ago, dmfn said:

Same conditions of betraying a shakey ally, but didn't kill them in his house. (Again, speculation that this happened) but we're not sitting here condemning the Manderlys.

Why? Because it's funny :)

Why? Because the Manderleys abided by the rules of guest right, even after the RW - Wyman is not only taking his justified revenge, he's rubbing it in about guest right still meaning something in the North. Or, as I believe the current usage has it, 'the Freys fucked themselves up'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

Oh no, it isn't, it's almost the exact opposite. It references the RW, but Wyman flagged it up in big red letters for the Freys to see. First he gives them guest right at White Harbour, and honours it whilst they're under his roof.

See the bolded - he gave them gifts as they left. The 'guest gift' is given as a marker to say 'now you are no longer a guest'. I can't find the quote now, but somewhere I read that this parting gift was falling out of fashion, even though guest right itself is still held strongly (outside the Twins, obviously). Being given a guest gift should have made the Freys question 'why?'  Because Wyman is saying, "Until now, you had guest right, NOW YOU DON'T"

Why? Because the Manderleys abided by the rules of guest right, even after the RW - Wyman is not only taking his justified revenge, he's rubbing it in about guest right still meaning something in the North. Or, as I believe the current usage has it, 'the Freys fucked themselves up'.

It's opposite in the case that one violated guest right, the other did not. 

I remember the scene with the leaving gift you're talking about. Davos said it wasn't still as popular in the South as it once was. I understand he didn't kill them under his roof. I'm saying it's basically just as sneaky. 

Just as you aren't expecting to be murdered at dinner, you also don't expect to leave your new friend's house with gifts and get murdered on the road home.

Now, please continue defending murder, vengeance, and cannibalism under the technicality that guest right wasn't broken so I can verify that we aren't aware dramatic irony was used in a work of fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dmfn said:

It's opposite in the case that one violated guest right, the other did not. 

I remember the scene with the leaving gift you're talking about. Davos said it wasn't still as popular in the South as it once was. I understand he didn't kill them under his roof. I'm saying it's basically just as sneaky. 

Just as you aren't expecting to be murdered at dinner, you also don't expect to leave your new friend's house with gifts and get murdered on the road home.

Now, please continue defending murder, vengeance, and cannibalism under the technicality that guest right wasn't broken so I can verify that we aren't aware dramatic irony was used in a work of fiction.

What Manderly did was just as bad if not worse than the Red Wedding.  The war was over.  Reconciliation has already begun.  What Manderly did was completely not needed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

What Manderly did was just as bad if not worse than the Red Wedding.  The war was over.  Reconciliation has already begun.  What Manderly did was completely not needed.  

If they Freys had a right to vengeance before, the North certainly do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sigella said:

If they Freys had a right to vengeance before, the North certainly do now.

The Freys committed the red wedding during a time of war, against rebel soldiers and their leader.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The Freys committed the red wedding during a time of war, against rebel soldiers and their leader.  

..as an act of revenge for Robb snubbing Roslin. If they can desecrate corpses over such it's quite small to question the family of the desecrated corpse to exact som vengeance of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The Freys committed the red wedding during a time of war, against rebel soldiers and their leader.  

Still, if Freys had a right to kill Robb - Arya or LS have an equal right to kill and desecrate the corpses of the Freys that had part of it. If they don't the Freys didn't either. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sigella

I wasn't going the route of who 'deserves' what, or attempting to justify cold blooded murder on either party's behalf. 

As a reader I was satisfied understanding the chsracters' motivations. After Ned dying in AGOT, I wasn't too shocked after RW.

I was a little more so at the notion of Manderly's Frey pies, just for the fact that all I had gathered about Manderly as a character was that he was too fat too sit a horse.

Robb made a mistake, probably attempting to avoid the one thing people held against Ned. The Freys did some dirty dirty deeds in retaliation. Manderly is just going a step further as he sees now the gloves are off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The war was over.  Reconciliation has already begun.

The North remembers though.

8 hours ago, dmfn said:

I wasn't going the route of who 'deserves' what, or attempting to justify cold blooded murder on either party's behalf. 

As a reader I was satisfied understanding the chsracters' motivations

Exactly this. It's not really about right or wrong for the reader, it's about understanding the motivations of the characters. That doesn't mean you can't judge the actions of the characters, like or dislike them of course.

I liked the Frey pie scenario purely because it revealed just how dangerous Manderly is. He's constantly belittled and underestimated by his opponents, but he's revealing himself to be a clever and ruthless player, probably the cleverest one in North. And he's not taking the murder of his son and the betrayal of his lord lying down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

What Manderly did was just as bad if not worse than the Red Wedding.  The war was overReconciliation has already begun.  What Manderly did was completely not needed.  

The Manderly's sure as hell don't think the war was over . As for the reconciliation it pretty much consisted of "bend the knee or we will murder your other son and attack your lands "  not much of a reconciliation . The Freys murdered Lord Manderly's son and thousands of other Northmen and then had the stones to come North , what did they think would happen to them? Lord Manderly followed guests rights to the letter and once the Freys were out of his city and he no longer was bound by guest rights he attacked and killed them because they were his enemies and he was still at war . Just because the Lannisters and Freys declared the war over with doesn't make it true .  

 

Edited by Blackfish Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 2:01 PM, dmfn said:

Now, please continue defending murder, vengeance, and cannibalism under the technicality that guest right wasn't broken so I can verify that we aren't aware dramatic irony was used in a work of fiction.

I was trying to take a more 'in-world' perspective than a lit-crit one. Anyway, until /unless we get details of what exactly happened to the missing Freys, then 'murder' is an assumption. I haven't got time to re-trawl 4 or 5 chapters right now, but would suggest that Manderley could well have apprehended the wandering Freys still within his lands - where he has the right to administer justice - and could well convince himself that their death is an execution rather than a murder. Even if he doesn't believe that, I think he still has enough wiggle room that he can argue it successfully.

In absence of evidence, we can't call it either way.

9 hours ago, dmfn said:

Robb made a mistake, probably attempting to avoid the one thing people held against Ned. The Freys did some dirty dirty deeds in retaliation. Manderly is just going a step further as he sees now the gloves are off.

In the eyes of the North, though, Manderley is not going a step further because there is no further to go after violating the laws of hospitality. The whole tale of the Rat Cook stands to show (as it is but one vehicle for the transmission of the cultural values of the First Men) that no matter HOW bad murder is, no matter HOW bad cannibalism is, violation of guest right is EVEN WORSE. It is a violation of a sacred institution, a depth of depravity that is only matched by kinslaying. What Walder did is not just a 'dirty deed', to someone who holds the values of the First Men, it is unspeakably evil - this is what the texts tell us. It not only defies the gods, it mocks the gods.

It's not just the act itself, and its relation to Robb that is so heinous. Guest right is one of those institutions that is essential, and I would place it alongside the flag of truce, and a grant of safe conduct. I absolutely hate the phrase but these are all essential 'safe spaces' so that parley and truce remain possible alternatives to the constant cycle of vengeance. Once allowed to break down, it undermines the final brake on outright chaos in the realm.

We are told (it may yet prove untrue, but it is still said....) that Aegon V sent BR to the Wall for his breach of safe conduct as it brought the very word of the Iron Throne into doubt, even though BR had the excellent justification of nipping a Blackfyre rebellion in the bud. BR declared that he 'dishonoured' himself for the sake of the realm. Walder Frey's stated reason for the RW was to defend his house's 'honour', yet dishonoured himself to do so, and now their word is tainted. I don't recall any slaughters of people under a flag of truce in the text, but it would be equally shocking for Westerosi, I would expect.

You claim to be 'interested in the characters' motivations', but seem intensely resistant to understanding the importance of guest right to the motivations of certain northmen after the Red Wedding, if you think all it is is a 'technicality'.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I liked the Frey pie scenario purely because it revealed just how dangerous Manderly is. He's constantly belittled and underestimated by his opponents, but he's revealing himself to be a clever and ruthless player, probably the cleverest one in North. And he's not taking the murder of his son and the betrayal of his lord lying down. 

Yes, indeed. Wyman is a player, for all he is derided.

Edited by Rufus Snow
sp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

I was trying to take a more 'in-world' perspective than a lit-crit one. Anyway, until /unless we get details of what exactly happened to the missing Freys, then 'murder' is an assumption. I haven't got time to re-trawl 4 or 5 chapters right now, but would suggest that Manderley could well have apprehended the wandering Freys still within his lands - where he has the right to administer justice - and could well convince himself that their death is an execution rather than a murder. Even if he doesn't believe that, I think he still has enough wiggle room that he can argue it successfully.

In absence of evidence, we can't call it either way.

In the eyes of the North, though, Manderley is not going a step further because there is no further to go after violating the laws of hospitality. The whole tale of the Rat Cook stands to show (as it is but one vehicle for the transmission of the cultural values of the First Men) that no matter HOW bad murder is, no matter HOW bad cannibalism is, violation of guest right is EVEN WORSE. It is a violation of a sacred institution, a depth of depravity that is only matched by kinslaying. What Walder did is not just a 'dirty deed', to someone who holds the values of the First Men, it is unspeakably evil - this is what the texts tell us. It not only defies the gods, it mocks the gods.

It's not just the act itself, and its relation to Robb that is so heinous. Guest right is one of those institutions that is essential, and I would place it alongside the flag of truce, and a grant of safe conduct. I absolutely hate the phrase but these are all essential 'safe spaces' so that parley and truce remain possible alternatives to the constant cycle of vengeance. Once allowed to break down, it undermines the final brake on outright chaos in the realm.

We are told (it may yet prove untrue, but it is still said....) that Aegon V sent BR to the Wall for his breach of safe conduct as it brought the very word of the Iron Throne into doubt, even though BR had the excellent justification of nipping a Blackfyre rebellion in the bud. BR declared that he 'dishonoured' himself for the sake of the realm. Walder Frey's stated reason for the RW was to defend his house's 'honour', yet dishonoured himself to do so, and now their word is tainted. I don't recall any slaughters of people under a flag of truce in the text, but it would be equally shocking for Westerosi, I would expect.

You claim to be 'interested in the characters' motivations', but seem intensely resistant to understanding the importance of guest right to the motivations of certain northmen after the Red Wedding, if you think all it is is a 'technicality'.

Yes, indeed. Wyman is a player, for all he is derided.

Dude, I read the same books. Trust me, I get it. I understand that it's numero uno bad thing. 

All I meant by a step further, is an escalation in hostilities despite there being a forced peace. And I said a few times it was a speculation. 

Lastly, to the dead, I bet they don't nit pick the difference between being killed in the house, or being killed in the backyard. I seriously doubt the WotN or the IT would dismiss it as a technicality, as in 'well, they weren't actually guests when they died, case dismissed'.

As Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×