867-5309 Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 On 10/7/2018 at 11:48 AM, Angel Eyes said: It wasn’t legal for the Freys to break sacred hospitality. Now, nobody trusts them to not be slaughtered under their roof. As Merlin said to Uther Pendragon in Excalibur: ”You betrayed the Duke. You stole his wife. You took his castle. Now, only fools trust you; now, only a fool would.” Also, it wasn’t Robb’s idea to become King in the North. All he wanted to do was get his father and sisters back. You can blame Greatjon Umber for bringing up the idea: “The King in the North!” My point with the Freys is that it is bad for the kingdom because it raises paranoia that you can’t trust not to be slaughtered whilst visiting in your own home. It was legal for the Freys because the Starks were in the act of rebellion. The king ordered the Freys to get rid of them. Walder broke the tradition of guest rights but he did not break the law. It was Robb Stark and his bannermen who were breaking the law by rebelling in the first place. Robb Stark broke his oath to the Freys. Greatjon only made a suggestion. Robb Stark could have and should have declined. Breaking the tradition of guest rights is bad. But it is not nearly as horrible as the act of rebellion. The paranoia should be whether the word of a Stark is any good. This is twice now that they broke an oath of marriage. Lyanna broke hers with Robert. Robb broke his with the Freys. Twice they have rebelled against their king. The bastard son of the house broke his oath at the wall. These should be red flags to the reader that the Starks are not the good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
867-5309 Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 On 10/9/2018 at 1:39 PM, Angel Eyes said: That was bad wording on my part for that. I meant that you can’t trust visiting anyone else out of fear that your host will kill you for whatever reason. This would only apply if the visitor had done grievous wrong to the host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 I don't see it as rebellion trumping the guest-right thing. In our world, we have the Geneva Convention to outline which lines are not to be crossed during war. Doesn't matter if the war is a just war or not, you simply don't cross these lines without repercussion (theoretically). In my mind, guest-right is like this - a line that is not to be crossed no matter the justifications. The Rat Cook story tells us this is not something the gods can forgive. Whether or not you believe in the gods, it's deeply ingrained in the culture. Two wrongs don't make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.