Jump to content
Danny-

Samwell Tarly stole the spotlight.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No actually you didn't until this all got pointed out to you. Sure maybe under your notion they were traitors, but then again your notion of what is and what is not a traitor is debatable, though you seemingly at first acted like it wasn't.

The show has established that oath breakers are traitors, House Frey and House Tarly broke their oaths to their liege, didn't think that needed explaining, but I did when i was asked. If House Frey are traitors then so are House Tarly, that symmetry applies at whatever level of the house you want to take it at.

Edited by D-Shiznit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D-Shiznit said:

The show has established that oath breakers are traitors, House Frey and House Taryl broke their oaths to their liege, didn't think that needed explaining, but I did when i was asked. If Hosue Frey are traitors then so are House Tarly, that symmetry applies at whatever level of the house you want to take it at.

Where is the scene that House Frey swore an oath to House Tully and Robb Stark and bent the knee to Robb after they left Robb's side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, by House Tyrell, which is extinct, so it doesn't matter who they recognized as queen, because theyr'e dead now, the Reach is now in the hands of the Lannisters and their allies, who recognize Cersei.  Get it? I guess not. LOL.

 

Yes They are dead because Randyll Tarly helped kill them. lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Where is the scene that House Frey swore an oath to House Tully and Robb Stark and bent the knee to Robb after they left Robb's side?

The oath is in perpetuity to Hosue Tully, the actions of Robb don't absolve them of it.

Share this post


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

Yes They are dead because Randyll Tarly helped kill them. lol.

 

This is one of the most nonsensical, circular arguments ever.  I get it, Dany can do no wrong, so if she burned the Tarlys alive against the advice of her advisors, it was right, true, just and legal, because they were bad traitors.  LMAO.  I expect you will get your wish and she will win it all in the end, though, so be happy.  I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

The show has established that oath breakers are traitors, House Frey and House Taryl broke their oaths to their liege, didn't think that needed explaining, but I did when i was asked. If Hosue Frey are traitors then so are House Tarly, that symmetry applies at whatever level of the house you want to take it at.

I really don't give a fuck what the show explained or did not explain, as I don't take GOT to be a treatise on political theory or law. 

Under these feudal systems. it's not easy to parse the idea of treason. Keep one oath and you likely break another.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

I really don't give a fuck what the show explained or did not explain, as I don't take GOT to be a treatise on political theory or law. 

Under these feudal systems. it's not easy to parse the idea of treason. Keep one oath and you likely break another.

Which is exactly what Jaime tried to explain to Brienne. 

Medieval figures like Robert the Bruce should have been burned a thousand times over under using their logic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I really don't give a fuck what the show explained or did not explain, as I don't take GOT to be a treatise on political theory or law. 

Under these feudal systems. it's not easy to parse the idea of treason. Keep one oath and you likely break another.

Well the case in question is from GOT, so its rules apply. They apply to House Tarly the same way the do to House Frey, Bolton.

 

If you remember when Great Jon Umber was refusing to go with Robb to rescue Ned in Season 1 unless his condition was met, Robb said to him that he would come back and hang him for an Oath breaker.

Edited by D-Shiznit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my main concerns regarding Daenerys' “executions” is not so much that she killed people (though I do feel some of them were inappropriate) but rather the seeming sense of sadistic satisfaction/gratification she appeared to derive from the “killing” behaviors, coupled with the lack of remorse afterwards. These include the following:

Refusing to look away and actually relishing watching Drogo kill her brother with the molten gold.

Standing on the balcony listening to the screams of the Masters she was crucifying in Meereen.

Caressing the back one of the Family Heads in Meereen while she is watching in an seemingly gratified manner as her dragons burns alive and then eats another Family Head.

The smiling and gratified look she had on her face while listening to their screams when she trapped and burned the Khals.

The lack of any empathy when telling Sam about her murdering (as per D&D) of his father/brother (indicating a lack of remorse in this case).

Again the above incidents have nothing to do with whether you perceive the “killing” behaviors as being justified or not, but rather what she personally derived emotionally from engaging in the behaviors. The sadistic satisfaction/gratification she derived from the behaviors would be consistent with a sociopathic component to her personality and is reinforced by her lack of remorse for the behaviors (at least I do not recall seeing any in my recent watching of the whole series).

GRRM is famous for imparting “gray” components (both good and bad character traits) to many characters in his writings. It is all relative of course but at some point the gray can evolve to darkness (as well as in the other direction for characters like Theon and Jamie). If the comments made by John Bradley are genuine then things don't look too good for Daenerys' fate. Perhaps they are red herrings and Daenerys will also move away from the dark side of her personality. I would prefer this. We shall see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

This is one of the most nonsensical, circular arguments ever.  I get it, Dany can do no wrong, so if she burned the Tarlys alive against the advice of her advisors, it was right, true, just and legal, because they were bad traitors.  LMAO.  I expect you will get your wish and she will win it all in the end, though, so be happy.  I'm out.

She wasn’t their queen. They swore allegiance to Cersei. They kept their oath. She defeated them she could have kept them prisoner. She didn’t think ahead to the next steps. Sam told Jon with anger in his heart now it looks like he was join to usurp her. Jon would be a traitor if he did because he swore to her. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D-Shiznit said:

Well the case in question is from GOT, so its rules apply. They apply to House Tarly the same way the do to Hosue Frey, Bolton.

Well in that case I suppose all of Joffrey's murders are just fine. It' was from GOT wasn't it? Case closed, I guess.

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

If you remember when Big Jon Umber was refusing to go with Robb to rescue Ned in Season 1 unless his condition was met, Robb said to him that he would come back and hang him for an Oath breaker.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but was Big Jon Umber the head of his house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well in that case I suppose all of Joffrey's murders are just fine. It' was from GOT wasn't it? Case closed, I guess.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but was Big Jon Umber the head of his house?

He was, just like Randall Tarly was. If Great Jon Umber and Walder Frey would be and were considered oath breakers, then so would Randall. If you want to limit the oath breaking just to the heads of the houses, then that would absolve sons of Walder Frey as well, if not then Dickon is not absolved as well.

Edited by D-Shiznit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Which is exactly what Jaime tried to explain to Brienne. 

Yes, I'm inclined to think when oaths conflict in Westeros, opinions may vary as to what is and what is not treason, even though some think the issue has been decisively settled.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

The oath is in perpetuity to Hosue Tully, the actions of Robb don't absolve them of it.

If that were true, then House Tully wouldn't have to stoop to marrying a Frey, would they? Walder Frey put it to Catelyn the first time she had to plead with him to let Robb pass the Twins when he went South: I have two bosses, if I choose boss A I'm a traitor in the eyes of boss B; if I choose B I'm a traitor in the eyes of boss A. Catelyn Stark ceded Walder Frey's point, and thus had to haggle to convince Walder to agree to siding with Robb, one of the promises made was that Robb would make one of the Frey girls a queen. And as he pointed out during the Red Wedding, even if Edmure married Roslyn, Waldery Frey still didn't get a daughter as queen out of it.

So, no, it's not that straightforward. Not in the books. Not in the show. And that it's a grey area is recognized by all concerned. Making it out to be black & white is wrong.

Share this post


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

If that were true, then House Tully wouldn't have to stoop to marrying a Frey, would they? Walder Frey put it to Catelyn the first time she had to plead with him to let Robb pass the Twins when he went South: I have two bosses, if I choose boss A I'm a traitor in the eyes of boss B; if I choose B I'm a traitor in the eyes of boss A. Catelyn Stark ceded Walder Frey's point, and thus had to haggle to convince Walder to agree to siding with Robb, one of the promises made was that Robb would make one of the Frey girls a queen. And as he pointed out during the Red Wedding, even if Edmure married Roslyn, Waldery Frey still didn't get a daughter as queen out of it.

So, no, it's not that straightforward. Not in the books. Not in the show. And that it's a grey area is recognized by all concerned. Making it out to be black & white is wrong.

Robb made it black and White with Great Jon Umber, he said he would hang him if he didn't obey his command and uphold his oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

He was, just like Randall Tarly was. If Great Jon Umber was.

Well again depends on the rule of precedence. Depending on the rule you use, Great Jon Umber was a traitor to the crown. Not that I'd blame him for being so. Nor would I think a death sentence would be warranted for such an act of "treason", though I'm sure Joffrey would see matters differently.

The upshot is that all this stuff is more complicated than you'd like to admit. Easier to argue they were traitors, and then ego their deaths were justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well again depends on the rule of precedence. Depending on the rule you use, Great Jon Umber was a traitor to the crown. Not that I'd blame him for being so. Nor would I think a death sentence would be warranted for such an act of "treason", though I'm sure Joffrey would see matters differently.

The upshot is that all this stuff is more complicated than you'd like to admit. Easier to argue they were traitors, and then ego their deaths were justified.

No doubt, but if you set a precedent in jurisprudence it passes on to similar cases. You can't say one party is a traitor for breaking their oath to their liege, but not the other for breaking their oath to theirs.

Edited by D-Shiznit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D-Shiznit said:

No doubt, but if you set a precedent in jurisprudence it passes on to similar cases. 

Well thanks for the lesson in stare decisis. If you would, please tell me, about the case in Westeros that is now controlling precedent in these matters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well thanks for the lesson in stare decisis. If you would, please tell me, about the case in Westeros that is now controlling precedent in these matters?

In the show, we have seen Great Jon Umber be called an oath-breaker and threatened with execution. If he would be considered an oath breaker, so would Randall.

Edited by D-Shiznit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

In the show, we have seen Great Jon Umber be called an oath-breaker and threatened with execution. 

Not sure that is applicable. In this particular case, Umber had already broken his oath to the crown. Supposing the case was he had a choice of keeping his oath to the crown while breaking his oath to the liege or vice versa, the controlling case would be what again? Opinions in Westeros may differ on what he should do, but it's not clear what the rule is supposed to be.

 

6 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

If he would be considered an oath breaker, so would Randall.

And if Randall had broken is oath to Cersei he'd be an oathbreaker to.

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

×