The Injustice in ASOIAF

[Eternally_Theirs]

Okay, some of you might not agree with this, but the trend I've noticed is that decent people end up in the gutter, while horrible people end up on top.

1. Lord Eddard Stark is the poster boy of fairness and good intentions. Everything he does is for the good of everyone. He even warns Cersei, of all people, even though he is trying to bring her down. And despite this, all he receives is the business end of his own sword.

2. Robb Stark, who is for all intents and purposes, a puppy in Westeros. A puppy surrounded by lions. He is a bit naive, yes, but his heart is in the right place. Yes, his death was a necessary part of the war and blah blah blah, but ultimately, he got screwed up by the people he should have trusted. Not to mention that they also aborted his unborn baby, thus condemning him/her to death for merely existing.

3. Tyrion Lannister, a stand-up guy who was condemned to die for the crime he didn't really commit, forcing him to flee the continent. No wonder he snapped.

4. Jon Snow, perhaps the biggest example of this. Imagine hearing that your favorite sibling is trapped in a loveless marriage to the son of a man who murdered your brother. Imagine choosing your love for them due to believing it more important than duty. Imagine desiring some sort of revenge against said murdered ('you killed my brother, I'll kill your son' type deal) and getting stabbed for it, four times.

5. Reek the 3rd and Jeyne Poole. Well, I have no words here, so I'll just...... *sobbing* *more sobbing*

And then we have the unscrupulous people. I'll not bother with individual assessment here. I'll just say that they are all douchebags with no human decency whatsoever. Sure, Cersei loves her children and Jaime gets character development, but this doesn't change the fact that they conspired to perform the most heinous 'puppy killing' in Westeros.

 

[Frey family reunion]

6 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

1. Lord Eddard Stark is the poster boy of fairness and good intentions. Everything he does is for the good of everyone. He even warns Cersei, of all people, even though he is trying to bring her down. And despite this, all he receives is the business end of his own sword.

Eddard died because he tepidly played at the Game of Thrones, and used his honor as a crutch..  Cersei warns him of this, Littlefinger warns him of this and Renly warns him of this.  Eddard’s worst mistake was accepting Robert’s offer and going south, where he was completely out of his element. 

6 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

2. Robb Stark, who is for all intents and purposes, a puppy in Westeros. A puppy surrounded by lions. He is a bit naive, yes, but his heart is in the right place. Yes, his death was a necessary part of the war and blah blah blah, but ultimately, he got screwed up by the people he should have trusted. Not to mention that they also aborted his unborn baby, thus condemning him/her to death for merely existing

I have less sympathy for Robb, who helped thrust Westeros into a terrible war for the sake of vengeance, personal gain and territorial expansion of the North.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

ETA: and let us not forget that he contributed to the downfall of his war when he broke his oath to the Freys.

ETAA: not sure about the aborting his unborn baby part.  That may have just been an addition in the books (edit: HBO show).  If he had an unborn child in the books I’m not aware that there was a forced abortion.

6 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

3. Tyrion Lannister, a stand-up guy who was condemned to die for the crime he didn't really commit, forcing him to flee the continent. No wonder he snapped

I like Tyrion, but to call him a stand-up guy is stretching it a bit.  He just looks good in comparison to some of the other people in his family.  

6 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

4. Jon Snow, perhaps the biggest example of this. Imagine hearing that your favorite sibling is trapped in a loveless marriage to the son of a man who murdered your brother. Imagine choosing your love for them due to believing it more important than duty. Imagine desiring some sort of revenge against said murdered ('you killed my brother, I'll kill your son' type deal) and getting stabbed for it, four times.

Jon knew the stakes when he took his Oath.  Jon knew he was breaking his oath when he took the bait in the Pink Letter.  But there is an interesting theory that the plan to kill Jon probably predated his decision to march on Winterfell, and may have had more to do with his decision to commit forces to Hardhomme.  If that’s the case, then I do feel a bit more sympathy for Jon.

6 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

5. Reek the 3rd and Jeyne Poole. Well, I have no words here, so I'll just...... *sobbing* *more sobbing*

While Theon’s return to Pyke did put him in a bad situation, it has to be remembered that his decision to take Winterfell and the aftermath of that, was a folly wholly in his own making.    So I don’t have too much sympathy for what he suffered in its aftermath.  I do agree that Jeyne is truly a victim in all of this.  Probably the one person in your list I have the most sympathy for.

 (If nothing else, what Theon did to the children of the Miller’s wife makes him very deserving of the living hell that his life becomes)

[Eternally_Theirs]

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

I have less sympathy for Robb, who helped thrust Westeros into a terrible war for the sake of vengeance, personal gain and territorial expansion of the North.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

ETA: and let us not forget that he contributed to the downfall of his war when he broke his oath to the Freys.

ETAA: not sure about the aborting his unborn baby part.  That may have just been an addition in the books.  If he had an unborn child in the books I’m not aware that there was a forced abortion.

 

1. Yeah, he had the nerve to marry for love. Let's torch the dude who married for love.

2, Didn't his good-mother pepper his wife with herbs that would induce abortion? I believe someone said that, somewhere.

[Julia H.]

10 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

Okay, some of you might not agree with this, but the trend I've noticed is that decent people end up in the gutter, while horrible people end up on top.

1. Lord Eddard Stark is the poster boy of fairness and good intentions. Everything he does is for the good of everyone. He even warns Cersei, of all people, even though he is trying to bring her down. And despite this, all he receives is the business end of his own sword.

2. Robb Stark, who is for all intents and purposes, a puppy in Westeros. A puppy surrounded by lions. He is a bit naive, yes, but his heart is in the right place. Yes, his death was a necessary part of the war and blah blah blah, but ultimately, he got screwed up by the people he should have trusted. Not to mention that they also aborted his unborn baby, thus condemning him/her to death for merely existing.

3. Tyrion Lannister, a stand-up guy who was condemned to die for the crime he didn't really commit, forcing him to flee the continent. No wonder he snapped.

4. Jon Snow, perhaps the biggest example of this. Imagine hearing that your favorite sibling is trapped in a loveless marriage to the son of a man who murdered your brother. Imagine choosing your love for them due to believing it more important than duty. Imagine desiring some sort of revenge against said murdered ('you killed my brother, I'll kill your son' type deal) and getting stabbed for it, four times.

5. Reek the 3rd and Jeyne Poole. Well, I have no words here, so I'll just...... *sobbing* *more sobbing*

And then we have the unscrupulous people. I'll not bother with individual assessment here. I'll just say that they are all douchebags with no human decency whatsoever. Sure, Cersei loves her children and Jaime gets character development, but this doesn't change the fact that they conspired to perform the most heinous 'puppy killing' in Westeros.

 

Well, this is a novel, and it has to have a conflict, otherwise there is no story. It means that good guys we sympathize with will suffer. Since ASOIAF is set in a remarkably cruel world, the hardships these guys suffer will be likewise remarkably cruel. Even if these good guys are not totally perfect and make their tragic mistakes which hasten their downfalls, I do think we are meant to sympathize with them and feel for them (feel the injustice, for example, or the difficulty of making a very hard decision) because these feelings make us, readers, more involved in the story. 

1. I agree that Eddard was created to be a paragon of various virtues, but, for reasons characteristic of the genre, he absolutely had to go as the main conflict evolved. He was the father figure who had to go so that his children could cope with this loss, grow up, make their own choices and fight their own fights without paternal advice or protection. Eddard's contribution to their story is through his legacy as a father, and it is extremely important in their story arcs. His death was cruel because this is a cruel world and because it was part of the evolving conflict rather than just a mere coincidence - just compare Eddard dying the way he died in the books with Eddard dying of the flu, for example. Which version makes for a better story?

2. Robb's story is totally tragic, especially because of his young age. He had to make choices he was obviously too young for, but he tried to do what he considered right and honourable. However, this is not a story about the triumphant warrior hero. In fact, it is much more a story of the evils of war and the vulnerability of man, regardless whether he is one of the smallfolk suffering from the cruelty of soldiers or a successful military leader stabbed when he least expects it. Therefore Robb had to die as well, and his death was cruel because war is cruel. 

3. Well, the injustice to Tyrion started with the fact that he was born to be an "imp". He was accused and condemned for deeds he had not committed, but he is still alive, and he is the picaresque hero of this world, whose destiny is to travel and survive using his wits. The injustices move his story ahead. 

4. Jon Snow has the real hero's arc in my opinion in these novels. It is inevitable that he has to face adversity, and I believe that the reader is meant to empathize with him. But his story - which, in some respects, echoes Robb's story -, is not finished yet.

 5. Jeyne is a helpless victim, as are many other characters in the novels, and it is one of the merits of these novels that they show us the plight of the victims who might be nameless and "faceless" in other stories. 

As for the bad guys, I'm not sure they tend to "end up on the top". They are able to cause a lot of suffering, but when they get what they want, it typically turns out to be poisoned fruit.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Eddard died because he tepidly played at the Game of Thrones, and used his honor as a crutch..  Cersei warns him of this, Littlefinger warns him of this and Renly warns him of this.  Eddard’s worst mistake was accepting Robert’s offer and going south, where he was completely out of his element.

This is all true but it is hard not to have some sympathy for such an honorable guy. He really tries & mostly does do the right thing morally & ends up beheaded for it. 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

I have less sympathy for Robb, who helped thrust Westeros into a terrible war for the sake of vengeance, personal gain and territorial expansion of the North.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

ETA: and let us not forget that he contributed to the downfall of his war when he broke his oath to the Freys.

I agree some but I think the war was inevitable when they took Ned captive. I don't think he could just not answer that call & remain Lord of WF. His Lord's likely would have called him weak & lost much respect for him. If he wouldn't avenge his own fathers death whose would he avenge? 

He definitely contributed to his own downfall breaking the oaths to the Freys. Not that I agree with their actions at the RW but he should have kept his oath. 

Ironic isn't it that Ned's downfall was upholding his values & refusing to bend (in the end he did confess to treason to save Sansa but he ended up in that position because he refused to not do what is morally right) & Robb's down fall was not upholding his oath. 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

ETAA: not sure about the aborting his unborn baby part.  That may have just been an addition in the books (edit: HBO show).  If he had an unborn child in the books I’m not aware that there was a forced abortion.

I think there may be a theory floating around that Jeyne is/was possibly pregnant but there is nothing confirmed & certainly not a forced abortion. 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

Jon knew the stakes when he took his Oath.  Jon knew he was breaking his oath when he took the bait in the Pink Letter.  But there is an interesting theory that the plan to kill Jon probably predated his decision to march on Winterfell, and may have had more to do with his decision to commit forces to Hardhomme.  If that’s the case, then I do feel a bit more sympathy for Jon.

6 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

Yeah, again I agree but it is hard for me not to feel sympathy toward Jon. He did know what he was signing up for but it would certainly be very hard to not answer Ramsay's call for blood. 

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

While Theon’s return to Pyke did put him in a bad situation, it has to be remembered that his decision to take Winterfell and the aftermath of that, was a folly wholly in his own making.    So I don’t have too much sympathy for what he suffered in its aftermath.  I do agree that Jeyne is truly a victim in all of this.  Probably the one person in your list I have the most sympathy for.

 (If nothing else, what Theon did to the children of the Miller’s wife makes him very deserving of the living hell that his life becomes)

Yeah I feel bad for Theon for the way his father treated him but agree the taking of WF was stupid. He did bring some of this on his self but man... Ramsay is one sick puppy & I just don't think there are many people in the world that are deserving of what he has done to Theon. I would agree he deserves to be punished, even by death, for what he did to the Miller's kids but I really feel as if he has suffered enough. 

[The Jingo]

2 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

1. Yeah, he had the nerve to marry for love. Let's torch the dude who married for love.

2, Didn't his good-mother pepper his wife with herbs that would induce abortion? I believe someone said that, somewhere.

1) In the books Robb didn't marry for love. He married Jeyne because he thought it was the just and honourable thing to do. I wouldn't torch him for it but it was a terrible decision and lots of people died for it.

In the show he married 'for love' and absolutely deserves to be torched. He threw away a fifth of his army because he couldn't keep it in his pants, or he didn't keep it in his pants but he couldn't just accept that there was nothing wrong with taking as a mistress a foreign woman whose virtue no one gave a damn about. No, he HAD to marry her, and in doing so many people died. It's no different than Rhaegar.

Alyssa Allyrion wrote Edge of Solstice and her Elia was pretty spot on in regards to this. A little paraphrased but - "Your Grace. You are responsible for deaths of thousands upon thousands of people and for what? Because you wanted to fuck some [northern] whore? It must be a lot of consolation for those who died in the war that at least the king’s cock is happy now. But you don’t care, do you? Of course not. People and their lives are nothing to you, when measured against your lust "

2) Yes, it's suggested the Jeyne's mother was working for Tywin and deliberately fed Jeyne herbs to prevent conception so that Robb didn't have an heir of his own body.

[Eternally_Theirs]

Lust? No. I am talking about love. Genuine love. Why do so many people in that world treat falling in love with stigma?

[The Jingo]

11 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

Lust? No. I am talking about love. Genuine love. Why do so many people in that world treat falling in love with stigma?

Because marriage in Westeros is not about love. It's about power. It's about honor and history and alliances.

Noblemen have privileges that the smallfolk could never dream of. The right to be judged by their peers, they have access to riches, to education, to social connections and real tangible power by law. They can look down on the peasantry and expect obedience. But these privileges aren't free, they come with responsibilities. The responsibility to manage your lands well or lose them, to marry to enrich your family and your people, to settle old grudges or start new ventures through marriage and oaths and fostering.

Robb has a right by Westerosi custom to expect his bannermen to follow him, but he also has duties to his lords he must uphold. And that most especially includes marriage.

Robb Stark who breaks his word to marry Margaery and a hundred thousand Tyrell swords is a man to be afraid of. He's a man that looks at the multitude who depends on him and makes the hard choices necessary to ensure the prosperity of his people.

The Robb Stark who breaks his word to marry a nurse from Volantis with a fat ass or the daughter of an enemy with a meagre fifty swords because 'honor', shaming an ally and losing the allegiance of one of the most powerful houses in the Riverlands is not a man to respect. He's a fool, an imbecile and a laughingstock of the highest order who has abdicated his responsibility to the realm and to the people who believed in him.

When you allow yourself to be ruled by something as transitory and immaterial as love and infatuation in a world like Westeros you're not only violating social expectations, you have thrown away your future. Something as dumb as that should be stigmatized. Jeyne Westerlind/Talisa Maegyr's dowry was the blood of the Riverlands. How could we anything but absolute contempt for them and for Robb for being foolish enough to marry them?

[Eternally_Theirs]

Well, maybe that ought to change. Maybe people of Westeros should take a cue from the modern era and start marrying for love.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

40 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Alyssa Allyrion wrote Edge of Solstice and her Elia was pretty spot on in regards to this. A little paraphrased but - "Your Grace. You are responsible for deaths of thousands upon thousands of people and for what? Because you wanted to fuck some [northern] whore? It must be a lot of consolation for those who died in the war that at least the king’s cock is happy now. But you don’t care, do you? Of course not. People and their lives are nothing to you, when measured against your lust "

But you say yourself it isn't about his cock or it being happy, nor is it about lust. He could have slept with the woman & went on his merry way, satisfying both is cock & his lust. This whole paragraph is irrelevant because of that. It was marrying the woman that was the cause of the oath breaking, nothing to do with cocks or lust. To make the paragraph relevant every "cock" & "lust" would have to be replaced with "Jeyne's honor" or "Your (Robb's) honor" 

42 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

2) Yes, it's suggested the Jeyne's mother was working for Tywin and deliberately fed Jeyne herbs to prevent conception so that Robb didn't have an heir of his own body.

The question was if there was a forced abortion so the answer is no, not that we are aware of. Her mother preventing conception is alluded to but not confirmed but if that's true that would prevent any need for an abortion because there would be no pregnancy. 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Because marriage in Westeros is not about love. It's about power. It's about honor and history and alliances.

Occasionally it's about love but not usually. Just because it isn't usually about love though doesn't mean that's the right way or that we, as modern, mostly civilized people should agree with them. 

10 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Noblemen have privileges that the smallfolk could never dream of. The right to be judged by their peers, they have access to riches, to education, to social connections and real tangible power by law. They can look down on the peasantry and expect obedience. But these privileges aren't free, they come with responsibilities. The responsibility to manage your lands well or lose them, to marry to enrich your family and your people, to settle old grudges or start new ventures through marriage and oaths and fostering.

That's the way of it then, yes. But we know for a fact it doesn't have to be that way. It isn't necessary for survival or to remain in a privileged position. 

10 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Robb has a right by Westerosi custom to expect his bannermen to follow him, but he also has duties to his lords he must uphold. And that most especially includes marriage.

How or why would marriage be the oath that should be held "most especially"? I agree Robb made a promise & backed out but there are plenty of duties I would think would be more important than marriage. His own lords could probably care less who he marries or if he marries at all. 

13 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Robb Stark who breaks his word to marry Margaery and a hundred thousand Tyrell swords is a man to be afraid of.

 

15 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

 

 

16 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

The Robb Stark who breaks his word to marry a nurse from Volantis with a fat ass or the daughter of an enemy with a meagre fifty swords because 'honor', shaming an ally and losing the allegiance of one of the most powerful houses in the Riverlands is not a man to respect. He's a fool, an imbecile and a laughingstock of the highest order who has abdicated his responsibility to the realm and to the people who believed in him.

So, your issue isn't with him not upholding his promise but the reason that he didn't uphold his promise? Or if he had won the war because of breaking said promise it would have been justified?  You do know said betrothal was in exchange for Walder upholding HIS OWN DUTIES to his Lord right? Something, according to Westerosi law & custom he should have done out of loyalty. 

It's also very likely Walder was going to betray him before he broke his promise. Who is he known as a fool, imbecile, or laughing stock to? I don't recall anyone saying these things. 

20 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

When you allow yourself to be ruled by something as transitory and immaterial as love and infatuation in a world like Westeros you're not only violating social expectations, you have thrown away your future. Something as dumb as that should be stigmatized.

I disagree, I think the way of life in a world like Westeros is what is dumb & should be stigmatized. Thankfully, humanity in general agrees. 

21 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

Jeyne Westerlind/Talisa Maegyr's dowry was the blood of the Riverlands. How could we anything but absolute contempt for them and for Robb for being foolish enough to marry them?

I think if all you can feel is absolute contempt for Robb then you either aren't paying attention or the author hasn't done a very good job of showing the nuance. 

[Eternally_Theirs]

In this song, he specifically says '.....then I chose love over Walder's daughter'

Besides, that marriage is a sham. Freys aren't the big house, they are a small house sworn to a big house. Edmure could have just been like 'let my nephew pass' and they'd have no choice but to obey.

 

[Julia H.]

In fairness to Robb, I think old Walder would have betrayed him even if Robb hadn't married Jeyne. Robb was to marry a Frey girl after the war, that is after he had won the war, not before. But with Winterfell falling into the hands of the Ironborn, with Renly dead, the Tyrells joining the Lannisters and Stannis losing his battle, Walder Frey would have known which side was likely to win the war, and he would have joined the Lannisters, so Robb would never have married the Frey girl even if there had been no Jeyne Westerling at all (or if he had, the Red Wedding might have been Robb's own wedding). Robb's decision may have made Walder's decision easier, but it wouldn't have been a hard decision for Walder anyway, and it certainly made it possible for him to make it look like revenge for an offence, but he would have done the deed (and broken his own oath) for mere self-preservation even if Robb had been the most devoted and faithful son-in-law-to-be in the world. Conversely, if Walder had thought that Robb was surely going to win the war and the Lannisters were going to lose, he would have wanted to stay on the winning side at all costs - though he would have complained about how unfairly he had been treated and he would have requested (and received) ample compensation from Robb. 

[Ser Leftwich]

This thread is perfect for one of my favourite lines from Tom Stoppard:

 “The bad end unhappily; the good, unluckily. That is what tragedy means.”

― Tom Stoppard, from Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

ASoIaF is, at least in many ways, a tragedy, and I think GRRM follows Stoppard's idea of what tragedy is.

[The Jingo]

1 hour ago, DR Supporter said:

Well, maybe that ought to change. Maybe people of Westeros should take a cue from the modern era and start marrying for love.

That wouldn't happen until someone invents gunpowder.

Westeros is an example of a highly stratified power structure, and is maintained as such because the men who hold power (the nobles) have access to training and equipment that enables them to hold power through force. If you think of someone like Gregor Clegane - he could probably wipe out a village of peasants by himself. Now maybe they might be able to rally with their pitchforks and kill him, but it would have a very high cost in blood.

And of course, the inevitable result of this is that men who can take power hold it, and pass it on to their children with the reasonable expectation that it will all be kept in the family.

Technology is the equalizer that enables social development. Without it a small group of highly trained killers can exert control over large groups of untrained unarmoured serfs.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But you say yourself it isn't about his cock or it being happy, nor is it about lust. He could have slept with the woman & went on his merry way, satisfying both is cock & his lust. This whole paragraph is irrelevant because of that. It was marrying the woman that was the cause of the oath breaking, nothing to do with cocks or lust. To make the paragraph relevant every "cock" & "lust" would have to be replaced with "Jeyne's honor" or "Your (Robb's) honor" 

The question was if there was a forced abortion so the answer is no, not that we are aware of. Her mother preventing conception is alluded to but not confirmed but if that's true that would prevent any need for an abortion because there would be no pregnancy. 

 

It is relevant because fanfic!Elia is angry and cursing out Rhaegar for a similar choice. We as the audience basically know at this point that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran away for love, and in doing so they spurred the Starks to demand her return which led to Aerys burning people alive which led to the rebellion and thousands upon thousands of deaths.

Elia of course is bitter about it and brings up lust, but that's not the point. The point is it's commentary about how abandoning duties and acting recklessly for the sake of love in Westeros can lead to mass chaos and destruction.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Occasionally it's about love but not usually. Just because it isn't usually about love though doesn't mean that's the right way or that we, as modern, mostly civilized people should agree with them.

We're not dealing with questions of how Westeros should be, but how it is. The actual rather than the potential. Sure, it might be nice to imagine Westeros as letting people marry whoever they want, but Westeros doesn't do that.

Robb as King needs to be dealing with the world as it is, not the world as he wants it to be. Placing ideals and fantasies above reality comes a a human cost.

Quote

That's the way of it then, yes. But we know for a fact it doesn't have to be that way. It isn't necessary for survival or to remain in a privileged position.

It is in Westeros. Indeed, it's that way in every society - you can't just do whatever you like. You have to adhere to the expectations of those around you or you risk losing social status, your position, or even your life if the violation of social norms is bad enough. That's just the cost of living in a society. You benefit from having people around you, but it comes at a cost.

Quote

How or why would marriage be the oath that should be held "most especially"? I agree Robb made a promise & backed out but there are plenty of duties I would think would be more important than marriage. His own lords could probably care less who he marries or if he marries at all. 

Marriage is important because it forges blood ties, which are the surest basis of alliance. Marriage also serves as a matter of prestige, with lords whose daughter marry their liege or whose sons marry their liege's daughters honoured above others.

It might not be the most important (which is perhaps to respect the lords' basic rights), but marriage to serve and protect the people would be pretty up there.

Quote

So, your issue isn't with him not upholding his promise but the reason that he didn't uphold his promise? Or if he had won the war because of breaking said promise it would have been justified?  You do know said betrothal was in exchange for Walder upholding HIS OWN DUTIES to his Lord right? Something, according to Westerosi law & custom he should have done out of loyalty. 

It's also very likely Walder was going to betray him before he broke his promise. Who is he known as a fool, imbecile, or laughing stock to? I don't recall anyone saying these things. 

Yes. If Robb had broken his word but in doing so saved the Northern Kingdom, then it's forgivable. As a lord he's bound to uphold his oaths to his bannermen, but not at the expense of the realm. Otherwise he'd end up upholding his duty to House Frey to marry their daughter at the cost of failing his duties to defend his bannermen. Of the two, protection of the realm is the higher valued oath.

As for Walder, that is not an argument. Walder is sworn to House Tully, but he's sworn to the crown too. And of those two oaths, the oath to the king has a higher precedent than the oath to the lord paramount. Theoretically if Walder Frey was interested in keeping his word, he would have raised an army and attacked Riverrun. Unless Joffrey is proven to be illegitimate (and Stannis' word is not proof) or else violating his own responsibility to the realm (terrorizing his lords rather then defending them, which he did later but not at this point - and no, arresting Eddard Stark for treason is not violating this kingly duty) then Hoster Tully is a traitor and it would be justice to put him to the sword.

Now we as the audience know the Walder Frey was motivated only by mercenary concerns, but from the perspective of oaths he had no duty to defend the Tullys assist the Starks in committing treason. Joffrey's parentage is still assumed to be legitimate, and he has done nothing to take away the rights of the lords.

Quote

I disagree, I think the way of life in a world like Westeros is what is dumb & should be stigmatized. Thankfully, humanity in general agrees. 

We deal with the actual, not the potential. We're not here to tell the Westerosi that they need a complete and utter social revolution so that they're in line with our postmodern morality. We're here to discuss whether or not Robb's death was unjust, based on the choices he made and the impact of those choices.

If Jesus walked up to me and said "Hey dude, so I have a frog here. Either you marry it or I'll kill every single person in South America" - well if I say no them I'm an immoral person that would certainly deserve to die. It's immoral for someone to make that kind of threat yes, but it's also immoral to allow multitudes to die when it can be prevented.

Westeros is perhaps immoral for expecting the nobility to give up their agency and marry for political concerns, but Robb is also immoral for placing his personal good over the lives and happiness of thousands of other people.

Quote

I think if all you can feel is absolute contempt for Robb then you either aren't paying attention or the author hasn't done a very good job of showing the nuance. 

I pity Robb Stark in the books, because while he makes a terrible and senseless choice he's motivated by the desire to do the right thing. He is attempting to live morally in accordance with the teachings of his father and with the ethics of good men as articulated by the Maesters and the Faith of the Seven.

Robb Stark in the show deserved what he got. He knew he was throwing away a fifth of his army and risking the fate of the entire kingdom, but he did it anyway because he's a fool. And then he acted like everyone else was in the wrong for criticizing his stupid decisions.

59 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

In this song, he specifically says '.....then I chose love over Walder's daughter'

Besides, that marriage is a sham. Freys aren't the big house, they are a small house sworn to a big house. Edmure could have just been like 'let my nephew pass' and they'd have no choice but to obey.

 

1) A fan video is not proof of Martin's actual plans or characterization.

2) Edmure Tully at this point was a prisoner of the Kingslayer, and additionally Walder Frey has no duty to follow his liege lord in a revolt against the crown unless the Tully scan prove the crown is in violation of the oaths it took to rule the realm justly. Eddard Stark being a prisoner is not proof because Eddard Stark himself is a traitor against the crown, who attempted to imprison the king based on rumors of Joffrey's illegitimacy that he possesses no concrete proof of.

 

[Eltharion21]

11 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

3. Tyrion Lannister, a stand-up guy who was condemned to die for the crime he didn't really commit, forcing him to flee the continent. No wonder he snapped.

I disagree here, he had done plenty of crimes. He only seems upstanding when compared to some of his allies or family, and he lost trial by combat unlike first time. Only consequence of justice for him is clean death.

 

[Eternally_Theirs]

39 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

That wouldn't happen until someone invents gunpowder.

Westeros is an example of a highly stratified power structure, and is maintained as such because the men who hold power (the nobles) have access to training and equipment that enables them to hold power through force. If you think of someone like Gregor Clegane - he could probably wipe out a village of peasants by himself. Now maybe they might be able to rally with their pitchforks and kill him, but it would have a very high cost in blood.

And of course, the inevitable result of this is that men who can take power hold it, and pass it on to their children with the reasonable expectation that it will all be kept in the family.

Technology is the equalizer that enables social development. Without it a small group of highly trained killers can exert control over large groups of untrained unarmoured serfs.

It is relevant because fanfic!Elia is angry and cursing out Rhaegar for a similar choice. We as the audience basically know at this point that Rhaegar and Lyanna ran away for love, and in doing so they spurred the Starks to demand her return which led to Aerys burning people alive which led to the rebellion and thousands upon thousands of deaths.

Elia of course is bitter about it and brings up lust, but that's not the point. The point is it's commentary about how abandoning duties and acting recklessly for the sake of love in Westeros can lead to mass chaos and destruction.

We're not dealing with questions of how Westeros should be, but how it is. The actual rather than the potential. Sure, it might be nice to imagine Westeros as letting people marry whoever they want, but Westeros doesn't do that.

Robb as King needs to be dealing with the world as it is, not the world as he wants it to be. Placing ideals and fantasies above reality comes a a human cost.

It is in Westeros. Indeed, it's that way in every society - you can't just do whatever you like. You have to adhere to the expectations of those around you or you risk losing social status, your position, or even your life if the violation of social norms is bad enough. That's just the cost of living in a society. You benefit from having people around you, but it comes at a cost.

Marriage is important because it forges blood ties, which are the surest basis of alliance. Marriage also serves as a matter of prestige, with lords whose daughter marry their liege or whose sons marry their liege's daughters honoured above others.

It might not be the most important (which is perhaps to respect the lords' basic rights), but marriage to serve and protect the people would be pretty up there.

Yes. If Robb had broken his word but in doing so saved the Northern Kingdom, then it's forgivable. As a lord he's bound to uphold his oaths to his bannermen, but not at the expense of the realm. Otherwise he'd end up upholding his duty to House Frey to marry their daughter at the cost of failing his duties to defend his bannermen. Of the two, protection of the realm is the higher valued oath.

As for Walder, that is not an argument. Walder is sworn to House Tully, but he's sworn to the crown too. And of those two oaths, the oath to the king has a higher precedent than the oath to the lord paramount. Theoretically if Walder Frey was interested in keeping his word, he would have raised an army and attacked Riverrun. Unless Joffrey is proven to be illegitimate (and Stannis' word is not proof) or else violating his own responsibility to the realm (terrorizing his lords rather then defending them, which he did later but not at this point - and no, arresting Eddard Stark for treason is not violating this kingly duty) then Hoster Tully is a traitor and it would be justice to put him to the sword.

Now we as the audience know the Walder Frey was motivated only by mercenary concerns, but from the perspective of oaths he had no duty to defend the Tullys assist the Starks in committing treason. Joffrey's parentage is still assumed to be legitimate, and he has done nothing to take away the rights of the lords.

We deal with the actual, not the potential. We're not here to tell the Westerosi that they need a complete and utter social revolution so that they're in line with our postmodern morality. We're here to discuss whether or not Robb's death was unjust, based on the choices he made and the impact of those choices.

If Jesus walked up to me and said "Hey dude, so I have a frog here. Either you marry it or I'll kill every single person in South America" - well if I say no them I'm an immoral person that would certainly deserve to die. It's immoral for someone to make that kind of threat yes, but it's also immoral to allow multitudes to die when it can be prevented.

Westeros is perhaps immoral for expecting the nobility to give up their agency and marry for political concerns, but Robb is also immoral for placing his personal good over the lives and happiness of thousands of other people.

I pity Robb Stark in the books, because while he makes a terrible and senseless choice he's motivated by the desire to do the right thing. He is attempting to live morally in accordance with the teachings of his father and with the ethics of good men as articulated by the Maesters and the Faith of the Seven.

Robb Stark in the show deserved what he got. He knew he was throwing away a fifth of his army and risking the fate of the entire kingdom, but he did it anyway because he's a fool. And then he acted like everyone else was in the wrong for criticizing his stupid decisions.

1) A fan video is not proof of Martin's actual plans or characterization.

2) Edmure Tully at this point was a prisoner of the Kingslayer, and additionally Walder Frey has no duty to follow his liege lord in a revolt against the crown unless the Tully scan prove the crown is in violation of the oaths it took to rule the realm justly. Eddard Stark being a prisoner is not proof because Eddard Stark himself is a traitor against the crown, who attempted to imprison the king based on rumors of Joffrey's illegitimacy that he possesses no concrete proof of.

 

And since you brought up Robb's 'Volantene nobility' father-in-law and gave us an excerpt from a fan story, allow me to do the same.

"And so I will slaughter those responsible for deaths of my family." said Robb's father-in-law.

[The Jingo]

17 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

And since you brought up Robb's 'Volantene nobility' father-in-law and gave us an excerpt from a fan story, allow me to do the same.

"And so I will slaughter those responsible for deaths of my family." said Robb's father-in-law.

I quoted fan!Elia because what she says is a good speech. Literally anyone could have said something like that and been right. I could have simply quoted it to Allysa Allyrion or just said I heard it 'somewhere'. I could have even paraphrased it and claimed to be the originator of the idea myself. It doesn't matter. The underlying idea - that thousands of people have died for 'love', but it's a great 'consolation' to their grieved families to know that at least the king got to nut up - is a legitimate criticism of the idea that love should somehow excuse Robb's or Rhaegar's mistakes.

Fan!Daddy on the other hand is simply undertaking actions that we know canonically didn't happen and won't happen, simply because "well the marriage would have been fine if Talisa's rich dad hired 10,000 sellswords to fight for Robb!" You are being disingenuous to compare them. More than that, you're implicitly conceding the argument to me by bringing the possibility up. If Robb was right to marry for love, then there is no need for him to have gotten an alliance out of it.

At best, you're suggesting Robb was right to do it and the story should give him a karma reward for this choice by giving him a bunch of soldiers. But even that is self-defeating since you're undermining the idea that love matters more than swords. How can love matter even if it costs you swords, when you'll be rewarded with swords anyway? Then it's not "love without swords" versus "duty with swords" but simply "duty with swords" vs. "love with even more swords".

[Eternally_Theirs]

I've moved my response to a different topic. Let's continue this argument there.

[chrisdaw]

The Emperor and Vader were sitting fairly pretty halfway through Star Wars too.