What was Cat thinking when she took Tyrion?

[Mourning Star]

On 10/24/2020 at 9:09 PM, The hairy bear said:

The reaction of the Lannisters to Tyrio's arrest was completely unnwarranted and disproportionate. As daughter of Lord Tully, Catelyn had a certain legal basis for seizing a suspect located in the Riverlands and bring him to trial. There was absolutely no justifications for Tywin's sending his dogs to rape and murder in the Riverlands, nor for Jaime treasonously attacking Eddard and murdering his men. Catelyn did not start a war. The Lannisters did.

I don't think this is really true, unfortunately.

Kidnapping is a classic act of war, and in this case the first public act of violence which precipitates the conflict.

Cat was both wrong in her accusation, and had no right to make the arrest. Had she brought Tyrion straight to King's Landing, a case could be made, but she didn't. She publicly lied about her intentions. It was not only not justice, it was criminal.

Tyrion is both the both the brother in law of the king and the son of Tywin, a Lord Paramount. The only ones who have a right to put him on trial are Tywin, the King, or someone with authority in the King's name (like the Hand).

Cat uses her dad's name to rally support, but she has no right to make arrests in his name, and he didn't have the right to have a trial for Tyrion anyway. She certainly has no authority to do so herself.

This is why Ned lies and said she was acting in his name, as hand of the King he had a right to arrest Tyrion in the King's name. It is also why Cersei points out Ned had resigned as Hand. For the reader this is a clear indictment of the legitimacy of Cat's actions.

Cat convinces the men of the Riverlands to support her in her crime, and it is the men of the Riverlands who are retaliated against by Tywin. Cat uses her name (her dad's name) to call on their help, and bears some responsibility for the consequences of pulling them into the conflict.

It's obviously horrible and despicable to unleash the Mountain on the Riverlands to rape and pillage, but it is clearly Cat who started the conflict. 

"it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones"

[kissdbyfire]

56 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I don't think this is really true, unfortunately.

Kidnapping is a classic act of war, and in this case the first public act of violence which precipitates the conflict.

Catelyn arrested Tyrion, she didn’t kidnap him. There’s a very big difference between the two. 

56 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Cat was both wrong in her accusation, and had no right to make the arrest.
 

Well, it’s easy for the readers to judge, but it’s different for the character going through whatever situation. And in this case, the readers didn’t know any better than Cat did at the time. As to having no right to make the arrest, it seems that she did, or else she wouldn’t have been able to take Tyrion. 

56 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Had she brought Tyrion straight to King's Landing, a case could be made, but she didn't. She publicly lied about her intentions. It was not only not justice, it was criminal.

So, let’s see... Cat believes the Lannisters are responsible for killing Jon Arryn, the previous hand to king Robert, a position her husband now occupies. She believes Tyrion is responsible for the attempt on Bran’s life. Her husband is in King’s Landing, and in a very delicate position because of all the power the Lannisters have. And she has taken a Lannister prisoner. Only a complete idiot would take Tyrion to KL under these circumstances, and Cat is not an idiot. In fact, Tyrion, who thinks himself so clever, thinks about Cat outsmarting him at every turn. 
And she lied, yes. She used deception. Again, only a fool would state their true intentions aloud in this situation. 

56 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Tyrion is both the both the brother in law of the king and the son of Tywin, a Lord Paramount. The only ones who have a right to put him on trial are Tywin, the King, or someone with authority in the King's name (like the Hand).

Cat uses her dad's name to rally support, but she has no right to make arrests in his name, and he didn't have the right to have a trial for Tyrion anyway. She certainly has no authority to do so herself.

Where is this written? Where is it stated that she didn’t have the right to arrest Tyrion? Or are you just assuming all that? Because if it is a know law, or rule, or whatever, the men who did what she asked could have said, “nope, sorry my lady, we are not allowed to do that. Instead, they did as she asked. Yes, those men knew their lords were Hoster Tully’s bannermen, but they also knew Tyrion is a Lannister, BiL to the king and the son of Tywin Lannister. And still they did what Cat asked. 

 

56 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is why Ned lies and said she was acting in his name, as hand of the King he had a right to arrest Tyrion in the King's name. It is also why Cersei points out Ned had resigned as Hand. For the reader this is a clear indictment of the legitimacy of Cat's actions.

Cat convinces the men of the Riverlands to support her in her crime, and it is the men of the Riverlands who are retaliated against by Tywin. Cat uses her name (her dad's name) to call on their help, and bears some responsibility for the consequences of pulling them into the conflict.

It's obviously horrible and despicable to unleash the Mountain on the Riverlands to rape and pillage, but it is clearly Cat who started the conflict. 

"it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones"

Tywin did what he did because he couldn’t take what he considered a slight on the Lannister name. Unleashing Gregor and rest of them to do what they did, while trying to hide who they were was a cowardly and vile act. In other words, exactly what one would expect from Tywin Lannister. 

[Mourning Star]

37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Catelyn arrested Tyrion, she didn’t kidnap him. There’s a very big difference between the two. 

I agree there is a large difference between the two, but calling it one doesn't make it so.

Cat took an innocent man, without authority to do so, and lied about where she was taking him. That's kidnaping.

Quote

Well, it’s easy for the readers to judge, but it’s different for the character going through whatever situation. And in this case, the readers didn’t know any better than Cat did at the time. As to having no right to make the arrest, it seems that she did, or else she wouldn’t have been able to take Tyrion. 

I'm sympathetic to her situation, and there are plenty of extenuating circumstances, but that doesn't justify her actions.

It's hard for me to remember my thoughts from my first time reading this chapter, but I don't think I ever thought Tyrion was guilty of sending an assassin after Bran. Blaming him for the actions of others is just another sort of injustice.

 "All justice flows from the king," he told her. "When I know the truth, I must go to Robert." 

Might does not make right. Just because she did something doesn't mean she had legitimate authority to do something, that is a simple fallacy. More to the point, in this specific case we know she didn't have the authority to, since Ned lied about it to protect her.

Quote

So, let’s see... Cat believes the Lannisters are responsible for killing Jon Arryn, the previous hand to king Robert, a position her husband now occupies. She believes Tyrion is responsible for the attempt on Bran’s life. Her husband is in King’s Landing, and in a very delicate position because of all the power the Lannisters have. And she has taken a Lannister prisoner. Only a complete idiot would take Tyrion to KL under these circumstances, and Cat is not an idiot. In fact, Tyrion, who thinks himself so clever, thinks about Cat outsmarting him at every turn. 

Whether Cat is an idiot is certainly debatable. I don't think she is a complete idiot, but she makes a lot of really stupid choices.

This is one of them, and I completely disagree with your assessment, bringing Tyrion to King's Landing would have saved Ned from being attacked, and the Riverlands from being pillaged in the war she's starting.

But whether it was clever or stupid doesn't have any bearing on its legitimacy. If she was acting legitimately she would have brought Tyrion in front of the King for justice.

Quote

And she lied, yes. She used deception. Again, only a fool would state their true intentions aloud in this situation. 

Or an honest person who cares about justice.

Quote

Where is this written? Where is it stated that she didn’t have the right to arrest Tyrion? Or are you just assuming all that? Because if it is a know law, or rule, or whatever, the men who did what she asked could have said, “nope, sorry my lady, we are not allowed to do that. Instead, they did as she asked. Yes, those men knew their lords were Hoster Tully’s bannermen, but they also knew Tyrion is a Lannister, BiL to the king and the son of Tywin Lannister. And still they did what Cat asked. 

Keeping the king's peace is one of the prime charges of authority figures in Westeros. Cat does not have this authority. People can't just run around arresting whoever they deem guilty, and this whole situation is a fantastic example as for why.

Quote

Tywin did what he did because he couldn’t take what he considered a slight on the Lannister name. Unleashing Gregor and rest of them to do what they did, while trying to hide who they were was a cowardly and vile act. In other words, exactly what one would expect from Tywin Lannister. 

Cat took vengeance on Tyrion, who was innocent, and Tywin took vengeance on the Riverlands who were innocent, and Jaime took vengeance on Ned and his men who were innocent, and war an bloodshed follow, mostly the blood of innocents, and the cycle of vengeance and death goes on and on.

It takes some willful ignorance or naïve blindness to not see Cat's part in that vicious cycle here, as sympathetic as we may be to her situation and intentions.

[The hairy bear]

48 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Kidnapping is a classic act of war, and in this case the first public act of violence which precipitates the conflict.

Everybody knows that the war would have started all the same if Cat had left Tyrion alone. Because Bran's murder attempt had still happened, Jon Arryn still had been murdered, and most of all, Cersei's kids were still Jaime's.

48 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Cat was both wrong in her accusation, and had no right to make the arrest.

The fact that she was wrong doesn't preclude that she had reasonable ground to make an arrest. Both Littlefinger and Varys had indirectly accused Tyrion of being behind Bran's murder attempt. Even in our times, if a man is accused of being the owner of a crime's weapon by two of the highest-ranking officials of the country, he'll be taken for questioning. Cat didn't seize Tyrion to punish him, but to bring him to trial.

Whether Catelyn did or did not have the legal right to arrest Tyrion it's a muddier debate. If the Hand of the King and/or the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands claim that they entrust Catelyn with the authority to act in their name in such situations, she has a very strong case.

It's likely that in this setting, such a situation is not regulation in any written code. And probably there are conflicting precedents and ancient oral laws that wouldn't help to resolve the conflict. But my point, though, is that Catelyn's actions at least had a dressing of legality, while Tywin sending a flagless raid to murder, arson and rape innocent smallfolk is clearly against all laws.

 

48 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is why Ned lies and said she was acting in his name, as hand of the King he had a right to arrest Tyrion in the King's name. It is also why Cersei points out Ned had resigned as Hand. For the reader this is a clear indictment of the legitimacy of Cat's actions.

Cat takes Tyrion in chapter 29. Yoren reports to Eddard about it in chapter 33. Eddard resigns as Hand in chapter 34.

The discussion on whether Eddard could delegate his authority to Catelyn on a discretionary way is legitimate (and fruitless, in a medieval-like setting). But the fact that Tyrion's arrest was made during Eddard's tenure as a Hand cannot be doubted.

 

48 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It's obviously horrible and despicable to unleash the Mountain on the Riverlands to rape and pillage, but it is clearly Cat who started the conflict.

The conflict had always been there. I can concede that Catelyn escalated it. Then Tywin escalated it again by a factor a thousand times bigger.

[Mourning Star]

35 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Whether Catelyn did or did not have the legal right to arrest Tyrion it's a muddier debate. If the Hand of the King and/or the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands claim that they entrust Catelyn with the authority to act in their name in such situations, she has a very strong case.

Except that we know they didn't, and Ned only lies about it after the fact to protect her. This is very clear cut, Cat did not have the authority to make the arrest.

As you said, if she had taken Tyrion to the King for justice that would have made it much less clear, but she didn't. She has reason to suspect Tyrion, but that doesn't mean she can just abduct him. In making an arrest in her father and the king's name, but lying about her intentions, her actions are clearly illegitimate.

35 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Cat takes Tyrion in chapter 29. Yoren reports to Eddard about it in chapter 33. Eddard resigns as Hand in chapter 34.

The discussion on whether Eddard could delegate his authority to Catelyn on a discretionary way is legitimate (and fruitless, in a medieval-like setting). But the fact that Tyrion's arrest was made during Eddard's tenure as a Hand cannot be doubted.

This is silly then... the King calls it an abduction, case closed. lol

We are discussing legitimacy, and know Ned did not order Cat to arrest Tyrion. The point is that Ned has a reason for lying, not that he was or wasn't Hand when he didn't order it.

35 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Everybody knows that the war would have started all the same if Cat had left Tyrion alone. Because Bran's murder attempt had still happened, Jon Arryn still had been murdered, and most of all, Cersei's kids were still Jaime's.

So Cat get's a pass because it was gonna all end in tears anyway? Is that really your argument?

Shouldn't Tywin and Jaime get a pass too then? If it was inevitable?

I don't think that is a good way to look at justice or morality in any situation. It's not inevitable, it is individual choices and actions that cause war and conflict, and there is plenty of blame to go around. 

Ned exemplifies trying to break the cycle, going to Cersei and offering her mercy. Do not mistake other people doing things wrong for there being no chance to do the right thing.

[Mourning Star]

30 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The conflict had always been there. I can concede that Catelyn escalated it. Then Tywin escalated it again by a factor a thousand times bigger.

No. "The conflict" in this case is not esoteric, it is open war, and the first open act of violence is Cat abducting Tyrion.

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

Ned exemplifies trying to break the cycle, going to Cersei and offering her mercy. Do not mistake other people doing things wrong for there being no chance to do the right thing.

And that worked just as well as a hole in the head.

[Mourning Star]

7 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

And that worked just as well as a hole in the head.

One does the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because the outcome is sure to be good for you. 

This might be the most fundamental morality lesson there is.

[CamiloRP]

Tywin's response makes as much sense as the governor of Massachusetts going to war with California because his son is suspected of a murder and has been taken for questioning.

What Cat did was clearly not an abduction because he let him go after he was proven innocent.

[Angel Eyes]

20 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

One does the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because the outcome is sure to be good for you. 

This might be the most fundamental morality lesson there is.

That doesn't seem like what GRRM thinks. Everybody in and out of story says Ned was stupid to do that and nothing is looking up for his family.

• Ned loses his head
• his wife becomes a vengeful zombie
• his eldest son screwed up a betrothal and also lost his head because he pissed off the wrong guy
• his eldest daughter is in the clutches of the most malevolent schemer in the books (and there's a long list of those)
• his younger daughter is training to be a ruthless assassin
• his second son is meddling in powers he doesn't understand and mind-raped somebody
• his bastard son is bleeding out because of his efforts to do right by everyone.

So how does GRRM show us that Ned or any of the Starks did the right thing? Because he hasn't shown it and likely won't, all he's shown is honor and doing the right thing serves nobody.

[Mourning Star]

Just now, CamiloRP said:

Tywin's response makes as much sense as the governor of Massachusetts going to war with California because his son is suspected of a murder and has been taken for questioning.

What Cat did was clearly not an abduction because he let him go after he was proven innocent.

It's more like Helen and Troy... The war was going to happen anyway but this is the reason it started.

Cat abducted Tyrion, got innocent men killed (parallel to poor Jory) and Tyrion is only let go after the sham of a trial by combat Lysa holds.

[CamiloRP]

7 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It's more like Helen and Troy... The war was going to happen anyway but this is the reason it started.

Cat abducted Tyrion, got innocent men killed (parallel to poor Jory) and Tyrion is only let go after the sham of a trial by combat Lysa holds.

Cat didn't abduct him. And while trial by combat is a stupid idea of justice, it's how Westerosi justice works, Tyrion was the one who demanded it, so how was it a sham?

[Mourning Star]

19 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

That doesn't seem like what GRRM thinks. Everybody in and out of story says Ned was stupid to do that and nothing is looking up for his family.

• Ned loses his head
• his wife becomes a vengeful zombie
• his eldest son screwed up a betrothal and also lost his head because he pissed off the wrong guy
• his eldest daughter is in the clutches of the most malevolent schemer in the books (and there's a long list of those)
• his younger daughter is training to be a ruthless assassin
• his second son is meddling in powers he doesn't understand and mind-raped somebody
• his bastard son is bleeding out because of his efforts to do right by everyone.

So how does GRRM show us that Ned did the right thing? Because he hasn't shown it.

I think you are wildly misguided here and are missing one of the fundamental moral lessons of the entire series.

"Mercy is never a mistake"

The world isn't fair, and only a child expects to be rewarded for doing the right thing. That doesn't make it ok to not try to do the right thing.

"The madness of mercy," Ned admitted.
"Ah," said Varys. "To be sure. You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life." He glanced around the cell. "When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why."

Do not confuse Ned's death as some recrimination of his moral choices. That is a painful misinterpretation of the message, imo.

"If I did, my word would be as hollow as an empty suit of armor. My life is not so precious to me as that."

Life isn't simple, it is full of hard choices, and there is no promise of just rewards. 

That doesn't make trying to do what is right any less right.

[CamiloRP]

13 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It's more like Helen and Troy... The war was going to happen anyway but this is the reason it started.

Cat abducted Tyrion, got innocent men killed (parallel to poor Jory) and Tyrion is only let go after the sham of a trial by combat Lysa holds.

Also, and I forgot this in the other post, 'the war was going to happen' is something we, the reader know, something Ned and Cat suspect. But Tywin didn't know it, so yes, he started the war because his son got called into questioning.

[Angel Eyes]

5 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I think you are wildly misguided here and are missing one of the fundamental moral lessons of the entire series.

"Mercy is never a mistake"

The world isn't fair, and only a child expects to be rewarded for doing the right thing. That doesn't make it ok to not try to right thing.

"The madness of mercy," Ned admitted.
"Ah," said Varys. "To be sure. You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life." He glanced around the cell. "When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why."

Do not confuse Ned's death as some recrimination of his moral choices. That is a painful misinterpretation of the message, imo.

"If I did, my word would be as hollow as an empty suit of armor. My life is not so precious to me as that."

Life isn't simple, it is full of hard choices, and there is no promise of just rewards. 

That doesn't make doing what is right any less right.

 

6 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I think you are wildly misguided here and are missing one of the fundamental moral lessons of the entire series.

"Mercy is never a mistake"

The world isn't fair, and only a child expects to be rewarded for doing the right thing. That doesn't make it ok to not try to right thing.

"The madness of mercy," Ned admitted.
"Ah," said Varys. "To be sure. You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life." He glanced around the cell. "When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why."

Do not confuse Ned's death as some recrimination of his moral choices. That is a painful misinterpretation of the message, imo.

"If I did, my word would be as hollow as an empty suit of armor. My life is not so precious to me as that."

Life isn't simple, it is full of hard choices, and there is no promise of just rewards. 

That doesn't make doing what is right any less right.

And how is GRRM showing that “Mercy is never a mistake” and making doing what is right any less right? Because whatever happens shows that to be the wrong choice.

[Mourning Star]

12 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

And how is GRRM showing that “Mercy is never a mistake” and making doing what is right any less right? Because whatever happens shows that to be the wrong choice.

I genuinely think you are missing the whole message of the series.

Quote

That seemed to amuse the northman. "I want to live forever in a land where summer lasts a thousand years. I want a castle in the clouds where I can look down over the world. I want to be six-and-twenty again. When I was six-and-twenty I could fight all day and fuck all night. What men want does not matter.
"Winter is almost upon us, boy. And winter is death. I would sooner my men die fighting for the Ned's little girl than alone and hungry in the snow, weeping tears that freeze upon their cheeks. No one sings songs of men who die like that. As for me, I am old. This will be my last winter. Let me bathe in Bolton blood before I die. I want to feel it spatter across my face when my axe bites deep into a Bolton skull. I want to lick it off my lips and die with the taste of it on my tongue."

More than just the morality, one good example is to look at the contrasting ways the legacies of Ned and Tywin play out.

[Mourning Star]

15 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Also, and I forgot this in the other post, 'the war was going to happen' is something we, the reader know, something Ned and Cat suspect. But Tywin didn't know it, so yes, he started the war because his son got called into questioning.

I'm the one who argued that "the war was going to happen" is a silly line of thinking and could be used to excuse any sort of mistake or evil.

Tywin and Jaime both acted in response to Cat abducting Tyrion. I'm not defending their actions, it's clearly an escalation, but Cat was the one who openly started the conflict.

[CamiloRP]

6 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

And how is GRRM showing that “Mercy is never a mistake” and making doing what is right any less right? Because whatever happens shows that to be the wrong choice.

A good example for this is what happened with Davos in ASOS:

Quote

"I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning . . . burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?" The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"

"Everything," said Davos, softly.

Stannis looked at him, jaw clenched. "Go," the king said at last, "before you talk yourself back into the dungeon."

 

Ned could have not warned Cersei, talked directly to Robert and there wouldn't be a war, thousands of people would have been saved. But can you call that the correct decision when it involves the deaths of two innocents childs?

 

(tho IMHO had Ned never told Cersei and told Robert after making him swear he wouldn't harm the kids it could have worked out, I mean, Aerys spared Dontos as a favor to Barristan, and Robert is less cruel and has a more meaningful relationship with Ned than Aerys did with Barristan, and Ned is also doing him a huge favour).

[Mourning Star]

5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

A good example for this is what happened with Davos in ASOS:

 

Ned could have not warned Cersei, talked directly to Robert and there wouldn't be a war, thousands of people would have been saved. But can you call that the correct decision when it involves the deaths of two innocents childs?

 

(tho IMHO had Ned never told Cersei and told Robert after making him swear he wouldn't harm the kids it could have worked out, I mean, Aerys spared Dontos as a favor to Barristan, and Robert is less cruel and has a more meaningful relationship with Ned than Aerys did with Barristan, and Ned is also doing him a huge favour).

Great example, I would just add that the memories of Rhaegar's children are clearly in the forefront of Ned's mind during this whole situation.

Quote

"Honor," she spat. "How dare you play the noble lord with me! What do you take me for? You've a bastard of your own, I've seen him. Who was the mother, I wonder? Some Dornish peasant you raped while her holdfast burned? A whore? Or was it the grieving sister, the Lady Ashara? She threw herself into the sea, I'm told. Why was that? For the brother you slew, or the child you stole? Tell me, my honorable Lord Eddard, how are you any different from Robert, or me, or Jaime?"
"For a start," said Ned, "I do not kill children. You would do well to listen, my lady. I shall say this only once. When the king returns from his hunt, I intend to lay the truth before him. You must be gone by then. You and your children, all three, and not to Casterly Rock. If I were you, I should take ship for the Free Cities, or even farther, to the Summer Isles or the Port of Ibben. As far as the winds blow."
"Exile," she said. "A bitter cup to drink from."
"A sweeter cup than your father served Rhaegar's children," Ned said, "and kinder than you deserve. Your father and your brothers would do well to go with you. Lord Tywin's gold will buy you comfort and hire swords to keep you safe. You shall need them. I promise you, no matter where you flee, Robert's wrath will follow you, to the back of beyond if need be."

 

[CamiloRP]

6 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm the one who argued that "the war was going to happen" is a silly line of thinking and could be used to excuse any sort of mistake or evil.

Tywin and Jaime both acted in response to Cat abducting Tyrion. I'm not defending their actions, it's clearly an escalation, but Cat was the one who openly started the conflict.

The "war was going to happen" thing, IMHO, only gets brought up as a defense of Cat when someone (like the worst youtubers in the world) attribute the war solely to Cat.

But also, she didn't started, she was in her legal right to take Tyrion, she prosecuted him, trailed him, and when he was proven innocent he was set free. Tywin didn't care about that, he only cared about the Lannister name being soiled, he would have done exactly what he did even if Tyrion was imprisoned after being caught murdering someone.