What was Cat thinking when she took Tyrion?

[CamiloRP]

Just now, Mourning Star said:

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

 

yeah, that's what made Ned commit such a mistake in my opinion. He remembered Aegon and Rhaenys and felt like he couldn't talk to a person who would do such a horrible thing. In his kinda black and white world view he saw not imprisoning a child murderer as bad as being a child murderer, and he never stopped to think that Joff, Tommen and Myrcella posse no treat to Robert as Aegon and Rhaenys did. The very fact that Robert agreed not to kill Dany means Ned can reason with him.

[kissdbyfire]

35 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.

No, not everybody. You can count me out, for instance. Yes, Ned made mistakes. Especially by underestimating how rotten the game and its players can be. He also made a very common mistake that people make all the time... he thought Cersei would act more honourably, because that's what he would do. 

Also, if you really believe that's the "message" in the books, I think you're really misunderstanding the whole thing. IMO. 

[Mourning Star]

8 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

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. 

I'm not trying to say everything was Cat's fault, or there isn't lots of blame to go around, but abducting Tyrion was clearly a bad choice and not justice.

She did not have a legal right to take Tyrion. Again, this is why Ned is compelled to lie in her defense. 

Also, Cat does not take Tyrion to be tried by the King, as Ned says to her must be done. Nor does she take him to Winterfell as she publicly says when she declares she is arresting him. She adducts Tyrion, and it is Lysa who holds a trial, but not by choice. First she imprisons and torchers him and was going to execute him except he publicly demands a trial in front of her court. None of this is legitimate behavior.

Tywin isn't any more right or legitimate in sending Clegane to rape and pillage, it's explicitly done as a trap for Ned, but that isn't the subject of this debate.
 

[Mourning Star]

5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

yeah, that's what made Ned commit such a mistake in my opinion. He remembered Aegon and Rhaenys and felt like he couldn't talk to a person who would do such a horrible thing. In his kinda black and white world view he saw not imprisoning a child murderer as bad as being a child murderer, and he never stopped to think that Joff, Tommen and Myrcella posse no treat to Robert as Aegon and Rhaenys did. The very fact that Robert agreed not to kill Dany means Ned can reason with him.

And the practicalities are certainly up for debate. Was there a way for Ned to do the right thing and not end up shorter by a head? Mayhaps, but that isn't this story.

Mercy itself wasn't the mistake, and is never a mistake, and for me that's the moral takeaway. Just like killing children (innocents) is always wrong.

[Mourning Star]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, not everybody. You can count me out, for instance. Yes, Ned made mistakes. Especially by underestimating how rotten the game and its players can be. He also made a very common mistake that people make all the time... he thought Cersei would act more honourably, because that's what he would do. 

Also, if you really believe that's the "message" in the books, I think you're really misunderstanding the whole thing. IMO. 

I even imagine that Ned saw something of Lyanna in Cersei... who slept with someone she "shouldn't have" (out of love?) and had children that Robert would hate (and want dead) because of the parentage.

Being able to sympathize with your enemy is a virtue imo, not a flaw.

Ned's failings, as you point out, were practical in nature and not moral, at least by my reckoning.

[Mourning Star]

21 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

yeah, that's what made Ned commit such a mistake in my opinion. He remembered Aegon and Rhaenys and felt like he couldn't talk to a person who would do such a horrible thing. In his kinda black and white world view he saw not imprisoning a child murderer as bad as being a child murderer, and he never stopped to think that Joff, Tommen and Myrcella posse no treat to Robert as Aegon and Rhaenys did. The very fact that Robert agreed not to kill Dany means Ned can reason with him.

I'm not sure I agree.

First, I don't think Ned's world view is that black and white. He makes hard choices and tries to do what is right. He holds his honor above his own life, but his loved ones' lives above his own honor.

The Aemon/Jon conversation highlights this:

Quote

The old man seemed to sense his doubts. "Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?"
Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. "He would do whatever was right," he said … ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. "No matter what."
"Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms … or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.

As for the hypothetical you presented, it's hard to judge, but Robert only agreed not to kill Dany on his death bed, which is pretty extreme.

[Springwatch]

 

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Cat took an innocent man

Suspects are presumed innocent until proved guilty. That's what trials are for, to establish innocence or guilt. It follows that suspects are arrested before guilt or innocence is established.

Quote

without authority to do so

In Westeros, the aristocracy are the judges, and Cat was Ned's deputy in the North, where the crime was committed. You say she has no authority to act, but people's reactions say she does. Tyrion often protested his innocence, but never tried to argue that the arrest itself was illegal, not to Cat, not to the soldiers in the inn, not to the honourable Vale lords, not to anyone.

Quote

and lied about where she was taking him. That's kidnaping.

Cat did not kidnap Tyrion (i.e. grab him and hide him), but took him to a secure and public place. A place of justice in fact, a high lord's court. Tyrion claimed his rights many times in front of the Vale lords, but did not complain of kidnapping.

Quote

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.

The King's Road is not an option. We know that from Tyrion's pov, from Cat's pov, and it's confirmed by Yoren's report to Ned that plenty of men in that inn went running for Lannister gold immediately. If Cat could not safely take Tyrion north on the King's Road, she certainly could not take him south.

Quote

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.

Everyone's sins on their own heads, right? Jaime is guilty of an unprovoked attack, Tywin is guilty of starting war in the riverlands, and Cat is guilty of... nothing really.

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

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

Cersei got to the King before Ned did; obviously she wouldn't say anything about Tyrion being accused of attempted murder.

Robert didn't care about justice - he just demanded a reconciliation. When Ned said Cat had reasons, Robert said to hell with her reasons. That was it.

[corbon]

14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm not trying to say everything was Cat's fault, or there isn't lots of blame to go around, but abducting Tyrion was clearly a bad choice and not justice.

She did not have a legal right to take Tyrion. Again, this is why Ned is compelled to lie in her defense. 

She did.

Quote

"Yes," Ned said, in words that would brook no argument. "You must govern the north in my stead, while I run Robert's errands. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell. Robb is fourteen. Soon enough, he will be a man grown. He must learn to rule, and I will not be here for him. Make him part of your councils. He must be ready when his time comes."

She was the ruler of the North while Ned was in KL.
Just as for any ruler she was responsible for administering the King's justice in the King's stead. Ned did the same for Will in the prologue. The King is not a necessary part of this process.
A crime was committed in her jurisdiction.
She made an arrest in the name of the King, and took the prisoner for trial. A trial was held. The prisoner was released when found not guilty.

Politics, power, the corruption in KL and elsewhere, all added complications. But the simple fact is that she was the ruler of the north, responsible for the King's justice and carried out that Justice appropriately.

Quote

Tyrion Lannister sniggered. That was when Catelyn knew he was hers. "This man came a guest into my house, and there conspired to murder my son, a boy of seven," she proclaimed to the room at large, pointing. Ser Rodrik moved to her side, his sword in hand. "In the name of King Robert and the good lords you serve, I call upon you to seize him and help me return him to Winterfell to await the king's justice."

Any use of the terms abduction, kidnapping or similar, display bias and a blatant disregard for the text and the facts.

Even if you disregard Cat's authority as governor of the north, it was still clearly and explicitly an arrest, not a kidnapping or abduction.

14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Also, Cat does not take Tyrion to be tried by the King, as Ned says to her must be done.

Thats due to politics, not law.

14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Nor does she take him to Winterfell as she publicly says when she declares she is arresting him.

She was. Just by a safer round-about route. Her sister interrupted that though.

14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

She adducts Tyrion, and it is Lysa who holds a trial, but not by choice. First she imprisons and torchers him and was going to execute him except he publicly demands a trial in front of her court. None of this is legitimate behavior.

Lysa acted illegitimately yes. She used her power to take Tyrion from Cat and acted against Cat's counsel and wishes.
Cat didn't expect that, even after Brynden warned her (at which point it was too late anyway).

Quote

Ignoring them all, Catelyn turned all her force on her sister. "I remind you, Tyrion Lannister is my prisoner."

"And I remind you, the dwarf murdered my lord husband!" Her voice rose. "He poisoned the Hand of the King and left my sweet baby fatherless, and now I mean to see him pay!" Whirling, her skirts swinging around her, Lysa stalked across the terrace. Ser Lyn and Ser Morton and the other suitors excused themselves with cool nods and trailed after her.

 

[Mourning Star]

Just now, Springwatch said:

 

Suspects are presumed innocent until proved guilty. That's what trials are for, to establish innocence or guilt. It follows that suspects are arrested before guilt or innocence is established.

Cat is not an agent of the law, didn't act in open honest fashion, and the trial was openly a sham which Tyrion only got out of by demanding combat. None of this is justice.

Just now, Springwatch said:

In Westeros, the aristocracy are the judges, and Cat was Ned's deputy in the North, where the crime was committed. You say she has no authority to act, but people's reactions say she does. Tyrion often protested his innocence, but never tried to argue that the arrest itself was illegal, not to Cat, not to the soldiers in the inn, not to the honourable Vale lords, not to anyone.

Ned's authority came from the King, as is explicitly pointed out to us.

Cat convincing commoners in an inn to listen to her, the highborn daughter of their lord's lord, is an example of abuse of power, not justice. She did not have any special authority, judicial or otherwise, to detain or try Tyrion.

Who did you want Tyrion to appeal to? He barely got a trial at all! lol

Just now, Springwatch said:

Cat did not kidnap Tyrion (i.e. grab him and hide him), but took him to a secure and public place. A place of justice in fact, a high lord's court. Tyrion claimed his rights many times in front of the Vale lords, but did not complain of kidnapping.

Abduct, in the words of the King.

Just now, Springwatch said:

The King's Road is not an option. We know that from Tyrion's pov, from Cat's pov, and it's confirmed by Yoren's report to Ned that plenty of men in that inn went running for Lannister gold immediately. If Cat could not safely take Tyrion north on the King's Road, she certainly could not take him south.

This is nonsense, nothing would have prevented Cat from taking Tyrion to King's Landing.

Just now, Springwatch said:

Everyone's sins on their own heads, right? Jaime is guilty of an unprovoked attack, Tywin is guilty of starting war in the riverlands, and Cat is guilty of... nothing really.

It wasn't unprovoked. That's the point. It doesn't justify Jaimie's response, but it was a predictable response.

Cat is absolutely guilty here, she causes the deaths of multiple men and literally holds herself accountable for it. Abducting Tyrion was wrong both practically and moraly.

Just now, Springwatch said:

Cersei got to the King before Ned did; obviously she wouldn't say anything about Tyrion being accused of attempted murder.

You mean when Ned was injured? What is your point here? Cat didn't bring the case to the king, that's on her.

Just now, Springwatch said:

Robert didn't care about justice - he just demanded a reconciliation. When Ned said Cat had reasons, Robert said to hell with her reasons. That was it.

Again, it was Cat's choice not to go to the king as Ned said was necessary for justice.

[CamiloRP]

39 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm not trying to say everything was Cat's fault, or there isn't lots of blame to go around, but abducting Tyrion was clearly a bad choice and not justice.

She did not have a legal right to take Tyrion. Again, this is why Ned is compelled to lie in her defense. 

Also, Cat does not take Tyrion to be tried by the King, as Ned says to her must be done. Nor does she take him to Winterfell as she publicly says when she declares she is arresting him. She adducts Tyrion, and it is Lysa who holds a trial, but not by choice. First she imprisons and torchers him and was going to execute him except he publicly demands a trial in front of her court. None of this is legitimate behavior.

Tywin isn't any more right or legitimate in sending Clegane to rape and pillage, it's explicitly done as a trap for Ned, but that isn't the subject of this debate.

 

Quote

"I was still Catelyn Tully the last time I bedded here," she told the innkeep. She could hear the muttering, feel the eyes upon her. Catelyn glanced around the room, at the faces of the knights and sworn swords, and took a deep breath to slow the frantic beating of her heart. Did she dare take the risk? There was no time to think it through, only the moment and the sound of her own voice ringing in her ears. "You in the corner," she said to an older man she had not noticed until now. "Is that the black bat of Harrenhal I see embroidered on your surcoat, ser?"

The man got to his feet. "It is, my lady."

"And is Lady Whent a true and honest friend to my father, Lord Hoster Tully of Riverrun?"

"She is," the man replied stoutly.

Ser Rodrik rose quietly and loosened his sword in its scabbard. The dwarf was blinking at them, blank-faced, with puzzlement in his mismatched eyes.

"The red stallion was ever a welcome sight in Riverrun," she said to the trio by the fire. "My father counts Jonos Bracken among his oldest and most loyal bannermen."

The three men-at-arms exchanged uncertain looks. "Our lord is honored by his trust," one of them said hesitantly.

"I envy your father all these fine friends," Lannister quipped, "but I do not quite see the purpose of this, Lady Stark."

She ignored him, turning to the large party in blue and grey. They were the heart of the matter; there were more than twenty of them. "I know your sigil as well: the twin towers of Frey. How fares your good lord, sers?"

Their captain rose. "Lord Walder is well, my lady. He plans to take a new wife on his ninetieth name day, and has asked your lord father to honor the wedding with his presence."

Tyrion Lannister sniggered. That was when Catelyn knew he was hers. "This man came a guest into my house, and there conspired to murder my son, a boy of seven," she proclaimed to the room at large, pointing. Ser Rodrik moved to her side, his sword in hand. "In the name of King Robert and the good lords you serve, I call upon you to seize him and help me return him to Winterfell to await the king's justice."

AGOT chapter 28, Catelyn V

Look at the language being used here, remember how the men react afterwards, it's not a crime, no one there thought it was. There where knights and lord's men taking a supposed criminal to await the king's justice.

What leads you to believe she had no right to imprison him?

The torture thing is fucked up, but that's both Lysa's fault and the Westerosi average with regards of prisoner treatment, specially in The Vale.

[CamiloRP]

14 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm not sure I agree.

First, I don't think Ned's world view is that black and white. He makes hard choices and tries to do what is right. He holds his honor above his own life, but his loved ones' lives above his own honor.

The Aemon/Jon conversation highlights this:

As for the hypothetical you presented, it's hard to judge, but Robert only agreed not to kill Dany on his death bed, which is pretty extreme.

Yeah, but Dany has a better claim to the throne than him, Joff, Tommen and Myrcella do not. Also Aerys spared Dontos at Barristan's request, Robert would, IMO, spare the children if Ned asked so, specially if he asked before hand and had other people to bare witness.

[Mourning Star]

1 minute ago, corbon said:

She did.

She was the ruler of the North while Ned was in KL.

She wasn't in the North.

1 minute ago, corbon said:

Just as for any ruler she was responsible for administering the King's justice in the King's stead. Ned did the same for Will in the prologue. The King is not a necessary part of this process.

She invoked the King's name and lied publicly about her intentions. There is no way this can be reasonably construed as justice.

1 minute ago, corbon said:

A crime was committed in her jurisdiction.
She made an arrest in the name of the King, and took the prisoner for trial. A trial was held. The prisoner was released when found not guilty.

She lied and took a man using her father's name to her sister and not the King. This is a wild defense of blatant wrongdoing.

1 minute ago, corbon said:

Politics, power, the corruption in KL and elsewhere, all added complications. But the simple fact is that she was the ruler of the north, responsible for the King's justice and carried out that Justice appropriately.

She wasn't in the North, Tyrion is not a subject of the North, and she didn't go to the King.

1 minute ago, corbon said:

Any use of the terms abduction, kidnapping or similar, display bias and a blatant disregard for the text and the facts.

No it is a direct quote of the King.

Also it is the literal definition of abduction.

the action or an instance of forcibly taking someone away against their will.

1 minute ago, corbon said:

Even if you disregard Cat's authority as governor of the north, it was still clearly and explicitly an arrest, not a kidnapping or abduction.

She lied in her invocation of the kings name, that alone is criminal.

1 minute ago, corbon said:

Thats due to politics, not law.

She was. Just by a safer round-about route. Her sister interrupted that though.

Lysa acted illegitimately yes. She used her power to take Tyrion from Cat and acted against Cat's counsel and wishes.
Cat didn't expect that, even after Brynden warned her (at which point it was too late anyway).

Cat has no right to be taking prisoners.

It's incredible to me that people defend such obvious injustice.

[Mourning Star]

6 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

 

AGOT chapter 28, Catelyn V

Look at the language being used here, remember how the men react afterwards, it's not a crime, no one there thought it was. There where knights and lord's men taking a supposed criminal to await the king's justice

The torture thing is fucked up, but that's both Lysa's fault and the Westerosi average with regards of prisoner treatment, specially in The Vale.

 

SHE LIED! She doesn't go to Winterfell or await the King's justice.

She convinces common uneducated men to help her using her dad's name, and only knows she is successful when Tyrion laughs at the Frey's. It's coercion more than legitimacy or even convincing argument.

It screams of injustice.

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, corbon said:

Ned did the same for Will Gared in the prologue

FTFY.

 

[Springwatch]

15 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Who did you want Tyrion to appeal to? He barely got a trial at all! lol

He demanded trial by combat, and got it. He could do that because the Vale lords consider themselves just and honourable people.

15 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Abduct, in the words of the King.

[...]

You mean when Ned was injured? What is your point here? Cat didn't bring the case to the king, that's on her.

Again, it was Cat's choice not to go to the king as Ned said was necessary for justice.

My point is that the King only heard Cersei's version of events; he didn't even allow Ned to speak. Therefore him calling it an abduction doesn't mean very much.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

She wasn't in the North.

The crime was committed in the north, and she was left in charge by Ned.

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

She invoked the King's name and lied publicly about her intentions. There is no way this can be reasonably construed as justice.

No, she didn’t lie about her intentions at all. She said she was taking Tyrion to be judge for a crime, and that’s exactly what she did. She had no idea, and could have had no idea, that Lysa would do what she did. 

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

She lied and took a man using her father's name to her sister and not the King. This is a wild defense of blatant wrongdoing.

She wasn't in the North, Tyrion is not a subject of the North, and she didn't go to the King.

She doesn’t have to take him to the king, @corbon already explained this. And I have already said and will say it once more, if what she did was such “blatant wrongdoing”, why did anyone obey her? 

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

No it is a direct quote of the King.

Also it is the literal definition of abduction.

the action or an instance of forcibly taking someone away against their will.

 

Then any arrest, in universe and in the real world are abductions. Unless people in general really want to be taken by police/authorities? 

 

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

She lied in her invocation of the kings name, that alone is criminal.

No, she didn’t. Again, the king’s presence is not required when administering the king’s justice. 

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Cat has no right to be taking prisoners.

It seems westerosi in general disagree with you, as do I.

8 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It's incredible to me that people defend such obvious injustice.

It’s incredible to me that you don’t see the flaws in your arguments. 

[CamiloRP]

27 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

She wasn't in the North.

It doesn't matter. As an officer of the law (by proxy) she has the right to impart justice.

 

Quote

She invoked the King's name and lied publicly about her intentions. There is no way this can be reasonably construed as justice.

Invoking the king's name is what's done when exercising the king's justice, like ned did with Gared. Lying does not equal injustice, she just lied to prevent being attacked by Tywin's men on her way to The North.

 

Quote

She lied and took a man using her father's name to her sister and not the King. This is a wild defense of blatant wrongdoing.

You don't need to take a man to the king to exercise the king's justice, that'd make justice really slow and the king really bussy (imagine having one judge for a whole country and the fastest way of transportation being a boat). Gared is excecuted in the name of the king without the king being there or even knowing about it.

 

Quote

No it is a direct quote of the King.

Who knew nothing of the situation.

 

Quote

Also it is the literal definition of abduction.

the action or an instance of forcibly taking someone away against their will.

So, when the cops take someone, are they abducting them?

 

Quote

She lied in her invocation of the kings name, that alone is criminal.

Nope.

 

Quote

Cat has no right to be taking prisoners.

Yes she does, as an officer of the Law, being the regent of any land makes you an officer of the law, and Cat is.

What leads you to think otherwise?

 

[CamiloRP]

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

SHE LIED! She doesn't go to Winterfell or await the King's justice.

She convinces common uneducated men to help her using her dad's name, and only knows she is successful when Tyrion laughs at the Frey's. It's coercion more than legitimacy or even convincing argument.

It screams of injustice.

She lied about where she was going and about nothing else, that means nothing for the validity of the arrest.

Everyone there believed what she was doing to be legal, no one ever says it wasn't, so why do you think it isn't? You seem to be absolutely sure she has no right to do so, why? 

[CamiloRP]

@kissdbyfire we agree about half the time in here, but know we are even making the same arguments!

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

@kissdbyfire we agree about half the time in here, but know we are even making the same arguments!

Yup, the half we agree on is the half where you’re right.