Catelyn was right about everything.

[Springwatch]

In Cat's defence, looks to me like she was motivated by fear not vengeance when she captured Tyrion. The whole chapter is edged with fear - she's hiding even from her family's natural allies, and all because it seems the Lannisters are on a power politics murder spree - first killing Jon Arryn, and then attempting to murder Bran (twice) because he knew too much. And now Cat knows too much as well, and Tyrion has found her at her most vulnerable - he just needs to flash his gold and his next catspaw would find her an easy mark on the road north. So she was afraid.

(I don't blame Cat for believing LF about Tyrion. Varys was there too, and he knows everything.)

[Mourning Star]

6 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yes, Jinglebell was innocent, if not exactly a child (about 50 years old). As a rule, Catelyn does not kill children, she made one desperate and mad move in extreme distress, acting on impulse. It was a last minute, desperate attempt at negotiating for her son's life, and that attempt failed - Robb was killed (as her other children had been, to her knowledge), her people were being slaughtered, she was about to die, the world had gone mad around her, and she may have felt it was at least partly her fault. She couldn't bear it with stoic resignation, but any mother in her situation could go mad and do anything that she normally wouldn't have thought of ever doing. Based on her psychological state at the moment, I don't think she would be convicted by a modern-day criminal court. It doesn't mean killing Jinglebell was the right thing to do, but she was out of her mind, and I cannot blame her for that, nor do I think that this is the act that defines her character. 

Much like Hodor, Jinglebell is an innocent child, even if his body was that of a grown man.

I’m wasn’t talking about convicting anyone or saying it’s hard to understand why Cat does what she does. I’m trying to look at how the story explores right and wrong through her character. I think it’s really hard to argue that this wasn’t wrong, and I think it’s a very intentional moment by the author.

How characters use the power they have over innocents is highlighted by the story as maybe the single most important determining factor for judging them.

It’s not surprising that good people are rare, it’s hard to do the right thing even when it might hurt you personally or you really really just want to spite someone.

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."

 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

23 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Theres a large diffrence between motherly and the disgusting behavior of Catelyn

Take it up with the person I replied to who explicitly specified that Catelyn should have been motherly

23 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Not many people would say that someone should be dumped out a window while grieving. And she baited him into receiving that insult by using his name when she would have usually referred to him as Snow.

What Catelyn said was obviously fucked up. That said, even as someone that doesn't particularly like her, it's not difficult to notice that a large portion of the fandom (this isn't aimed at you personally tbc) is willing to understand and sympathize with much worse actions by other characters, like actual and attempted child murder, but simultaneously make Cat out to be irredeemably evil for this comment or how she treated Jon in general. 

[Julia H.]

47 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I’m wasn’t talking about convicting anyone or saying it’s hard to understand why Cat does what she does. I’m trying to look at how the story explores right and wrong through her character. I think it’s really hard to argue that this wasn’t wrong, and I think it’s a very intentional moment by the author.

How characters use the power they have over innocents is highlighted by the story as maybe the single most important determining factor for judging them.

It’s not surprising that good people are rare, it’s hard to do the right thing even when it might hurt you personally or you really really just want to spite someone.

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."

 

Well, then this is a very special case, where the author shows where extreme distress and grief can take even a good person.

What drives Catelyn mad is not the possibility of losing her own life, it is the horrible death of her child right there in front of her eyes. To judge someone's character based on that moment seems very unfair - most people do not experience such extremes, so we will never know how they would act in a similar situation. It is totally different from really being in a position of power, where one has the ability to think over the options before deciding to hurt innocents. Nor do we know how Catelyn, if she had survived, would feel about her action afterwards (I don't think Lady Stoneheart is really the same person), which could also reflect on her true character.

While I agree that it was an intentional moment on the part of the author, I disagree that the defining moment to judge a person's character is when the person is literally out of her mind with grief and desperation. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I’m not demanding anything.

Cat isnt Cersei, she didn’t have Jon killed in his cradle. But, that isn’t enough to call her behavior good.

I think you have a low bar for goodness and humanity.

For all of these things, there are extenuating circumstances and understandable motivations to sympathize with. However, that’s literally the point I was making, it’s the hard choices that show who someone is not the easy ones, or as the author likes to say, the heart in conflict with itself.

Your argument is Pharasaical.  I prefer to put myself in other peoples’ shoes, rather than criticising them for failing to display a level of supreme virtue that I would be most unlikely to display in their position.

I know of no woman who would cherish an illegitimate child fathered by her husband after they married, which he then brought back to the matrimonial home, while threatening her if she ever questioned his parentage.  Most women in that position would get a divorce.  Catelyn doesn’t have that option.

[Mourning Star]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Well, I prefer to put myself in other peoples’ shoes, rather than criticising them for failing to display a level of virtue that I would be most unlikely to display in their position.

I know of no woman who would cherish an illegitimate child fathered by her husband, which he then brought back to the matrimonial home.

These aren’t people, they are characters and their choices were written intentionally.

I hope you meet better people, but yes, really good people are all too rare perhaps it’s even unattainable, still, it is never too late to try and be better. To do that we need to identify how.

Cat is a deeply flawed character. I’m not calling her evil, she clearly loved her children for instance, but I do get the impression that many readers give her a pass on her blunders and bad behavior because she is sympathetic, and I don’t think that’s the best way to understand the story.

It is no mistake that she has come back as the personification of vengeance, and that clearly isn’t a virtue.

"Vengeance?" Ned said. "I thought we were speaking of justice. Burning Clegane's fields and slaughtering his people will not restore the king's peace, only your injured pride."

[Mourning Star]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Well, then this is a very special case, where the author shows where extreme distress and grief can take even a good person.

What drives Catelyn mad is not the possibility of losing her own life, it is the horrible death of her child right there in front of her eyes. To judge someone's character based on that moment seems very unfair - most people do not experience such extremes, so we will never know how they would act in a similar situation. It is totally different from really being in a position of power, where one has the ability to think over the options before deciding to hurt innocents. Nor do we know how Catelyn, if she had survived, would feel about her action afterwards (I don't think Lady Stoneheart is really the same person), which could also reflect on her true character.

While I agree that it was an intentional moment on the part of the author, I disagree that the defining moment to judge a person's character is when the person is literally out of her mind with grief and desperation. 

So yes this was absolutely a wildly extreme case, but it also doesn’t stand alone, I think it is the culmination of her character arc.

At one point she almost seems to have the right idea:

"Your grief is mine, Cat," he said when they broke apart. "When we heard about Lord Eddard … the Lannisters will pay, I swear it, you will have your vengeance."

"Will that bring Ned back to me?" she said sharply.

Except that it’s for the wrong reasons, but still, this is a step on her path which shows us how love can turn into hate.

"You are the gentle sex," said Lord Karstark, with the lines of grief fresh on his face. "A man has a need for vengeance."

"Give me Cersei Lannister, Lord Karstark, and you would see how gentle a woman can be," Catelyn replied. "Perhaps I do not understand tactics and strategy … but I understand futility. We went to war when Lannister armies were ravaging the riverlands, and Ned was a prisoner, falsely accused of treason. We fought to defend ourselves, and to win my lord's freedom.

"Well, the one is done, and the other forever beyond our reach. I will mourn for Ned until the end of my days, but I must think of the living. I want my daughters back, and the queen holds them still. If I must trade our four Lannisters for their two Starks, I will call that a bargain and thank the gods. I want you safe, Robb, ruling at Winterfell from your father's seat. I want you to live your life, to kiss a girl and wed a woman and father a son. I want to write an end to this. I want to go home, my lords, and weep for my husband."

Cat cares about her family, sure, but it’s easy to see how hypocritical and self centered she is being right?

She is lecturing Lord Karstark about vengeance? About futility?

This is a man who came to war for her family. Who’s sons died protecting her son. She wants to trade Jaime for her daughters, fine, I get that, but it’s just as futile as trying to trade Jinglebell for Robb. It’s clearly treason and detrimental to her people’s cause on top of it.

This isn’t to say I endorse Karstark’s vengeance either. We see him take it out on innocent children instead, after Cat lets Jaime go.

She actually comes to understand futility at the Red Wedding, and faced with it, takes vengeance on the innocent she could get ahold of.

[SeanF]

23 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

These aren’t people, they are characters and their choices were written intentionally.

I hope you meet better people, but yes, really good people are all too rare perhaps it’s even unattainable, still, it is never too late to try and be better. To do that we need to identify how.

Cat is a deeply flawed character. I’m not calling her evil, she clearly loved her children for instance, but I do get the impression that many readers give her a pass on her blunders and bad behavior because she is sympathetic, and I don’t think that’s the best way to understand the story.

It is no mistake that she has come back as the personification of vengeance, and that clearly isn’t a virtue.

"Vengeance?" Ned said. "I thought we were speaking of justice. Burning Clegane's fields and slaughtering his people will not restore the king's peace, only your injured pride."

In a character-driven story, I place myself in the shoes of the characters.

Not one of the characters in this tale does not think uncharitable thoughts, harbour desire for revenge on those who have hurt their loved ones, say or do unpleasant things on occasion. That’s what people are like, and it’s inhumane to expect otherwise.

The only person who would pass your test of virtue is Patient Griselda.

[Mourning Star]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In a character-driven story, I place myself in the shoes of the characters.

Not one of the characters in this tale does not think uncharitable thoughts, harbour desire for revenge on those who have hurt their loved ones, say or do unpleasant things on occasion. That’s what people are like, and it’s inhumane to expect otherwise.

The only person who would pass your test of virtue is Patient Griselda.

I don’t know why you are like this, but maybe simmer down a bit, sure seems like you have a bone to pick, and I don’t know why.

Go for it, put yourself in the character’s shoes, try and empathize… but also take a step back and look at the larger story being presented to you. Because there is meaning there as well.

Everyone has uncharitable thoughts, no one has suggested otherwise. I’ve said over and over how sympathetic and understandable Cat’s motivations are, that doesn’t make her actions good.

Maybe nobody is completely good and it is ever an aspiration to work towards, that’s ok.

But when you are talking about murdering mentally handicapped innocents, it’s probably ok to judge. If you think the “test for virtue” being don't kill innocent people is too high a bar then I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be good.

Just because it’s hard to be good, maybe even impossible at times, doesn’t mean you get a pass for doing wrong or should give up on trying.

The difference between vengeance and justice is a major theme of the story, Cat’s arc, especially her wrongs, illuminates the distinction.

[Julia H.]

19 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

So yes this was absolutely a wildly extreme case, but it also doesn’t stand alone, I think it is the culmination of her character arc.

At one point she almost seems to have the right idea:

"Your grief is mine, Cat," he said when they broke apart. "When we heard about Lord Eddard … the Lannisters will pay, I swear it, you will have your vengeance."

"Will that bring Ned back to me?" she said sharply.

Except that it’s for the wrong reasons, but still, this is a step on her path which shows us how love can turn into hate.

"You are the gentle sex," said Lord Karstark, with the lines of grief fresh on his face. "A man has a need for vengeance."

"Give me Cersei Lannister, Lord Karstark, and you would see how gentle a woman can be," Catelyn replied. "Perhaps I do not understand tactics and strategy … but I understand futility. We went to war when Lannister armies were ravaging the riverlands, and Ned was a prisoner, falsely accused of treason. We fought to defend ourselves, and to win my lord's freedom.

"Well, the one is done, and the other forever beyond our reach. I will mourn for Ned until the end of my days, but I must think of the living. I want my daughters back, and the queen holds them still. If I must trade our four Lannisters for their two Starks, I will call that a bargain and thank the gods. I want you safe, Robb, ruling at Winterfell from your father's seat. I want you to live your life, to kiss a girl and wed a woman and father a son. I want to write an end to this. I want to go home, my lords, and weep for my husband."

Cat cares about her family, sure, but it’s easy to see how hypocritical and self centered she is being right?

She is lecturing Lord Karstark about vengeance? About futility?

This is a man who came to war for her family. Who’s sons died protecting her son. She wants to trade Jaime for her daughters, fine, I get that, but it’s just as futile as trying to trade Jinglebell for Robb. It’s clearly treason and detrimental to her people’s cause on top of it.

This isn’t to say I endorse Karstark’s vengeance either. We see him take it out on innocent children instead, after Cat lets Jaime go.

She actually comes to understand futility at the Red Wedding, and faced with it, takes vengeance on the innocent she could get ahold of.

We may interpret those quotes differently, but what I see is that Cat prefers rescuing the living to taking vengeance for the dead. Vengeance is futile in the sense that it won't bring back your loved ones, whereas trying to save those who are still alive is a much more meaningful goal even if it is difficult or you have little hope. At the Red Wedding, Cat loses all hope to save the living, so, in desperation, on the impulse of the bitter moment, she contributes to the general slaughter, and drives a knife into the person nearest to her. 

As a character, she has flaws, I agree, and she makes mistakes before the Red Wedding, and it is fair enough to examine those mistakes and flaws like in the case of other characters. However, I still maintain that she should not be judged, moraly or otherwise, on the basis of that one insane moment in extreme despair. People's actions should always be viewed in context. To me, nothing indicates that Catelyn  would have become a murderer of innocents without the Red Wedding. This is a moment that exemplifies the tragic, destructive futility of war itself.

 

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I don’t know why you are like this, but maybe simmer down a bit, sure seems like you have a bone to pick, and I don’t know why.

Go for it, put yourself in the character’s shoes, try and empathize… but also take a step back and look at the larger story being presented to you. Because there is meaning there as well.

Everyone has uncharitable thoughts, no one has suggested otherwise. I’ve said over and over how sympathetic and understandable Cat’s motivations are, that doesn’t make her actions good.

Maybe nobody is completely good and it is ever an aspiration to work towards, that’s ok.

But when you are talking about murdering mentally handicapped innocents, it’s probably ok to judge. If you think the “test for virtue” being don't kill innocent people is too high a bar then I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be good.

Just because it’s hard to be good, maybe even impossible at times, doesn’t mean you get a pass for doing wrong or should give up on trying.

The difference between vengeance and justice is a major theme of the story, Cat’s arc, especially her wrongs, illuminates the distinction.

If Catelyn murdered mentally handicapped innocents for shits and giggles, yes one would judge her harshly and condemn her.

What you’re doing is ignoring the context of her slaying Jinglebell - having her son and her people treacherously massacred around her.  However, “fine judgement is not expected in the presence of a knife”.  The blame for the death of Jinglebell rests far more with the Freys than it does with a woman who is mad with grief.

This is a world where nothing that approaches our notions of jurisprudence exists.  There is no distinction between vengeance and justice, a distinction which only exists in societies where the exercise of vengeance is contracted out to the government.  The only distinction is between vengeance which is proportionate, and vengeance which is disproportionate.

[Mourning Star]

26 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If Catelyn murdered mentally handicapped innocents for shits and giggles, yes one would judge her harshly and condemn her.

No, she does it for futile vengeance, and I am judging her action here.

Quote

What you’re doing is ignoring the context of her slaying Jinglebell - having her son and her people treacherously massacred around her.  However, “fine judgement is not expected in the presence of a knife”.  The blame for the death of Jinglebell rests far more with the Freys than it does with a woman who is mad with grief.

I’m really not ignoring the context.

“fine judgement is not expected in the presence of a knife” This is not only a poor sentiment, it is totally out of context… this was explicitly not self defense.

You can play the blame game back and forth for ever, Freys betrayed Starks, Starks betrayed Freys, it shows clearly that you miss the point.

We are each responsible for our own actions even if pointy objects are in the room or someone has done you wrong.

Quote

This is a world where nothing that approaches our notions of jurisprudence exists.  There is no distinction between vengeance and justice, a distinction which only exists in societies where the exercise of vengeance is contracted out to the government.  The only distinction is between vengeance which is proportionate, and vengeance which is disproportionate.

Jurisprudence?

What are you even talking about? I’m not talking about putting her on trial.

But there is explicitly, in the text, a difference between justice and vengeance.

The fact that you deny that is alarming and tells me this conversation is probably pointless. Good luck out there

[Springwatch]

19 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

We are each responsible for our own actions

What about mental breakdown? Do you have any sympathy for that?

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

What about mental breakdown? Do you have any sympathy for that?

Evidently not.  Catelyn is supposed to remain entirely calm and rational as her son and her people are being treacherously murdered in front of her.  
As no doubt, we all would, in her position.

[sifth]

11 hours ago, Mystical said:

Considering that the Lannisters proceeded with the war despite Jamie being a hostage, I don't see what value he had as a prisoner to begin with. Sure as heck didn't stop Tywin in any way.

 

Because the Lannisters had Sansa. It's called a stalemate. If the Starks killed Jamie, the Lannisters would kill Sansa.

[Mourning Star]

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

What about mental breakdown? Do you have any sympathy for that?

I don’t know how many times I have to say I have sympathy, but yes obviously… I still have sympathy for Cat.

Does having a breakdown make actions good somehow? Obviously not… would you say the Mad King trying to destroy King’s Landing out of spite when his son was killed in what he saw as a betrayal was somehow good or ok because he had a breakdown? I hope not…

One can sympathize with someone’s plight without excusing their behavior.

Don’t you have any sympathy for the mentally handicapped innocent who was murdered?

[Hugorfonics]

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I agree, there was no way Catelyn could know how wrong it all would go. Ned perhaps had a presentiment, but she didn't.

I think after Lysas package arrived Cat sensed the sky could fall. Before that though the realm looked stable and the hand job wouldnt be so hard, but I could see Ned ominous

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I doubt there are many lords in the realm who would have refused the King's offer. 

To be Hand, which Ned was against as soon as Robert left KL, probably less then 5% of the population would object to. But to marry their daughter to the crown prince id say none.

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Those men did as they were told by Lord Tully's daughter. I don't think they would have acted the same way if a total strange had asked them to arrest Lord Tywin's son

Definitely not, but to pivot "legally exempt Lannister" until later, what if its a stranger asking them to arrest some strangers son?

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The responsibility is all Catelyn's. If her words provide the legal context, then she was wrong to take Tyrion not to Winterfell but to the Vale and expose him to Lysa's justice.

Ight, ima go basic, while also mostly pivoting again but now on Lysa. Ok, theres that knight, Rodrik. Like Duncan the Tall hes responsible for defending the weak and justice and yada yada yada. Im pretty sure that if one of those yadas entails kicking a prince then bagging an imp cant be to many yadas away

Why not the Vale? Is the Eyrie and its Arryn overlords not known for honor and justice? As our suspect in question bluntly asks

Quote

Is the Eyrie not part of the Seven Kingdoms?

 

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Ned carried out justice in the name of the king, it is quite obvious that between a Stark and a Lannister only the King (or the King's Hand) can do justice with authority

This is not obvious to me. The Conciliator existed, this isnt north of the wall. In The Sworn Sword we see that lords and there pissing contests is the norm while the king stepping in is not to be expected (granted its a chequy lion not the lion but still)

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

A Lannister will never accept justice from someone of equal rank. 

Alright, pivots over. Now despite Tywins insistence, Jaimes golden armor and whatever the fuck goes on in Cerseis mind; Lannister is not above the law. They may think that, but thats fine as long as law abiding knights and lords do their duty. 

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

If the King fails to do justice, the result can easily be war. 

Course! The barbaric sunset kingdoms have been drenched in blood for millennials. Thats uh how justice gets done

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Sure, he is. But he shouldn't be. I'm not saying Ned would not have been disappointed by Robert's justice (again), only that he was trying to do things legally and through the authority of the King, and even that only after sufficient evidence had been gathered. He wouldn't have fetched a block for Tyrion right there.

No he wouldnt, your correct that hed run to Robert like the last time a king annoyed him. But his wife was following other legal options, the only feasible option that could have her son and brother in laws injustice rectified, that are totally available to a court of high lords, ladies and knights X miles away from KL.

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

We don't really know, but it's quite probable it wouldn't. My point is that Catelyn should have gone straight to Winterfell to fortify the North instead of giving the Lannisters immediate casus belli.

With or without Tyrion? Cuz with

Quote

They would never get him to Winterfell, he would have given odds on that. Riders would be after them within the day, birds would take wing, and surely one of the river lords would want to curry favor with his father enough to take a hand.

wouldnt work and without is letting the monster roam, allowing fear to cow your sons attacker free. 

And then theres the real reason why Cat went to Lysa; Bran fell and a knifeman came... but kids alive still, and hes like, almost 7?

The fucking hand was murdered. The great lord of the east, who toppled the dragons 300 year grip on its 7 kingdoms. The mans a legend, and murdered. Heavy heavy crime, Cat needed to know what Lysa was afraid to write in code. Lannister is not above the law. 

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Not necessarily or not only. The family and the household back in Winterfell needed information about the escalation of the conflict, and they needed to receive Ned's orders regarding defence. Originally, Cat had left Winterfell in order to personally warn Ned about the attempt on Bran's life. Now she has a similar mission: to take information back to Winterfell.

What information? That Lannisters lie? Itd be good to hear again, but the gods gave Catelyn a different path which I cant see anybody with a sliver of authority not taking.

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yes, that would have been lovely. But we would never have found it out because there wouldn't have been a story. 

Lol for sure, but now looking back, any trial with Jaime and Bran present in the same room would be uh interesting.

20 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Speaking of what ifs, one thing I find extremely annoying is that during the journey to Lysa's, Cat and Tyrion talk about Littlefinger at one point, and Tyrion tells Cat that Littlfinger is a liar. What an opportunity for them to figure out together what's going on in the bacground! But, alas, no. 

I think the wildlings attack, distracted the conversation. Oh, no Tyrion in all his culture and polite manners demands to know if or if not Petyr had taken Cats virginity  Lol, fuckin imp. I dont think itd matter. Varys not disagreeing with Petyr was a strong sign that hes telling the truth. 

That is another curious scene of enemies briefly working together, I wonder what the other was thinking then.

[Springwatch]

4 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I don’t know how many times I have to say I have sympathy, but yes obviously… I still have sympathy for Cat.

Does having a breakdown make actions good somehow? Obviously not… would you say the Mad King trying to destroy King’s Landing out of spite when his son was killed in what he saw as a betrayal was somehow good or ok because he had a breakdown?

Ok, agree the action is equally bad whoever does it, but is the person equally bad if they were going through mental illness or not?

4 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

One can sympathize with someone’s plight without excusing their behavior 

If there are truly mitigating circumstances, then the blame, the punishment, the condemnation gets reduced accordingly. That's how justice works.

[SeanF]

31 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Ok, agree the action is equally bad whoever does it, but is the person equally bad if they were going through mental illness or not?

If there are truly mitigating circumstances, then the blame, the punishment, the condemnation gets reduced accordingly. That's how justice works.

Aerys' insanity is a mitigating factor, but Aerys was a jerk who enjoyed inflicting cruelty on people well before he planned to blow up Kings Landing.

Catelyn is a mostly decent person whose life went from bad to disastrous, culminating in the murder of her son and her people by treachery.  She snapped at the end, in a manner similar to Denethor (the book version, not the horrid film version).

By in-universe standards, Catelyn was no murderer.  Every Frey is fair game, given their heinous behaviour.  Lord Manderly makes them into pies. 

By the standards of 21st century UK, she is no murderer.  She would be deemed guilty of manslaughter.  She would have two defences to the charge of murder namely diminished responsibility and loss of control (formerly provocation).

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Definitely not, but to pivot "legally exempt Lannister" until later, what if its a stranger asking them to arrest some strangers son?

I have no idea what they would do. I don't think it is a given that each and every one of them is performing some sort of patrolling duty out there. They obey Catelyn, but what would they do if a stranger asked them to arrest another stranger? It would probably depend on the circumstances. 

Quote

Ight, ima go basic, while also mostly pivoting again but now on Lysa. Ok, theres that knight, Rodrik. Like Duncan the Tall hes responsible for defending the weak and justice and yada yada yada. Im pretty sure that if one of those yadas entails kicking a prince then bagging an imp cant be to many yadas away

Sorry, I don't get what your point is here. It must be my fault.

Quote

Why not the Vale? Is the Eyrie and its Arryn overlords not known for honor and justice? As our suspect in question bluntly asks

Well, you said:

Quote

 

So quickly, minor detail, Tyrions arrest was met with all legal mumbo jumbo 

  Quote

"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."

 

 

I thought you meant to say that Cat's words to those various knights were the "legal mumbo jumbo", i.e. the legal context of the arrest. If it is so, then, legally, her own words were binding, and she should have done as she had said and taken Tyrion to Winterfell.  

Quote

This is not obvious to me. The Conciliator existed, this isnt north of the wall. In The Sworn Sword we see that lords and there pissing contests is the norm while the king stepping in is not to be expected (granted its a chequy lion not the lion but still)

Alright, pivots over. Now despite Tywins insistence, Jaimes golden armor and whatever the fuck goes on in Cerseis mind; Lannister is not above the law. They may think that, but thats fine as long as law abiding knights and lords do their duty. 

Course! The barbaric sunset kingdoms have been drenched in blood for millennials. Thats uh how justice gets done

But that's it, lords fighting each other over various grievances is civil war, not justice. We see minor lords of the same region taking their disputes to their overlord for decision. We also see that minor lords having a quarrel with someone from another region go to King's Landing for justice.  The high lords do not have authority over each other, the King, however, has authority over the lords of the realm. It is actually a very decent idea to turn to the King in the case of a quarrel instead of starting a war.

Quote

But his wife was following other legal options, the only feasible option that could have her son and brother in laws injustice rectified, that are totally available to a court of high lords, ladies and knights X miles away from KL.

How lawful those other available options are seems kind of doubtful to me, but anyway. Cat may have acted ever so lawfully, my point is not whether she acted lawfully or not - Westeros does not exactly have a precisely codified legal system, after all. It was how blatantly she ignored her family-related duty after Ned had warned her about the possibility of war and the need to strengthen the North and given her spicific, strategic instructions, which she was to pass on to Winterfell and the various Northern lords. At the time she had trembled at the idea of war, and now she did something that was bound to provoke either a military attack (before those defensive preparations had taken place) or repercussions for her loved ones in King's Landing - both of which happened, in fact. Did she think taking those "other legal options" would keep her family safe from the Lannisters? 

Quote

With or without Tyrion? Cuz with

wouldnt work and without is letting the monster roam, allowing fear to cow your sons attacker free. 

Well, she was originally to go to Winterfell without Tyrion and protect Bran against another attack. Who knows while she is making a detour with Tyrion, another hired assassin may already be on his way to Bran. 

Quote

And then theres the real reason why Cat went to Lysa; Bran fell and a knifeman came... but kids alive still, and hes like, almost 7?

The fucking hand was murdered. The great lord of the east, who toppled the dragons 300 year grip on its 7 kingdoms. The mans a legend, and murdered. Heavy heavy crime, Cat needed to know what Lysa was afraid to write in code. Lannister is not above the law. 

That's all well and good if she does not ignore an urgent duty in the meantime.

Quote

What information? That Lannisters lie? Itd be good to hear again, but the gods gave Catelyn a different path which I cant see anybody with a sliver of authority not taking.

No. I quoted Ned's words earlier in this conversation. He sent word to Winterfell that the North must prepare for war, fortify their military defences, keep Theon under close supervision etc.

Quote

"Once you are home, send word to Helman Tallhart and Galbart Glover under my seal. They are to raise a hundred bowmen each and fortify Moat Cailin. Two hundred determined archers can hold the Neck against an army. Instruct Lord Manderly that he is to strengthen and repair all his defenses at White Harbor, and see that they are well manned. And from this day on, I want a careful watch kept over Theon Greyjoy. If there is war, we shall have sore need of his father's fleet."

That is a vitally important message from the Warden of the North to his bannermen on the subject of a potantial war, and it's not something you can just forget to deliver.