Born To Be Psychopaths?

[SeanF]

Raff got off lightly, given his crimes.

This whole world is like a gangster film, save that instead of people choosing to live outside the law, this is a world where law scarcely exists.

Edited October 20, 2023 by SeanF

[SerDuncan]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Vice versa, it is quite odd that Littlefinger's trauma and issues are not gaining much sympathy among the readership. We don't have his POV but we know what made him the man he is now and we also know he still has emotions. We see them best, I think, when he takes Sansa to his old home on the Fingers. Also, of course, there would have been genuine affection and feelings in him when he helped Sansa to build the snow castle. The guy is still a manipulative prick, of course, but you there is a clear and very strong human side to him. His evil actions don't come from 'evil' but from destroyed idealism, very much like Sandor's. And there is a lot of George himself in the character since he is essentially a ripoff of Arkin Ruark from Dying of the Light and similar tragic characters from George's early stories which were about failed romances and a deep-seated feeling of betrayal.

Another pedophile

Maybe we should let child services have a lookie

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But I don't really give a shit about Dareon. I'd say even Raff didn't deserve being murdered by a little girl disguising herself as a child prostitute. That is just a shitty thing to do in general and I won't defend or justify such an action by pointing out 'but the guy was an evil criminal'. He was ... but even he doesn't deserve to be led into a trap to be murdered in such a manner, just as his victims didn't deserve what happened to them (even if some of them were criminals and thugs, too).

Need any more proof that democracy is a joke? Either we go back to the jungle, every man for himself, else we'd have the likes of such above exercising their right to "freedom of speech". Or you know, a benevolent dictatorship. You don't get shit done by committee. Sure, absolute power corrupts and all, call me a fascist, at least I'm not a rape apologist.  

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

14 hours ago, SerDuncan said:

I don't really like her fyi, but as someone said, laws are crap; Slavery was legal until a short time ago (near dear history). Apartheid not even decades. The word you should put there is morally, that compass instilled by her upbringing.

Lol, I actually considered righting that what is legal or illegal should not determine your morality. Apparantly you agree with me, however...you are all on board for murdering people being a law that you are morally okay with, lol. Got it. 

 

15 hours ago, SerDuncan said:

Nothing better a deterrent than an ominously missing deserter.

How? Honestly, I tried to think of some way to respond to this, but I think it's just plainly false. 

14 hours ago, SerDuncan said:

PEDO

And the realm is harmed by every pair of hands lost. 

Killing those hands...does not make them usable by the realm. You have 0 logic here at all, and keep repeating this nonsensical logic. Also, why are you calling Daeron a pedo. Is there evidence he is a pedophile? I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. 

15 hours ago, SerDuncan said:

Imagine!? Let me tell you something about your dear history, it didn't start 2000 years ago. For the majority of our time here which is nowhere as low as 2000 years, we have killed or been killed. So called civilization has just replaced the sticks with guns, the stakes of need with greed. Get out of your sheltered existence and look at the world for what it is. Bald monkeys taking turns screwing each other.

Actually every time period before writing was invented is called "prehistory", so you....are wrong. However, I do agree with you that history didn't start 2,000 years ago...because yes, writing was invented much earlier. You are the one with a sheltered existence. Sheltered by conservative logic that makes you feel better for having clearly immoral opinions, excusing your hatred on it being "human nature". Many, MANY, prehistoric tribes, and peoples even during history (but without much recorded of them as they didn't have writing) were nonviolent. Tribes have so many different customs, religions, codes of conduct, and lifestyles, as to make a cornucopia of ideologies. It has never simply been "kill or be killed", that is just your sad, dehumanizing, and hateful world view. Humans, since the  beginning of our existence, have been cooperative, caring for each other, taking care for the sick and injured, sharing our resources, etc. etc. Yes, selfishness, war, violence, etc have also always existed. But you are taking half of human existence and acting like it is all of it. We are both. Cooperative and competitive. Compassionate and violent. Good people have always existed. Compassionate people have always existed. Non-violent people have always existed. You...are the one sir, with an insular, bubble-like world view, not I.

16 hours ago, SerDuncan said:

Let me guess, dinosaurs are fake?

I was a biology major (double major with history), and an agnostic. I'm not religious, lol. You are just strawmanning my arguments constantly, as well as other logical fallacies. If you want to talk dinosaurs, I'm all for it though, as I am actually considering getting my masters in paleontology

16 hours ago, SerDuncan said:

Lmao, who do you think I am child

Certainly not Ser Duncan the Tall. I guess someone with low media literacy, who doesn't at all understand Ser Duncan, because even in limited interaction, I know you are nothing like him. Trust me, Ser Duncan doesn't agree with any of the vile hate you are spewing here. 

16 hours ago, SerDuncan said:

Real history began in the caves and if you'd like to go back further, the oceans, not in paradise

I actually there is an argument that overall human beings were happier as hunter and gatherers than we are now. Again, that is not history though, that is prehistory. Paradise, lol. Honestly, you clearly have no ability to comprehend what I am saying, as you just want to just strawman my arguments and respond to that. I know, it's easier that way, isn't it? 

I am not responding to the other things you said, as you used personal insults repeatedly. I know your type, and you will report me if I respond in kind. Try calming down. I know you are so angry, but it's okay...breathe slowly and deeply. You'll be okay.  

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, SaffronLady said:

LRT has a long history of being against any and every type of violence IIRC. And your current line is driving this conversation down "morality vs legality" lane, which ... technically speaking you are both correct. Dareon should die (let's just say sic semper deserters), but Arya is not a legal dispenser of justice.

I never claimed she was a legal dispenser of justice. In fact, I stressed I wasn't . I have always referred to her as a vigilante. What Ser Duncan and I and others have pointed out though that the legal dispense of justice is a mockery to begin with and even that has been abandoned by the state and rulers. Hence we have BwB and Arya springing up left and right. So, it's also a sociological issue. In a legal sense the BwB and Arya are "criminals" and "murderers", but that label becomes utterly meaningless when "L'etat" is absent or criminal both legally and morally. Where Les Miserables makes the reader contemplate the human right to not starve, George drove that up to 11 for both Arya and the BwB to the right of justice. Brienne belongs to the vigilante justice too: she's not an actual knight and while she's on a royal mission, her mission was not arresting or killing outlaws either.

A real modern example that I know of this phenomenon were the murders of bandits in Guatemala, which was a military dictatorship for decades the latter half of the 20th century and civil war, and with the one year under Montt ('82-'83) being the bloodiest. He created genocidal death squads who targeted the Indigenas especially. Montt's death squads compare to Tywin's Mountain, Amory Lorch and Bloody Mummers (truly). Eventually a peace treaty was signed in '96, and government was back in the hands of elected parliament. In order to get this though, there was an agreement not to pursue either Montt or those of the death squads for crimes against humanity. Early 21st century Montt tried to get elected president, but failed and retired. His immunity (of the peace treaty) expired in 2012. One court did find him guilty in 2013 for genocide and crimes against humanity, but the constitutional court squashed that verdict. He died in 2018. But what happened to his Bloody Mummers do you think? They became the bandits for which Guatemala is still considered one of the most dangerous countries to go to when it comes to crimes. They were not brought before courts either and didn't have to return their weapons. What do you do, if you have military grade automatic weapon arsenal, are used to killing civilians for fun with the approval of the state, but now you're out of a "job"? They turned bandit. The summer I traveled there (2005) and visited the area of Tikal these former-death-squads-turned-bandits had been known to commit murderous robberies in the area for a few years already. Whether tourists who drove in a minivan to Tikal at dawn made it to their destination was partially being lucky. It depended on which minivan these bandits would hold up. In the summer of 2005 though, they even robbed the till of the entrance of Tikal, shortly after it opened. They shot the cashier and two other people. As it was still very early, they did so for a few hundred dollars. That was all there was in the till. The villagers of communities in the jungle were so outraged over this and fed up that when they ended up catching some of these "Bloody Mummers" they performed lynchings. These lynchings were murders in a literal legal sense, and yet I could not but see it as a form of brutal attempt at creating some form of justice that was otherwise absent.

[SerDuncan]

1 minute ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

however...you are all on board for murdering people being a law that you are morally okay with, lol. Got it

I believe that one shouldn't expect someone else to ensure your quality of life. If that is threatened by external factors, you don't sit and wait for that pathetic excuse of a legal system to do good by you. 

Well there was this joke somewhere, if aliens really invaded USA, people'd call 911 a dozen times and then just give up. After all, not everyone is the tough vet with PTSD like those movies show. 

6 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

How? Honestly, I tried to think of some way to respond to this, but I think it's just plainly false. 

Of course not, no one is going to here of it sadly. Deterrents need publicity. But her intent was not that, just a by product. Her's was justice.

8 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Killing those hands...does not make them usable by the realm.

Heard of court martials for deserters? Don't sign up in the first place if you're gonna cut and run. And the Watch isn't Vietnam with forced conscription drafts, it's the real threat. That bastard was offered a chance to continue living as its servant and he took it. And then ran.  

10 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Killing those hands...does not make them usable by the realm. You have 0 logic here at all, and keep repeating this nonsensical logic. Also, why are you calling Daeron a pedo. Is there evidence he is a pedophile? I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. 

Oh that one? It's called A song of Ice and Fire. You could try and read it. Or not if you're so squeamish about violence. Hmm, if that's the case, you're in the wrong forum. This isn't Disney.

11 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Actually every time period before writing was invented is called "prehistory", so you....are wrong.

Potato potato, tomato tomato, You know how it goes.

12 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

You are the one with a sheltered existence. Sheltered by conservative logic that makes you feel better for having clearly immoral opinions, excusing your hatred on it being "human nature".

What are they again? 

13 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Many, MANY, prehistoric tribes, and peoples even during history (but without much recorded of them as they didn't have writing) were nonviolent. Tribes have so many different customs, religions, codes of conduct, and lifestyles, as to make a cornucopia of ideologies. It has never simply been "kill or be killed", that is just your sad, dehumanizing, and hateful world view. Humans, since the  beginning of our existence, have been cooperative, caring for each other, taking care for the sick and injured, sharing our resources, etc. etc. Yes, selfishness, war, violence, etc have also always existed. But you are taking half of human existence and acting like it is all of it. We are both. Cooperative and competitive. Compassionate and violent. Good people have always existed. Compassionate people have always existed. Non-violent people have always existed. You...are the one sir, with an insular, bubble-like world view, not I.

Which fairy tales you read ? Asking for my niece. Sure humans have loved and helped their own tribe (now nations and religions and whatnot) as it was an extension of themselves, and raped and pillaged elsewhere. When our basic needs and more were fulfilled, we started lecturing the ones whose weren't on how to live "ideally". 

18 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I was a biology major (double major with history), and an agnostic. I'm not religious, lol. You are just strawmanning my arguments constantly, as well as other logical fallacies. If you want to talk dinosaurs, I'm all for it though, as I am actually considering getting my masters in paleontology

Anyone who thinks any organised religion is about compassion must surely be on the same IQ level as the dino fake gang imo. God and religion are not the same. Spirituality has never harmed anyone since it is personal, only when you clan up and go to war in the name of god- what can I say.

20 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I guess someone with low media literacy,

I'm not the one asking proof when it's in the text that someone bothered to just pass by.

21 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

who doesn't at all understand Ser Duncan, because even in limited interaction, I know you are nothing like him. Trust me, Ser Duncan doesn't agree with any of the vile hate you are spewing here. 

Sure, he votes liberal and has never killed a man and slept like a baby.

22 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I actually there is an argument that overall human beings were happier as hunter and gatherers than we are now

Another day without dying, of course I'm fucking happy, all dopamine and serotonin and whatnot coursing through my bloodstream and nerves.

24 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Paradise, lol. Honestly, you clearly have no ability to comprehend what I am saying, as you just want to just strawman my arguments and respond to that. I know, it's easier that way, isn't it? 

I am not responding to the other things you said, as you used personal insults repeatedly. I know your type, and you will report me if I respond in kind. Try calming down. I know you are so angry, but it's okay...breathe slowly and deeply. You'll be okay.  

Your what? Arguments, my ass. Repeating the same shit doesn't count. "Oh, thats evil!", Chatgpted a million ways to repeat that?

And I was patient for a long time. 

[SeanF]

One can compare Arya to Dany again.

Dany undoubtedly breaks the laws of the city-states of Slavers Bay, by using violence to free slaves, and executing former masters.

But law, in places where one sixth of the people own the other five sixths as chattels, and can do as they please with them, free of judicial restraint, is actually meaningless.  It would be like saying that the rule of law exists in a concentration camp.  Slavers Bay is one vast concentration camp.

Westeros is not as bad as Slavers Bay, but it is lawless, in large part.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

Law, and justice, barely exist in the world that Martin has created (one can argue how plausible that is).  Justice is indistinguishable from vengeance, and law is, essentially, a set of codes of conduct which any adult with a weapon is expected to enforce.

So, Arya stands out from the rest, due to her age, but not in terms of her conduct.

Eh. You are comparing her to people...who we mostly deem to be doing evil actions. Like, you are right, but you are also wrong in the context of Arya being a perfect person who's every action is justifiable (which seems to be the take many are taking here). I agree Arya doesn't stand out...but we are meant to see the other actions as terrible, too. I guess I agree with you, Arya does not stand out as particularly evil (if that is your point). I don't think she is. (a note though : she is also doing worse things than many other characters. I feel like people are acting like everyone would do what Arya is doing, and I think that is laughably untrue). Not defending everyone's actions does not mean we hate the person, lol. I like Arya. She isn't my favorite character in the book, but I like her chapters, like her as a character, and I am hoping she can undo some of the pain that has been done to her somehow (not sure how, but I'd like her to have....a happier ending than the place she is now). I am heartbroken about the things Arya has experienced....but that does not mean I need to defend her every action. My favorite character is Catelyn Tully. I do not like how she treats Jon Snow at all. It makes me very upset when I see her treat him that way. Again, we don't have to defend the every action of characters we like. 

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

What Ser Duncan and I and others have pointed out though that the legal dispense of justice is a mockery to begin with and even that has been abandoned by the state and rulers. Hence we have BwB and Arya springing up left and right. So, it's also a sociological issue. In a legal sense the BwB and Arya are "criminals" and "murderers", but that label becomes utterly meaningless when "L'etat" is absent or criminal both legally and morally.

I see. @Lord of Raventree Hall I think you might prefer responding to this?

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Eh. You are comparing her to people...who we mostly deem to be doing evil actions. Like, you are right, but you are also wrong in the context of Arya being a perfect person who's every action is justifiable (which seems to be the take many are taking here). I agree Arya doesn't stand out...but we are meant to see the other actions as terrible, too. I guess I agree with you, Arya does not stand out as particularly evil (if that is your point). I don't think she is. (a note though : she is also doing worse things than many other characters. I feel like people are acting like everyone would do what Arya is doing, and I think that is laughably untrue). Not defending everyone's actions does not mean we hate the person, lol. I like Arya. She isn't my favorite character in the book, but I like her chapters, like her as a character, and I am hoping she can undo some of the pain that has been done to her somehow (not sure how, but I'd like her to have....a happier ending than the place she is now). I am heartbroken about the things Arya has experienced....but that does not mean I need to defend her every action. My favorite character is Catelyn Tully. I do not like how she treats Jon Snow at all. It makes me very upset when I see her treat him that way. Again, we don't have to defend the every action of characters we like. 

Not exactly.  There are people in this series who are plainly malevolent, like the Blooody Mummers, the Boltons, the Freys, Ser Gregor and his men.  Even in this depraved setting, they are largely considered to be scum, and survive only, and so long as, bigger players find them useful.

I'm saying that on the ethical level, I don't find much to distinguish between five of the main six characters, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Dany, and Jon.  Tyrion is notably worse than any of those five. In a world of evil, those five are at the better end of the spectrum, but still pretty flawed people.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Vice versa, it is quite odd that Littlefinger's trauma and issues are not gaining much sympathy among the readership. We don't have his POV but we know what made him the man he is now and we also know he still has emotions. We see them best, I think, when he takes Sansa to his old home on the Fingers. Also, of course, there would have been genuine affection and feelings in him when he helped Sansa to build the snow castle. The guy is still a manipulative prick, of course, but you there is a clear and very strong human side to him. His evil actions don't come from 'evil' but from destroyed idealism, very much like Sandor's. And there is a lot of George himself in the character since he is essentially a ripoff of Arkin Ruark from Dying of the Light and similar tragic characters from George's early stories which were about failed romances and a deep-seated feeling of betrayal.

 

LF deals with his issues by fomenting a civil war that engulfs a Continent;  not by killing a handful of shitheads.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Raff got off lightly, given his crimes.

This whole world is like a gangster film, save that instead of people choosing to live outside the law, this is a world where law scarcely exists.

I've never mentioned Raff here, as Arya had good reason to murder him. Raff and Daeron aren't the same. Weese, Chiswyk, the Tickler, honestly except Daeron, probably her other murders make sense. They are still murder, but...I admit the world is probably better without Ser Gregor's men (as they are almost certainly going to murder other people if they continue to live). Daeron, however....was just going to be a singer in Braavos. 

 

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Not exactly.  There are people in this series who are plainly malevolent, like the Blooody Mummers, the Boltons, the Freys, Ser Gregor and his men.  Even in this depraved setting, they are largely considered to be scum, and survive only, and so long as, bigger players find them useful.

I'm saying that on the ethical level, I don't find much to distinguish between five of the main six characters, Sansa, Arya, Bran, Dany, and Jon.  Tyrion is notably worse than any of those five. In a world of evil, those five are at the better end of the spectrum, but still pretty flawed people.

I would say Sansa, Dany, and Jon are on the better end. Arya is in the middle. And Bran I am struggling with. What he does to Hodor is so clearly wrong, and it troubles me. How about this? I think Bran is a child and it not yet clear where his morality will end up. I hope it is on the good end though (and he stops invading Hodor's mind). Oh, and the existence of horrible people does not make Arya on the good end. This doesn't mean Arya couldn't make a turn for the better. I think she could, but as of right now she is heading down a much darker path then her siblings. Oh, and I agree with you about Tyrion. He is dark gray at this point. Still a nuanced character, but he does a lot of harm to others particularly in ADwD. I was hoping Penny could be a positive influence, but that remains to be seen. A note : I also think Eddard, Catelyn, Davos, Brienne, Samwell, and...maybe Theon post ADwD are now on the better end too (Theon was not in ACoK at all, but ADwD Theon). 

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

One can compare Arya to Dany again.

Dany undoubtedly breaks the laws of the city-states of Slavers Bay, by using violence to free slaves, and executing former masters.

But law, in places where one sixth of the people own the other five sixths as chattels, and can do as they please with them, free of judicial restraint, is actually meaningless.  It would be like saying that the rule of law exists in a concentration camp.  Slavers Bay is one vast concentration camp.

Westeros is not as bad as Slavers Bay, but it is lawless, in large part.

Daenerys went to war to protect innocent lives. Through the books so far, she has continued to mostly want to protect as many as possible. She constantly thinks in terms of protecting others. Arya is dealing punitive justice. I would not really call those actions the same. Even when killing the worse characters, she is not doing the action to protect others, but instead as revenge/punishment. Granted, do I think the Tickler deserved to die? Absolutely...but still I think the fundamental motivations here are different. The one act I can think that Dany did that was punitive was hanging up the slavers (can't remember the number) and she feels guilty about it. She keeps having to remind herself "it was justice" but clearly is troubled by it. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

10 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Funny, how the OP demands nuance and empathy, but when we have it for an actual traumatized child, instead of a pedophile deserter who knows what's at stake, we're the amoral ones? Me, I prefer to feel empathy for a 10-year-old who witnessed the worst horrors humanity can inflict upon others for over a year, than a lying self-pitying pedophile like Dareon who doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. If he cares for nobody else but himself, then I don't see why I should care whether he's alive or dead. 

Seriously, what am I missing? Why does everyone keep calling Daeron a pedophile..when did he have sex with a child/desire to have sex with a child? What am I missing? Daeron is accused of rape, but I was under the impression the woman was around his age. And he had sex with prostitutes..but again I thought they were adult women. What am I missing? 

Also, I have empathy for Arya. Strawmanning me eh? I like Arya significantly more than I like Daeron, and I empathize more with Arya then I do with Daeron. Thinking it is wrong to murder someone doesn't mean I like them. I think Samwell punching Daeron....was honestly fairly justified. Daeron deserved to be punched. He didn't deserve to be murdered. Like honestly....the tribalism in this forum is crazy. Like seriously crazy. Y'all just pick sides and you think if anyone doesn't blindly defend every action of a character, they secretly hate them or something. Like having nuanced take, and thinking an action is wrong...doesn't mean we prefer the character they murdered to the character that murdered them. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[Craving Peaches]

9 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

And he had sex with prostitutes..but again I thought they were adult women. What am I missing? 

I think that one of the girls he wanted to have sex with was 14. So underage in our modern society. Though bear in mind people in-universe seem to think a girl becomes a woman as soon as she has her period (not a great metric). The Romans thought that girls of 12 were women...

Lanna (Happy Port) - A Wiki of Ice and Fire (westeros.org)

Edited October 20, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

I think that one of the girls he wanted to have sex with was 14. So underage in our modern society. Though bear in mind people in-universe seem to think a girl becomes a woman as soon as she has her period. The Romans though that girls of 12 were women...

Lanna (Happy Port) - A Wiki of Ice and Fire (westeros.org)

Just wondering, but ...how old is Daeron? Isn't he around Jon's age....i.e. like 15-16. I could be wrong about this, but this is how I pictured him. I certainly didn't imagine him as like a 30 year old or something, I thought all the recruits that came with Jon were fairly young. 

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Just wondering, but ...how old is Daeron? Isn't he around Jon's age....i.e. like 15-16. I could be wrong about this, but this is how I pictured him. I certainly didn't imagine him as like a 30 year old or something, I thought all the recruits that came with Jon were fairly young. 

Yeah, I got the impression he was quite young. He was supposedly an apprentice singer before he came to the Watch, so...

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yeah, I got the impression he was quite young. He was supposedly an apprentice singer before he came to the Watch, so...

Ah yes, the pedophile. Who likes women 2 years younger than him. Wouldn't this logic make Ygritte a pedophile too? (She was 19 and Jon was 15 I believe). (Not that that is even what pedophile means, since it means to be attracted to people who are prepubescent...but everyone just uses it to mean under the legal age of adulthood). 

[SaffronLady]

29 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Daeron is accused of rape, but I was under the impression the woman was around his age.

Yes, the Lady Rowan in question is 2 years older than he was. No idea about other cases tho.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Ah yes, the pedophile. Who likes women 2 years younger than him. Wouldn't this logic make Ygritte a pedophile too? (She was 19 and Jon was 15 I believe).

Yep, Ygritte the paedo...

1 minute ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

(Not that that is even what pedophile means, since it means to be attracted to people who are prepubescent...but everyone just uses it to mean under the legal age of adulthood). 

Yeah, given there is Raff, I would be cautious about calling anyone who doesn't adhere to modern standards of when someone comes of age a paedo. By this logic, majority of people in Ancient Rome are probably paedos...

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I've never mentioned Raff here, as Arya had good reason to murder him. Raff and Daeron aren't the same. Weese, Chiswyk, the Tickler, honestly except Daeron, probably her other murders make sense. They are still murder, but...I admit the world is probably better without Ser Gregor's men (as they are almost certainly going to murder other people if they continue to live). Daeron, however....was just going to be a singer in Braavos. 

 

 

They're not responding to you, my friend. Lord Varys, mentioned that Arya was wrong for killing Raff in a post made yesterday and people didn't respond kindly to that.

Edited October 20, 2023 by sifth

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a bunch of nonsense as the author is not in favor of executing oathbreakers nor is this a custom that prevails outside of Westeros. Dareon should and would be safe in Braavos from criminal persecution if some little girl wouldn't murder him insidiously.

I think the problem is that you often present your completely subjective opinions as absolute facts, with no room for debate. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion, at the end of the day.