Born To Be Psychopaths?

[sweetsunray]

Dareon... As far as Arya knows, he broke his vow to the Night's Watch, and this vow is not just about protecting Westeros, but protecting the realms of men, and as far as I remember, Braavos is one of those realms of men. Once he deserted from his vows to these realms, imo he's an outlaw in Braavos as much as he is in the North. You might disagree on whether it is justified to execute or kill deserters of the NW, especially if they never had a choice like Jon to ride away from the Wall to freedom before making any vows, but then that is a general discussion about that deserter rule, and not something to pick on Arya for. She does what any other Westerosi lord would do, even in Essos, if they came across a NW deserter. The killing of a NW deserter is not just something that solely a Lord or King Stark of Winterfell is allowed to do. Everybody is allowed to do so. 

Personally I do believe there should be far more nuance to it, but I cannot hold it against Arya yet that she basically executes that particular right, even in Braavos. Equally I don't feel sorry for Dareon. If he had chosen to help Sam, Aemon, Gilly and then decided to leave behind in Braavos, at the very least he would have helped the immediate people who were physically dependent on him to get on their way. But he could not even do that. For some reason, I lean towards this having carried more weight with Arya than the desertion alone. She saw someone who abandoned his friends in a strange city and who considered it an opportunity to desert, believing he could get away with it, not unlike the last surviving adults who abandoned her, Gendry, Weasel, Hot Pie and Lommy in the Riverlands to let them starve after the attack on the holdfast and Yoren got killed.

On top of that he knows very well what wights and Others are. They're not grumkin stories anymore. His complete lack of basic humanity in relation to what he knows and the people he trained with, who helped him, etc, and how he ogled Lanna, the daughter of the Sailor's Wife makes me disbelieve the story he tells about it not being rape when he was caught with the lord's daughter. Him and Marillion sound like two peas in a pod.

Dareon? There's your example of an anti-social personality.

[TheLastWolf]

24 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

and how he ogled Lanna, the daughter of the Sailor's Wife makes me disbelieve the story he tells about it not being rape when he was caught with the lord's daughter. Him and Marillion sound like two peas in a pod.

Dareon? There's your example of an anti-social personality.

The next time someone gets away with defending such scum, I'm going to - (haven't decided what yet, mostly bitch to the mods vehemently, right to free speech has its limits)! 

[Lord Varys]

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

What else for then, should she have asked him nicely? He knew what he signed up for anyway. 

He was a Northman, one of the soldiers of her older brother, King Robb. Killing him was treason and murder. What she should have done was reveal who the hell she was!

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

So since we here in the real world have allowed and passively accepted the business of arms to dictate contemporary geopolitics, war is more nobler than merely staying alive?

Like the evil Brotherhood without Banners? In any form of governance, feudal monarchies, fascist autocracies and alleged 'democratic republics' alike, it's merely a question of whom you share your spoils with, who dictates what's right, who's in power at the moment. History is written by the winners. Nelson Mandela was once a "terrorist" apparently. I'm not a blindly ideal pacifist but a soldier, including officers, does what he's told, a tool in the hands of the wielder who has seldom been not corrupted by his own power. A peaceful land, a quiet people indeed.

Obviously there is a difference between the societal rules allowing for killing in war - which usually allows you to kill other men who kill in war - and children running amok.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

Name one innocent victim. Post or prior to her Faceless men stint.

The Bolton guardsman, obviously. What did he ever do to her? And also the stableboy although that was partially an accident.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

A wanted girl on the run has no such luxuries.

Honestly, who cares, when we discuss her state of mind? I want the character to live, too. In fact, I also want her to kill more people because the Mercy chapter is easily among the best prose George has ever written. Seeing a little girl doing this stuff is very entertaining for me. But that is independent from how to check the mental state of the character in question ... and the morality of her actions.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

'No one' not Arya of House Stark. And you wouldn't be killing people if you were sensitive to their feelings in the first place. Somehow pop culture has us all believing that the ones who tortures themselves with guilt are somehow redeemable. I say again, none of the victims were innocent. And the author doesn't put it that way unless he intends something for her arc, which is not an ending as a psychopath.

There is only one person there and she lacks empathy.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

How so? The very intent of her killing them is born there. It's like hating the rebels for killing stormtroopers in their way. Oh they had families?! Surprise, everyone does. Choices were made. Consequences were faced. I can think of no one who lost sleep over that, characters and audiences alike. So how can you equate her with the multitudes of scum motivated by greed, lust and sadism?

It is okay to shoot back on stormtroopers. But 11-year-old girls fueling their desire for vengeance and killing for months and years to then execute brilliant crafted murder plots is, well, concerning. It shows how killing has absorbed the girl's mind. It is what she likes to do. Her reason of being, of surviving is to kill people on her list ... and other people she deems deserving of an early death.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

So she's both cold and unhinged at the same time? Pick a stance. I stand by my statement when I said she has a balance of both revenge and justice that has worked efficiently so far.

Sounds like nonsense to me, to be honest. Arya's killings are travesty of justice even when she kills men deserving of death because they are killed by a little girl who has neither the authority nor the right to kill them.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

Anger is a normal human emotion that doesn't instantly make one Ted Bundy. And the Tickler incident isn't a stranger being killed by a serial killer for no reason. It's a psychopath being killed by a vigilante with good reason. It would be unrealistic if Arya never had one outburst during all her adversities.

I don't have an issue with her outburst. Back then she was still more human than she is now where such outbursts are no longer coming. You made the silly call that her killing efficiently and quietly somehow reveals her lingering humanity. It doesn't.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

I daresay our relatively privileged and sheltered existence has made us intolerant in our outlook towards any period's differences in way of life.

The man who passes the sentence should swing the blade. Owes that much at least to the condemned man. 

LOL, no. That is just silly fantasy crap. Even the slightest research done on how violent behavior affects children and other bystanders would show you that witnessing (and suffering) violence traumatizes the bystander.

One of the least realistic aspects of the story is that Ned is still happy dad to his children sometimes while also serving as his own (and Robert's) headsman ... in addition to being a guy who does sentencing and regular lordly blood work like leading armies and crushing rebels.

This should leave a stain on the guy and his family. But somehow it doesn't. Great writing.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:43 PM, SerDuncan said:

Very easy for people from privilege to take the high horse moral approach when all their needs are taken care of. How can a white vegan from, say, New York condemn an African tribal eating meat in the desert. Not to say I'm one. Those are survival skills from hard times, not hunting for pleasure. And you'd have the entirety of life be herbivores I bet.

The high horse (or coward) take is the one where you say that killing sentient beings to eat them doesn't change you, especially at times when your brain is still forming. It does. There are studies about that. It is silly to pretend this has no effect on you nor that it is 'normal'. The reason why civilized people (and I deliberately indicate that people who are not following my take her are uncivilized in my understanding) don't take their kids on hunting trips where they kill deer or have them lend a hand when the pigs for the winter are culled ... is that we know that doing and seeing this sucks.

It is a good thing that we shield as many people as we can from such butchery. Just as most people these days don't actually attend executions when they happen. Or think about taking their kids to one.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

This is getting ridiculous.  Arya's upbringing gave her a strong moral code and sense of right and wrong, combined with a hatred for injustice.  Combine that with a hot temper, impulsiveness, and strong empathy for others and you have a vengeful vigilante.  I am bothered by some of her more recent acts, but I in no way think she is, or is becoming psychopathic.  Anti-social (i.e., criminal), maybe.  But not psychopathic.

I don't think you understand what 'psychopathic' means. Psychopathy is viewed as a spectrum. Arya isn't Littlefinger, but the way she kills shows quite obviously that she doesn't process emotions normally, she processes them in psychopathic manner. She has no empathy for her victims at all, she doesn't feel anything but thinks about, say, their boots in Dareon's case.

(Fantasies about) a strong moral code doesn't change any of that. It is right there, very obvious in the text, and the character in question doesn't become 'evil' or 'a monster' because she is a psychopath (to a point). In fact, psychopaths are people, too, and not responsible for how they process emotions.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

The Bolton guard was killed out of necessity.  She had already stolen the horses, as well as the dagger and the map.  There was no hiding it; she had crossed the Rubicon.  She had initially planned to bluff her way out.  When she realized that wouldn't work, she killed him.  He is a victim of poor planning as much as anything else.  

I really hate this kind of silly and callous excuse for murder. If you have no arguments just drop something, but don't insult a reader by giving them such a shitty take.

The guy is murdered by a little girl who was prepared to do it, because she wanted to get away from the place - and keep her true identity a secret - for her own petty reasons. I know that she was better off not revealing herself to Roose too late, of course, but she doesn't know that so we can't let her off the hook there easily.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

While she didn't do well in the village with Sandor, she felt no sense of belonging there either. 

Which is my point. Her trauma and brain wiring already set her apart from normal people.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

In Braavos, she lives with Brusco and his family, selling shellfish, for months, and does just fine. 

She plays a role there. She is not herself. The emotions she has are part of the act, the role she plays. Arya Stark of Winterfell doesn't care about Brusco and his family.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

However, she lets her anger at unjust behavior and betrayal get the best of her with Dareon.  He did betray Sam, and by extension her brother, and was an arrogant and hedonistic prick about it.  I consider it her worst act, but can't get too exercised over it.  Later, in the preview chapter, she is working in a theater, again functioning quite nicely.  Until someone from her past comes along.

I don't care much about Dareon ... but obviously the murder is ugly and insidious. And she doesn't function properly in Braavos. She would if she only murdered on behalf of the Faceless Men - because their murders are legal in Braavos. You can go to their house and kill yourself or pay assassins to kill somebody on your behalf. But killing random people because you feel like it - as Arya has done twice - is actually illegal in Braavos. She is a criminal there as she is Westeros.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

Witnessing the slaughter of animals for food and clothing hardly is going to make someone psychopathic or even callous toward life, especially if done humanely. 

You can check the studies what working in a butchery does to you even if you are an adult. Or better still - just go work there for a couple of weeks and tell me how it makes you feel.

Children suffering trauma can make turn them into psychopaths. There are genetic factors, too, some people are more prone to it than others ... but Arya's case is effectively the textbook case of a child which is traumatized and then turns into a murderous psychopath. Not an evil serial killer, more like a person like Dexter. She won't have his career, but it is clear that the point of her story is to show how war and other trauma twist a nice tomboy girl into a very dangerous person who is capable of doing very bad things.

Her murdering people who 'deserve' it doesn't change that in the slightest.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

Knowing Ned, that was likely the case.  As for watching an execution, I too question the wisdom of bringing a 7-year-old along.  However, it is worth noting that England and parts of America held public hangings until well into the 1800s.  I have read that entire families would be in the crowds, including young children.  May not be a good idea, but as long as it made clear that justice is being done (or is supposed to be), I'm unconvinced it is going to create psychopaths or the like.

That just reflects badly on those past societies - and is totally in accord with the fact that the less violence you see and experience the less likely are you going to view it as a means of education, upbringing of children, proper punishment for misdeeds, etc.

Which is why Ned being actually seen as a nice guy by his children is very odd. They should be more concerned about nice guy Ned being able to do what he does when he puts on his lord's face. Because that man, that killer, is their father, too.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

Essentially, Arya is more like a refugee from war or a child soldier than anything else we have to compare her to.  In any event, I would expect a safe, caring environment would help a lot, as well as good mentors.  Unfortunately, with the Faceless Men, she is getting neither.  The don't care about her per se; they are interested in using her for their own ends, and manipulating her in that direction.  What that is, I don't necessarily know, but I doubt it is becoming an assassin.  She's not really cut out for it; she cares too much about other people, and I don't think her training is aimed in that direction either.  If they are training her to be an assassin, they are doing so in a very roundabout and dilatory way.  Her training is more the thing you would give a spy or other undercover agent. 

Of course she is like that, too. But it is your fundamental error that you interpret 'she is a psychopath' as an insult you have to shield her from (silly for an imaginary character in any case). Many a refugee or child soldier would also be on the psychopathy spectrum simply due to the experiences they had.

Such people can also adhere to moral codes and understand proper behavior, etc. They don't have to kill or hurt people - but they can do it (more) easily than normal people if they feel the need or want to do it. And Arya is a really a textbook case of that.

And, of course, since her brain is still growing proper treatment and reeducation could help her lose many such traits. To my knowledge the chance to help children in her condition are pretty fine until you are fifteen or older. Little to no chance that the savage society of Westeros would ever be able to help her with that. All societal rules and norms of her society are going to reward this kind of behavior in a highborn person. 

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

She does what any other Westerosi lord would do, even in Essos, if they came across a NW deserter. The killing of a NW deserter is not just something that solely a Lord or King Stark of Winterfell is allowed to do. Everybody is allowed to do so. 

I am not sure about that, given there is a specific 'right of pit and gallows' which not all nobles have.

Quote

The right of pit and gallows is the feudal law granting lords the privilege of inflicting capital punishment and imprisoning people within their own domains.[1][2]

 

Landed knights do not possess the right of pit and gallows, they only are allowed to punish people if they have been granted leave by their liege lord.

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Right_of_pit_and_gallows

Also, if anyone could kill a deserter, whoever found Gared first could have killed him, there would be no need to bring him to Ned. Also, Arya is still a child even by in-world standards.

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

She does what any other Westerosi lord would do, even in Essos, if they came across a NW deserter

I disagree, I don't think we have enough information to make that assertion. What Arya did was murder in Braavos, an extra-judicial killing, rules of Westeros have no bearing there. Even if Arya had the right to execute Dareon in Westeros, which I doubt for the above reasons, she would have no jurisdiction in Braavos.

The idea that Westerosi laws somehow extend outside of Westeros doesn't make much sense.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[SeanF]

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He was a Northman, one of the soldiers of her older brother, King Robb. Killing him was treason and murder. What she should have done was reveal who the hell she was!

Obviously there is a difference between the societal rules allowing for killing in war - which usually allows you to kill other men who kill in war - and children running amok.

The Bolton guardsman, obviously. What did he ever do to her? And also the stableboy although that was partially an accident.

Honestly, who cares, when we discuss her state of mind? I want the character to live, too. In fact, I also want her to kill more people because the Mercy chapter is easily among the best prose George has ever written. Seeing a little girl doing this stuff is very entertaining for me. But that is independent from how to check the mental state of the character in question ... and the morality of her actions.

There is only one person there and she lacks empathy.

It is okay to shoot back on stormtroopers. But 11-year-old girls fueling their desire for vengeance and killing for months and years to then execute brilliant crafted murder plots is, well, concerning. It shows how killing has absorbed the girl's mind. It is what she likes to do. Her reason of being, of surviving is to kill people on her list ... and other people she deems deserving of an early death.

Sounds like nonsense to me, to be honest. Arya's killings are travesty of justice even when she kills men deserving of death because they are killed by a little girl who has neither the authority nor the right to kill them.

I don't have an issue with her outburst. Back then she was still more human than she is now where such outbursts are no longer coming. You made the silly call that her killing efficiently and quietly somehow reveals her lingering humanity. It doesn't.

LOL, no. That is just silly fantasy crap. Even the slightest research done on how violent behavior affects children and other bystanders would show you that witnessing (and suffering) violence traumatizes the bystander.

One of the least realistic aspects of the story is that Ned is still happy dad to his children sometimes while also serving as his own (and Robert's) headsman ... in addition to being a guy who does sentencing and regular lordly blood work like leading armies and crushing rebels.

This should leave a stain on the guy and his family. But somehow it doesn't. Great writing.

 

 

In a society in which capital punishment is taken for granted, I think there's merit in the point that Ned is making.  That a person in authority will find it far easier to deal out death if he can get others to do it for him, and doesn't have to see the consequences of it.

Most people involved in planning and organising the Holocaust, or Stalin's executions, never had to see the consequences of what they were doing.  They were just organising railway timetables, carrying out arrests, selling pesticides, constructing the camps, "aryanising" Jewish property etc.

Edited October 16, 2023 by SeanF

[SerDuncan]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What she should have done was reveal who the hell she was!

We both know how that would have turned out. Both her instincts and what she could infer from her observations made her wary and rightfully so as time proved it. So let's not pretend otherwise for petty reasons.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Obviously there is a difference between the societal rules allowing for killing in war - which usually allows you to kill other men who kill in war - and children running amok.

For the whateverth time, Those men kill for coin, glory or duty, she kills to continue drawing breath. If you couldn't see past that glaring difference in the first place, nothing I or any of us here say could convince you otherwise

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Bolton guardsman, obviously. What did he ever do to her? And also the stableboy although that was partially an accident.

Can you hear yourself?

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Honestly, who cares, when we discuss her state of mind?

We do, those on the side of reason, plausible causality

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I want the character to live, too. In fact, I also want her to kill more people because the Mercy chapter is easily among the best prose George has ever written. Seeing a little girl doing this stuff is very entertaining for me.

fr?

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is only one person there and she lacks empathy.

Saying something again and again doesn't make it so. Maybe it'd have worked for you in the past, I'm tiring.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is okay to shoot back on stormtroopers. But 11-year-old girls fueling their desire for vengeance and killing for months and years to then execute brilliant crafted murder plots is, well, concerning. It shows how killing has absorbed the girl's mind. It is what she likes to do. Her reason of being, of surviving is to kill people on her list ... and other people she deems deserving of an early death.

Needle was Robb and Bran and Rickon, her mother and her father, even Sansa. Needle was Winterfell's grey walls, and the laughter of its people. Needle was the summer snows, Old Nan's stories, the heart tree with its red leaves and scary face, the warm earthy smell of the glass gardens, the sound of the north wind rattling the shutters of her room. Needle was Jon Snow's smile. He used to mess my hair and call me "little sister," she remembered, and suddenly there were tears in her eyes

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sounds like nonsense to me, to be honest. Arya's killings are travesty of justice even when she kills men deserving of death because they are killed by a little girl who has neither the authority nor the right to kill them.

So the adults in their world and ours are all perfectly just, it's the kids who are crazy huh? And her being a girl seems to rile you even more.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't have an issue with her outburst. Back then she was still more human than she is now where such outbursts are no longer coming. You made the silly call that her killing efficiently and quietly somehow reveals her lingering humanity. It doesn't.

Her being efficient means she isn't a bumbling incompetent moron. Her humanity lies in a dozen other instances you chose to ignore.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. That is just silly fantasy crap. Even the slightest research done on how violent behavior affects children and other bystanders would show you that witnessing (and suffering) violence traumatizes the bystander.

One of the least realistic aspects of the story is that Ned is still happy dad to his children sometimes while also serving as his own (and Robert's) headsman ... in addition to being a guy who does sentencing and regular lordly blood work like leading armies and crushing rebels.

This should leave a stain on the guy and his family. But somehow it doesn't. Great writing.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The high horse (or coward) take is the one where you say that killing sentient beings to eat them doesn't change you, especially at times when your brain is still forming. It does. There are studies about that. It is silly to pretend this has no effect on you nor that it is 'normal'. The reason why civilized people (and I deliberately indicate that people who are not following my take her are uncivilized in my understanding) don't take their kids on hunting trips where they kill deer or have them lend a hand when the pigs for the winter are culled ... is that we know that doing and seeing this sucks.

It is a good thing that we shield as many people as we can from such butchery. Just as most people these days don't actually attend executions when they happen. Or think about taking their kids to one.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think you understand what 'psychopathic' means. Psychopathy is viewed as a spectrum. Arya isn't Littlefinger, but the way she kills shows quite obviously that she doesn't process emotions normally, she processes them in psychopathic manner. She has no empathy for her victims at all, she doesn't feel anything but thinks about, say, their boots in Dareon's case.

(Fantasies about) a strong moral code doesn't change any of that. It is right there, very obvious in the text, and the character in question doesn't become 'evil' or 'a monster' because she is a psychopath (to a point). In fact, psychopaths are people, too, and not responsible for how they process emotions.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is my point. Her trauma and brain wiring already set her apart from normal people.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You can check the studies what working in a butchery does to you even if you are an adult. Or better still - just go work there for a couple of weeks and tell me how it makes you feel.

Children suffering trauma can make turn them into psychopaths. There are genetic factors, too, some people are more prone to it than others ... but Arya's case is effectively the textbook case of a child which is traumatized and then turns into a murderous psychopath. Not an evil serial killer, more like a person like Dexter. She won't have his career, but it is clear that the point of her story is to show how war and other trauma twist a nice tomboy girl into a very dangerous person who is capable of doing very bad things.

Her murdering people who 'deserve' it doesn't change that in the slightest.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Such people can also adhere to moral codes and understand proper behavior, etc. They don't have to kill or hurt people - but they can do it (more) easily than normal people if they feel the need or want to do it. And Arya is a really a textbook case of that.

And, of course, since her brain is still growing proper treatment and reeducation could help her lose many such traits. To my knowledge the chance to help children in her condition are pretty fine until you are fifteen or older. Little to no chance that the savage society of Westeros would ever be able to help her with that. All societal rules and norms of her society are going to reward this kind of behavior in a highborn person.

FYI, I had a Psychology minor. You on the other hand seem to have had a lot of free time and internet on your hands. Forcing your worldview on everyone else isn't exactly a lofty ideal to aspire to. And don't get me started on 'research', I know first-hand how those happen. Google can pronounce you clinically dead in about a dozen ways for a couple of symptoms. Modern 'studies' for the most part are just rehashed beliefs of someone funding looking to reinforce it with a façade.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The guy is murdered by a little girl who was prepared to do it, because she wanted to get away from the place - and keep her true identity a secret - for her own petty reasons. I know that she was better off not revealing herself to Roose too late, of course, but she doesn't know that so we can't let her off the hook there easily.

for her own WHAT? Look back to my first reply of this post, anyone with the wits of a goose can see what's happening around the Harrenhal time. Spidersenses would have been crazy.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Arya Stark of Winterfell doesn't care about Brusco and his family.

She told you that herself?

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't care much about Dareon

or anything or anyone else from the text. Figures, since all your arguments have been an egoistic defensive stance, nothing to do with the canon

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That just reflects badly on those past societies - and is totally in accord with the fact that the less violence you see and experience the less likely are you going to view it as a means of education, upbringing of children, proper punishment for misdeeds, etc.

Which is why Ned being actually seen as a nice guy by his children is very odd. They should be more concerned about nice guy Ned being able to do what he does when he puts on his lord's face. Because that man, that killer, is their father, too

Violence is the law of the jungle, the rule of nature. Shielding our children completely from any and every aspect of it is the biggest blunder we can do. You teach your young to respect the wild, not fear and hate it. Thankfully our primal impulses are stronger than snobbish upbringings. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Many a refugee or child soldier would also be on the psychopathy spectrum simply due to the experiences they had.

I've ignored every red flag so far

Edited October 16, 2023 by SerDuncan

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Also, if anyone could kill a deserter, whoever found Gared first could have killed him, there would be no need to bring him to Ned. Also, Arya is still a child even by in-world standards.

I think they could have, but they preferred to defer it to the nearest lord, which was the LP, since he was found in the hills near WF.

And children can also be lords and ladies, and kings or ladies. For all we know, Robb appeased his mother with his will, and believing Arya dead, he added some caveat in his will of making Jon heir, that included Jon, and she may be Queen in the North for all we know. If Tommen can put his stamps on arrest warrants and execution orders happily, then Arya's at least choosing who dies herself and by a better standard.

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I disagree, I don't think we have enough information to make that assertion. What Arya did was murder in Braavos, an extra-judicial killing, rules of Westeros have no bearing there. Even if Arya had the right to execute Dareon in Westeros, which I doubt for the above reasons, she would have no jurisdiction in Braavos.

The idea that Westerosi laws somehow extend outside of Westeros doesn't make much sense.

It's certainly implied, when Jon makes his attempt in aGoT as far as just beyond Mole's Town. Deserters are considered the most dangerous, exactly because they're outlawed and cannot trust or rely on anyone for shelter or food. People only are bound to survive in this manner if being seen is a risk to their lives. And "outlaw" literally means "outside the law".

Braavos... you mean the city where braavos kill each other for fun at some pond? Where people go to pray in a temple if they want someone killed, and get their wish granted for a "price"?

Edited October 16, 2023 by sweetsunray

[Craving Peaches]

33 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And "outlaw" literally means "outside the law".

They are outlaws in Westeros. Not so in Braavos. Because desertion from the Watch is not a crime in Braavos as far as we know, else Dareon would have already been dealt with by the authorities. That is the whole point about people like Jorah and Jon Connington going into exile. Westeros law does not apply there.

33 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And children can also be lords and ladies, and kings or ladies.

Yes, but they cannot act without a regent. So even if Arya was Queen in the North, she would not suddenly have unfettered power to execute deserters. And she doesn't think she is Queen in the North anyway, and there is no evidence whether she is or not.

There is no way the murder is a legal execution.

• Arya does not have the right of pit and gallows because no one gave her this right. Even if we suppose she is somehow Lady Stark/QinN and so would get it that way,
• Arya is a child, so cannot just do what she likes without a regent,
• The killing did not take place in Westeros

I like Arya but there is no getting around the fact that she murdered Dareon, however righteous or whatever her reasoning may be.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[SaffronLady]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

Because desertion is not a crime in Braavos.

Is that in the world book? It'd be quite difficult to maintain discipline in an army if you could just run away, I'd say.

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Is that in the world book? It'd be quite difficult to maintain discipline in an army if you could just run away, I'd say.

Sorry, I mean desertion from the Nights Watch specifically is not a crime in Braavos.

[SaffronLady]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Sorry, I mean desertion from the Nights Watch specifically is not a crime in Braavos.

You know, coming to this topic, have the Others ever attacked Essos? The Free Cities have a distinct lack of legacy features if there was any such attack, no banishment to some fortification as a substitute for execution, nothing.

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

They are outlaws in Westeros. Not so in Braavos. Because desertion is not a crime in Braavos. That is the whole point about people like Jorah and Jon Connington going into exile. Westeros law does not apply there.

Yes, but they cannot act without a regent. So even if Arya was Queen in the North, she would not suddenly have unfettered power to execute deserters. And she doesn't think she is Queen in the North anyway, and there is no evidence whether she is or not.

There is no way the murder is a legal execution.

• Arya does not have the right of pit and gallows because no one gave her this right. Even if we suppose she is somehow Lady Stark/QinN and so would get it that way,
• Arya is a child, so cannot just do what she likes without a regent,
• The killing did not take place in Westeros

I like Arya but there is no getting around the fact that she murdered Dareon, however righteous or whatever her reasoning may be.

I wasn't exactly arguing that it was "legal" in the eyes of either Westeros or Braavos, but in the mind of Ayra it was, who as a child chooses to kill to improve the lack of seeing justice done. To her he's a deserter. She would consider those vows as universal, because they speak of the "realms of men" and that implies "global". 

You're right she doesn't think she's a queen in the North, which is why I didn't include that possibilty in my original post you responded to, but I mentioned it, once you argued she's a child. And you're wrong that a child ruler cannot act without a regent or cannot order the execution of deserters or anyone else for that matter. Yes, in practice trials and regents make the decision for a child ruler, but nobody argued that Joffrey had no right to order someone killed or have their tongue taken out or beat a hostage girl. They did it. And everybody waves around papers saying "it has King Tommen's stamp" on it. So, apparently adults who should know better are either following the orders of a minor or relying on the orders of a child. None of them argue "the regent ordered it".  

Is the killing of Dareon a murder? Oh yes absolutely. And Joffrey's and Tommen's orders are executions. Somehow I have 0 issues with the murder of Dareon and a lot with most legal executions by the other two children, even though Tommen's a very sweet boy who is at heart innocent of it all. Which is I why I don't care so much about "the legal" part of the debate. It suffices for me to recognize that to Arya's mind she is using legal standards insofar she knows them to see justice done: a deserter, an apparent legal assassination, and an answered prayer.

Is it effed up? Yes. Is it sad? It's heartbreaking. Is it "wrong"? It's wrong that a child grows up believing correctly that's the sole way to see justice done.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, SaffronLady said:

You know, coming to this topic, have the Others ever attacked Essos? The Free Cities have a distinct lack of legacy features if there was any such attack, no banishment to some fortification as a substitute for execution, nothing.

Supposedly the 'attack' was in Yi Ti where the Five Forts are. I think other places definitely experienced the effects of the Long Night though, as in the weather and such.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

And you're wrong that a child ruler cannot act without a regent or cannot order the execution of deserters or anyone else for that matter.

That's not what I said. I said Arya didn't have unfettered power to execute people. Of course she could do so - under the supervision of a regent, as we see with Joffrey. On her own though? I doubt it.

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Somehow I have 0 issues with the murder of Dareon

My issue is that:

• She doesn't follow Ned's 'rule' about giving the condemned the opportunity to speak for himself
• The way she does it is, to be honest, cowardly
• I think she knows what she did was wrong because she has to remind herself over and over again about how Dareon 'deserved to die' because he was a deserter, and she makes it look like a robbery to throw people off the fact that it was a premediated killing

To be fair, I think I have a more charitable view of Dareon than most on this board. I give him the benefit of the doubt with his false accusation of story, because:

• He really does seem upset about how unjustly he was treated
• There's no need for him to lie because his crimes are forgiven when he takes the black, plus other criminals are not shy in 'boasting' about their criminal accomplishments (e.g. the guy who killed loads of Septas).

[sweetsunray]

25 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

My issue is that:

• She doesn't follow Ned's 'rule' about giving the condemned the opportunity to speak for himself
• The way she does it is, to be honest, cowardly
• I think she knows what she did was wrong because she has to remind herself over and over again about how Dareon 'deserved to die' because he was a deserter, and she makes it look like a robbery to throw people off the fact that it was a premediated killing

To the first:

• She has watched and observed Dareon for a while, where he boasted about himself often enough. He wore his desertion like a proud peacock (literally)
• She walks with him and we don't actually witness the scene. For all we know she did have a talk with him.

To the second:

• 
• Are you saying it would be ok for you if she challenged him to a duel at the braavos' pond?

To the third:

• I disagree that Arya believes it's wrong and that this is the reason why she rationalizes it within a legal frame.
• I do believe her judgment had more to do with him abandoning Sam and the people with Sam (she knows of this) to starve basically, at what sort of human he was. I very much doubt that Arya would have killed him, if he had helped Sam and then gone his own way.
• So, no, I don't think Arya believes it was wrong, but that the world and others expect a legal frame for her to go out of her way to murder a man she basically believes is an evil man and that the world is slightly better off without him.
• In the same sense, it's not just enough for Arya that the insurance guy is a religious/weird legal sanctioned assassination, but that she's only fine with it after the kindly man tells her that the insurance guy robs widows and orphans of their money, and leaves them to beg or starve. If the kindly man had not told her this, Arya would not have killed him.

 

Quote

 

To be fair, I think I have a more charitable view of Dareon than most on this board. I give him the benefit of the doubt with his false accusation of story, because:

• He really does seem upset about how unjustly he was treated
• There's no need for him to lie because his crimes are forgiven when he takes the black, plus other criminals are not shy in 'boasting' about their criminal accomplishments (e.g. the guy who killed loads of Septas).

 

Initially it seems so, but the self-pity and self-empathy of anti-social people is as real as anyone else's. They just happen to lie about the circumstances. The realness of the self-pity doesn't make their stories true. In that sense, actions always speak louder than words. Dareon failed 100% the moment he believed he could get away with it.

Edited October 16, 2023 by sweetsunray

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Are you saying it would be ok for you if she challenged him to a duel at the braavos' pond?

Yes.

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

For all we know she did have a talk with him.

I don't think so. That would be a big thing to not include. He is also attacked from behind and has his throat slit. Really don't think there is an opportunity for some last words there.

[sweetsunray]

34 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes.

34 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

That would be a big thing to not include.

No it's superfluous info for George's writing style. That's like arguing that MMDs ritual or what Rhaego looked like when he was born is too big a thing not to include. George gives us crumbs every step of the way to realize for ourselves why Arya came to the decision.

• Sam's accusations to Dareon inside the inn
• Saving Sam from drowning (because of Dareon's words and actions)
• her observations of Dareon in the time between Sam and her decision that night, which include his boasts of desertion, boasts about getting away with it
• him now lusting after the 14 year old daughter of the woman he wed

The complete picture is that of a bad selfish pedo guy who doesn't give a damn about anybody. He's a handsome Chett without the boils

Quote

He is also attacked from behind and has his throat slit. Really don't think there is an opportunity for some last words there.

Dareon loves to talk. He talked, every step of the way. She stopped him from talking any more bullshit.

And here are the lines that condemned Dareon in Arya's eyes

Quote

"What happened to your brother?" Cat asked. "The fat one. Did he ever find a ship to Oldtown? He said he was supposed to sail on the Lady Ushanora."

"We all were. Lord Snow's command. I told Sam, leave the old man, but the fat fool would not listen." The last light of the setting sun shone in his hair. "Well, it's too late now."

"Just so," said Cat as they stepped into the gloom of a twisty little alley. (aFfC, Cat of the Canals)

Don't know where you get the notion he was attacked from behind. His body was never found. And Arya never reports attacking him from behind, only slitting his throat. Think you imagined it.

Quote

"Dareon is dead. The black singer who was sleeping at the Happy Port. He was really a deserter from the Night's Watch. Someone slit his throat and pushed him into a canal, but they kept his boots."

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by sweetsunray

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

17 hours ago, SeanF said:

Law and justice simply don't exist in the world that Martin has created.

What Arya has internalised is that the only justice is that which you create for yourself.

And that is troubling. My entire argument has ALWAYS been that that is troubling. I don’t think we are meant to see that and be like “Welp thats the way it is.” I think Martin is painting a picture, and through a character like Arya, he is showing a how a society can end up with Sandor Cleganes. Sandor Clegane was at the end of the broken man road, Arya is at the beginning. We should look at what Arya is doing and feel some sort of tragedy. I completely feel empathy for Arya, and I think what is happening to her is tragic…but it’s also not right. Murdering people is bad. Children murdering people…is extremely troubling. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

And that is troubling. My entire argument has ALWAYS been that that is troubling. I don’t think we are meant to see that and be like “Welp thats the way it is.” I think Martin is painting a picture, and through a character like Arya, he is showing a how a society can end up with Sandor Cleganes. Sandor Clegane was at the end of the broken man road, Arya is at the beginning. We should look at what Arya is doing and feel some sort of tragedy. I completely feel empathy for Arya, and I think what is happening to her is tragic…but it’s also not right. Murdering people is bad. Children murdering people…is extremely troubling. 

I don’t think it’s that accurate a depiction of a medieval society - which usually had some mechanisms of law and justice.

This is a world where the judicial system is a lord simply deciding whether to hang you, chop off your fingers, or let you go free;  a show trial, or trial by combat.

Execution is commonplace, and torture is routine.

Of course, that’s dystopian. But, I think it’s unfair to single out Arya as some unusually depraved individual, in that world, let alone a psychopath.

She must be suffering hugely from repressed trauma, because she’s experienced things no child should ever have to go through.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think it’s that accurate a depiction of a medieval society - which usually had some mechanisms of law and justice.

This is a world where the judicial system is a lord simply deciding whether to hang you, chop off your fingers, or let you go free;  a show trial, or trial by combat.

Execution is commonplace, and torture is routine.

Of course, that’s dystopian. But, I think it’s unfair to single out Arya as some unusually depraved individual, in that world, let alone a psychopath.

She must be suffering hugely from repressed trauma, because she’s experienced things no child should ever have to go through.

I think you should read what I actually wrote…because I have repeatedly said she is not a psychopath and only that her actions are troubling. She is a gray character. Actually with Tyrion’s dark turn in ADwD, I’d say she is one of the best examples of a character right in the middle (perfectly gray). 

You are either confusing me for another poster, or just ignoring my words.