Maia Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 [quote name='the silent speaker' post='1635572' date='Jan 1 2009, 14.36']And not just their birth -- Lords only deal out justice In their own demesne.[/quote] Not really. Or have you forgotten that Robb was not a lord when he went to war and threatened Northern lords with hanging if they should refuse to follow? Or that one of the prologue POVs (the one who killed a woman) was sentenced by one of Frey's sons? Whether you like it or not, lord's family members also have some authority. How much they have, in what circumstances they execute it, etc. is not clearly defined, true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Regent Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 No problem, Shewoman. Eddard was not the Stark heir when he executed the NW deserter; he was their head of household, faction leader. Robb would be the heir. And it doesn't matter that Stark authority isn't honored in Braavos; Arya killed Daeron because she believed that she had the right to do it. Whether that is because her father did that in the North or because she is at the House of Black and White, an assassin's guild. makes no matter. In her mind she was set on killing Daeron. All men must die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 [quote name='Maia' post='1635591' date='Jan 1 2009, 13.56']Not really. Or have you forgotten that Robb was not a lord when he went to war and threatened Northern lords with hanging if they should refuse to follow? Or that one of the prologue POVs (the one who killed a woman) was sentenced by one of Frey's sons? Whether you like it or not, lord's family members also have some authority. How much they have, in what circumstances they execute it, etc. is not clearly defined, true.[/quote] While I agree with that, I have to think that the Lord has to explicitly [i]authorise[/i] their family member. Thus, while Cat acted without authorisation when she kidnapped Tyrion, Ned did cover for her by claiming she was acting on his orders. But I think this is all a bit besides Silent Speak's point....the way I interpreted that stanza was that he was speaking to the territoriality issue, not familial rights: [i]"Lords only deal out justice In their own demesne."[/i] If it was about familial rights, it should read "Only lords..." not "Lords only..." (I could be wrong to so interpret it, though). Even that raises questions about Cat's crime, however, since she was in the Tully domain rather than the Stark domain, and thus Ned didn't have the right to authorise her to arrest anyone there...unless it stems from his greater authority as Hand of the King (such as when he dispatched Beric, et al to arrest the Mountain). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olenna Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 [quote name='lcjonsnow24' post='1635596' date='Jan 1 2009, 14.05']And it doesn't matter that Stark authority isn't honored in Braavos; Arya killed Daeron because she believed that she had the right to do it. Whether that is because her father did that in the North or because she is at the House of Black and White, an assassin's guild. makes no matter. In her mind she was set on killing Daeron.[/quote] Well, obviously Arya thought she was doing the right thing. That's why so many people are disturbed by it--because they feel her sense of justice is becoming warped. Thinking something is right doesn't necessarily make it right. And the dubiousness of Stark authority in Braavos is very important to the answer of this question. Let me explain by analogy: Suppose you are a policeman working in one country. Then, you move to another country and get a job doing something else. You meet someone who claims to have committed a (non-violent) crime in the past for which he was never apprehended. Well...what can you do about it? You can alert the authorities, but that's about all. The point is--people can't go around dishing out vigilante justice in another country just because they had the legal right to administer justice in their own country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the silent speaker Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 [quote]the way I interpreted that stanza was that he was speaking to the territoriality issue, not familial rights:[/quote] :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Olenna' post='1635605' date='Jan 1 2009, 12.23']Well, obviously Arya thought she was doing the right thing. That's why so many people are disturbed by it--because they feel her sense of justice is becoming warped. Thinking something is right doesn't necessarily make it right. And the dubiousness of Stark authority in Braavos is very important to the answer of this question. Let me explain by analogy: Suppose you are a policeman working in one country. Then, you move to another country and get a job doing something else. You meet someone who claims to have committed a (non-violent) crime in the past for which he was never apprehended. Well...what can you do about it? You can alert the authorities, but that's about all. The point is--people can't go around dishing out vigilante justice in another country just because they had the legal right to administer justice in their own country.[/quote] Okay, let me make sure that I am following along with you here. So you are saying to suppose that you were judge, jury, and executioner in one country (as a right of birth). Then you moved to another country, and got a job as an assassin. While out on your rounds one day, you came across someone who bares the markings of a convicted felon, and who was bragging about having committed a separate crime for which he most assuredly would have been executed in your previous country. You decide to kill this man. And you say that this is wrong, how? I'm failing to see the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1636190' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.15']And you say that this is wrong, how? I'm failing to see the logic.[/quote] That's because your ethical compass is hopelessly fucked up. You thought the Litvinenko hit was ok, for crapping out loud. By the laws of the country you're in, you would be committing murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maia Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Other-in-law' post='1636236' date='Jan 2 2009, 14.52']That's because your ethical compass is hopelessly fucked up.[/quote] But the point is that we have very little indication what Braavosi ethical compass or in fact laws look like. They certainly don't appear to share your regard for life in any case, as they are cool with bravos killing each other on a routine basis. That's the difficulty with applying modern western morality to pseudo-medieval settings. Everybody is lacking in one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Maia' post='1636302' date='Jan 2 2009, 16.19']They certainly don't appear to share your regard for life in any case, as they are cool with bravos killing each other on a routine basis.[/quote] It's not simply a regard for life, it's a regard for law. No one is applying contemporary horror for legal capital punishment as a means of condemning Arya, after all. And you're right that we don't have a very clear sense of Braavosi laws. We haven't seen a city watch in Braavos (just Sealord's guards, iirc), though there was a building called "the Palace of Truth" near the Sweetwater River. That sounds to me like some sort of legal court. Arya's murder of Dareon isn't analogous to a mortal duel. It's very unlikely that he received any warning from her so that he could have a fair chance of winning like a bravo would. And dueling has been legal in plenty of states where other types of killing were not. A better proof of Braavosi indifference to murder would be their toleration of the House of Black and White within their city. Perhaps they have an exemption (like the Ankh Morpork Assassin's Guild), too (assuming bravo duels are legal, rather than merely de facto permitted) which could make Arya's deed acceptable under Braavosi law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Other-in-law' post='1636310' date='Jan 2 2009, 14.33']It's not simply a regard for life, [b]it's a regard for law[/b]. No one is applying contemporary horror for legal capital punishment as a means of condemning Arya, after all.[/quote] That's funny. My statement earlier concerning upholding laws regardless of the convenience of borders seems to have outraged you, and yet here you are saying that "it's a regard for law". Which is it? Is the law to be the law? Or is the law to simply cease to exist whenever one crosses from one border to the next (and the laws that you may have broken are replaced with new laws, or simply with the same laws and the convenience of your not having broken them on that patch of soil yet)? I'd really like to know, because I am getting very mixed signals here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olenna Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Maia' post='1636302' date='Jan 2 2009, 16.19']But the point is that we have very little indication what Braavosi ethical compass or in fact laws look like.[/quote] This is true. Maybe the FM have the legal prerogative to kill anybody they deem deserving of death. (I consider this a distinct possibility, particularly since everybody is afraid of them and constantly bribes them.) We just don't know. But even though we don't know precisely what Braavosi law says, we must recognize that any justification of Arya's action from a legal standpoint has to consider Braavosi law and not just Westerosi law. Many of the pro-Arya posters seem to justify it on the grounds of her being the Stark heir, while ignoring the fact that she's now living in a place where Stark authority doesn't apply and desertion from the Night's Watch may not even be considered a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1636349' date='Jan 2 2009, 17.27']and the laws that you may have broken are replaced with new laws[/quote] This. It's really not that hard. A country's laws are binding on those who are within it's borders (with a minor exception of diplomatic immunity, though expulsion will still be the norm for major crimes even then). Do you think that British tourists in the US should not only be free to drive on the opposite side of the road but, if they're vacationing policemen, be able to arrest you for driving the normal way in the US? It's pretty absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maia Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Other-in-law' post='1636310' date='Jan 2 2009, 17.33']Arya's murder of Dareon isn't analogous to a mortal duel. It's very unlikely that he received any warning from her so that he could have a fair chance of winning like a bravo would.[/quote] Huh? When bravos picked on Sam, it wasn't clear that any formalities were required or that there was going to be a one-on-one fight. Further, how can a duel be "fair" when one of the participants is 11? In fact, the fencing duels were never fair, because the better fencer was almost certain to win. As Perez-Riverte's "Alatriste" novels show, hired killers basically had a free run in societies that allowed duels. All they needed to do was to insult a mark in sufficiently public setting and they could kill him with impunity. Good point re: House of Black and White. Braavosi allow a "death/murder cult" to exist openly in their midst. It is clear that they have very different ideas on killing than modern westerners and it is uncertain how Arya's killing of Dareon would have been viewed by them. That's the problem with psychopathy/sociopathy - their definitions very much depend on societies in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Other-in-law' post='1636377' date='Jan 2 2009, 15.54']This. It's really not that hard. A country's laws are binding on those who are within it's borders (with a minor exception of diplomatic immunity, though expulsion will still be the norm for major crimes even then). Do you think that British tourists in the US should not only be free to drive on the opposite side of the road but, if they're vacationing policemen, be able to arrest you for driving the normal way in the US? It's pretty absurd.[/quote] No. But if you commit a rape in Britain, and then come to the U.S. you should not be immune from prosecution because you have not committed that exact crime in the U.S. Likewise, if you have sexual intercourse with a 14 year old here in the U.S., and then travel to a country where it is legal to do that (Sadly... I'm sure they exist), then it should not be out of the question for a U.S. law-man in that country (whether on vacation, or not) to arrest you and take your sorry butt back to the U.S. for trial. The only difference is that in Westeros, there'd be no trial... just an execution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='Maia' post='1636382' date='Jan 2 2009, 17.59']Huh? When bravos picked on Sam, it wasn't clear that any formalities were required or that there was going to be a one-on-one fight.[/quote] It was clear enough to Arya what the rules were. Carry a sword at night and you can be challenged. What's more she helped Sam avoid the duel [i]even though he was carrying a sword[/i]. [quote]Further, how can a duel be "fair" when one of the participants is 11? In fact, the fencing duels were never fair, because the better fencer was almost certain to win. As Perez-Riverte's "Alatriste" novels show, hired killers basically had a free run in societies that allowed duels. All they needed to do was to insult a mark in sufficiently public setting and they could kill him with impunity.[/quote] Sure. I wasn't suggesting that Arya duel. My point is simply that someone who voluntarily enters into a duel, armed and with full knowledge of the stakes, is in a much more fair situation than someone unsuspectingly lured into a dark alley to have their throat slit by someone whose appearance gave them no indication that they were a threat. The former is much more justifiable for legalisation than the latter from a law and order perspective. [quote]Good point re: House of Black and White. Braavosi allow a "death/murder cult" to exist openly in their midst. It is clear that they have very different ideas on killing than modern westerners and it is uncertain how Arya's killing of Dareon would have been viewed by them. That's the problem with psychopathy/sociopathy - their definitions very much depend on societies in question.[/quote] It strikes me as inconsistent here to justify Arya's murdering Dareon by, on the one hand appealing to Westerosi law by which Dareon is guilty of a capital crime but beyond the reach of Westerosi law enforcers, and on the other appealing to (possible) Bravosi law that allows Faceless Men to kill whoever they want, despite desertion from the NW not being a crime in Braavos. Which is it? If the latter, I think much of the pretense of morality in Arya's action will have been effectively conceded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1636390' date='Jan 2 2009, 18.07']No. But if you commit a rape in Britain, and then come to the U.S. you should not be immune from prosecution because you have not committed that exact crime in the U.S.[/quote] Rape is illegal in both of those countries, and the US would have to send you back to Britain to stand trial for a crime committed on British soil, unless there were some additional complications. Since desertion is, in it's immediate ramifications, essentially a victimless crime, other countries are far less likely to extradite deserters than they are rapists and murderers. [quote]Likewise, if you have sexual intercourse with a 14 year old here in the U.S., and then travel to a country where it is legal to do that (Sadly... I'm sure they exist), then it should not be out of the question for a U.S. law-man in that country (whether on vacation, or not) to arrest you and take your sorry butt back to the U.S. for trial.[/quote] That lawman would be committing the[i] crime of kidnapping[/i], unless he went through the legal procedure for having you extradited. Which has sometimes occurred, of course, but it's still kidnapping. Just like Arya's deed was still murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Why would Arya do only "good" and "just" things at all? If Martin wrote events so its easily clear who is right or wrong these books would not be what they are. Why cant you people just accept this situation as it is? Morally dubious and deep in the grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olenna Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 [quote name='Jaquen Hgharr' post='1636505' date='Jan 2 2009, 20.50']Why would Arya do only "good" and "just" things at all? If Martin wrote events so its easily clear who is right or wrong these books would not be what they are. Why cant you people just accept this situation as it is? Morally dubious and deep in the grey.[/quote] I don't think anyone's arguing that Martin should have written the scene differently, or that the traumatized/brainwashed pre-teen Arya could be expected to know better. Nobody expects her to have a PhD in moral philosophy. But it's still worth debating whether what she did was right and whether it was legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Sun Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I think that there are many different aspects to the story. My own general opinion on the question "does someone deserve to die" is very Gandalf-like: "Nobody has the right to decide that someone has to die, because death is final." On this level, I feel that Arya did wrong and I feel sorry for Daeron. (I also felt sorry for Pate in the Prologue, because he was killed for a small transgression, and it's scary that the FM think they have the right to kill someone for a lie.) If the question is: "was it legal for Arya as the daughter of Eddard Stark to kill that deserter?" It's a question, independent of my own feelings, and it becomes more murky, because it is not clear if Westerosi law extends to Braavosi. It might even be legal, but I'm not sure. Concerning Arya's real motivation, it's even more murky, since she is living with different identities, and even though, I can see why Arya did everything she did on her travels, I don't think it is "cool" or "good" that she joins an Assassination cult for the reasons I mentioned in my first sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 [quote]Nobody expects her to have a PhD in moral philosophy. But it's still worth debating whether what she did was right and whether it was legal.[/quote] No its not. You just end up interposing strict black and white morality where there is none. What i see in this thread is people really trying to push it into one of the extremes depending on their own views instead of just accepting it as it is. Legality of the act is even of lesser relevance to the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.