• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Darkstream

  1. Or, say, to necessitate an army's ability to travel a couple of leagues, in a light snowfall. ...just saying. Heh heh.
  2. And what? Did BR fall asleep during the most crucial moment in his plan? Because if Cat had ran out to the library with Robb, Summer Bloodraven would have arrived too late, and Bran would be dead. Seems like quite the risky plan, just as is counting on Bran not dying from his fall.
  3. What? So in one thread you argue that Stannis is a rambling mad man that everyone in the realm hates, making absurd claims that he has no proof of, but then to suit your argument in this thread, all of a sudden you contradict that, and state that he has a reputation of honesty, and should be trying to convince that very faction - which he is currently at war with, and of whom consider him to be a traitor - of the situation beyond the wall. This makes no sense at all.
  4. No, what's sad is your inability, or unwillingness to recognize context, circumstance, and intent. To be a treasonous traitor, one must commit an act with the willful intent to sabotage the cause of those that you are aligned to. In none of the examples you've provided - in which Jon has either broken, or walked the line in breaking his vows - was he intending to impede the cause of the Nights Watch, nor had his allegiance to the Watch faltered. And in fact, he made great sacrifice for the Watch, and had to make some very difficult decisions - of which can be argued, there was no right option - wherin he always made the choice that he felt was for the sake and benefit of the Watch, and of mankind. And what's sad is that's you don't realize how worthless these vows actually are. Sure, the intent and purpose of these oaths may have admiral goals in mind, and are all fine and dandy in theory, however, life and the tribulations that you must face throughout, are not as black and white as you would put forth, and wish them to be. The reason that GRRM reinforces the importance of these vows in AGoT, as you've pointed out, is so that he can effectively show the dire consequences of one commiting themselves to such limiting and binding shackles. Where is the honor and duty in upholding yourself to a vow your swore, when doing so inhibits you from fulfilling the purpose of taking those vows in the first place? Where is the sense in abiding by laws, put in place to establish and maintain order and civility, when doing so results in a despairing and chaotic society that rewards the vile actions of deplorable and sadistic individuals such as Ramsey and others of his like? What you don't seem to realize is that these vows are to blame for the dire state that the Watch has fallen to. Why do you think the Watch is largely made up of criminals who had no other real options, other than to serve at the Wall? What's really sad, is that due to your own personal bias, you take Jon's actions and decision that were made with the best of intentions, and made in the attempt to do what was the right thing, to the best of his knowledge or understanding, and use them to demonize and condemn him. Did he make mistakes, or let his own bias and feelings cloud his judgement at times? Of course. Who hasn't been guilty of that at some point? But to take these mistakes, and moments of poor judgement, and use them in an attempt to label Jon as a treasonous, oath breaking traitor, or to compare him to the likes of people like Daerion or Janos is just a ridiculously ignorant and asinine stance. Whether or not you agree with the decisions and moves that John made, and whether or not some of those decisions may have happened to coincided in benefiting the personal desires and bias of John, that does not change the fact that he always attempted to do what he felt was best for the prosperity and survival of the Watch, and of mankind. These are not motives and decisions of a treasonous, oath breaking traitor.
  5. Oh? And yet you keep arguing that Jon's most prudent coarse of action is to not do what he thinks is in the best interest of the realms of men, but to sit on his arse and send message after message to the deaf ears of these same Lords - just so that when the extinction of mankind is upon them, with his dying breath he can say, well, at least I didn't break any oaths, nor did I do anything unlawful. This is bs, besides, you think it's OK for him to bury his head in the sand to the threat of the Others, yet instead of accepting that he will receive no support from the Lords of Westeros, you expect him to continue in the hopes that they will finally listen - when it's too late.
  6. Well said. Although, I'm not sure how it can be argued that Bowen was acting lawfully when murdering his Lord Commander in cold blood.
  7. You mean like sending an envoy to King's Landing with proof as to the existence of the Others? Only to be ignored and ridiculed. It would be stupid and irresponsible of Jon to just sit on his ass waiting for the help of any of the ignorant and dismissive Lords of Westeros. When facing imminent doom, the smart thing to do is take any action deemed necessary, regardless whether or not it was the perceived "lawful" or "dutiful" thing to do. Jon did do the smart thing, what you propose would be stupid, and unfortunately, he had to deal with the ridiculous attitudes of people who share the same views as you do - nullifying the smart decision he made.
  8. So, what's your point? Ramsey is an illegitimately, legitimized Bolton, who threatened Jon, and the Watch.
  9. Only, you don't want to acknowledge that Jon had accounted for the lack of resources facing the Watch, and had made arrangements to rectify the situation - seeing as all of the Lords in the South that he's supposed to be so obedient to, didn't give a fuck as to their plight, and requests. Thanks to Jon's foresight and negotiations, the Watch would have been better equipped and fed than it had been in a long time. The only viable point I can see from your argument is that fewer men would have died at the hands of a greater number of wights, while defending the wall, but at least they would have died with a full belly. Having hungry men to fight the Others, is better than feeding your enemies with those men.
  10. Really? And should Ramsey have a side dish of Jon heart to feast on with his Reek sausage, how effective do you think Jon would be at defending the realms of men from the Others? Not to mention that yes, any means of getting rid of Ramsey, would be beneficial to man. Just ask Reek, or fArya, or Lady Hornwood, and many, many others.
  11. Vows are just words, are they not? Jon would have to be a complete moron, and a traitor to all of mankind - quite like the men who attempted to assassinate him - in order to stay true to these vows that he swore. In effect, bending the rules of this vow, was the only way to actually stay true to the oath that he swore. One can technically argue that Jon was a traitorous oath breaker, but in fact, he was the only man of the Nights Watch attempting to live up to the true purpose of the vows he swore. What's the point of staying true to an oath, if doing so results in the exact opposite of what that oath is suppose to accomplish?
  12. Oh good. Then you should have no issue with Jon taking actions that conflict with these detrimental and prohibitive laws and customs, in order to ensure the prosperity survival of mankind. Another poster twisting the vows into a literal interpretation in order to support their bias damnation of Jon.
  13. Jon had no intent to win a crown, nor to bask in any glory. I think you are taking that a little bit too literally. I suppose all of the men who died at the fist of the first men were oath breakers as well. The gull of them, to not die at Castle Black, the damn filthy, dirty oath breakers. This is not an equivalent comparison. I don't recall Robert threatening the Watch, and giving an ultimatum to the ninety year old, blind maester, in which if he failed to comply, he would have his heart cut out and eaten. Jon had no intentions of using the Nights Watch to fight for his family.
  14. Uh oh, was my use of the smoking smiley, a blunder akin to Robb marrying Jeyne?
  15. One cannot let happen, what they are powerless to prevent from happening.
  16. Whoa! How'd you sneak that one by me @The Bastards Giant Friend? And here I thought I had been winning for the past couple of weeks. ...I guess it's not going to be that easy for me either. Never thought I'd be saying this on this thread, but thank the gods for the @Queen of Procrastination
  17. Yup, and let's not forget about common sense and logic...what in Seven Hells is that? Or how about their sense of social awareness and responsibility, for two individuals in such an influential position. What's their response to the criticism of their depiction of women, and the glorification of violence and revenge? They have a bunch of scantily dressed hotties with bad pussy murder their own family in the name of revenge, for... get this...the murder of members of their family. Yay!! Go girl power and equality.
  18. It's funny - well not really - but d&d have the same mindset in regards to the book characters when writing the show - which is supposed to be an adaption of the books.
  19. For sure. You know, I often contemplate, and drift off into my own little fantasy world imagining the show we would have to enjoy, if d&d weren't so fortunate as to have the internet, and sites like this to help them hoodwink GRRM, and get his question as to Jon's parentage correct. Oh what could have been!
  20. You mean just like the premise that dominates my dreams every night? ...Oh if only!!!
  21. Because it's not up to them to decide who is the heir of the King that they plead fealty to when they decided to secede from the rule of the Iron Throne. If Jon is who Robb named as his heir, then it would be their obligation to support him. If Robb had a son with Jeyne, he would be more a Stark; Northerner/Westerling; Westerlander than a Tully; Riverlander. Would that give them the right to oppose his legitimacy as Robb's heir? Does the heir of the Iron Throne being Baratheon/Lannister give the people in the Reach the right to oppose him because he doesn't have Tyrell blood? Robb was naming the heir to his Crown as the King in the North - of which the Riverlanders supported in their bid to secede from the IT- not an heir to Winterfell or Riverrun. If Robb is culpable for losing them the war, then they are just as culpable for supporting, and naming Robb their King. ETA: Besides, this sounds a lot like victim blaming to me. Sure, Robb's actions were stupid and without consideration for the implications, but there is no way he could have foreseen just how devastating and drastic the outcome would be. The blame lies in the atrocious acts, and disregard for the laws and customs of Westeros by Tywin, Roose, and Walder. Having said that, at least from Tywin's perspective - as he was not a traitor - one can hardly blame him, as I've always maintained, crying about rules and fairness in a war is quite silly.
  22. I don't see this as a viable reason that Robb would need to trap her into accepting his wish to name her his heir. Do you really think someone is going to turn down a position of this much power and prestige, just because they are depressed and exhausted? Besides, what duty would Robb naming her heir, necessitate her having to perform at this time? This would just be a back up plan, which would only come to fruition should Robb be killed, and not have managed to produce an heir of his own by that time. And might I remind you of the Tully words: "Family, Duty, Honor". Cat is not one who would turn her back on this request of her son. I would think she would be honored to accept this duty in service to her son family. Also, do you not think, in the case that she would need convincing, that it would be more prudent of Robb to just inform her of his wishes, and should she refuse, then he could play the Jon card as his only other alternative?
  23. And the memes, don't forget about the memes. If the show affords you the opportunity to post something like...let's say, a picture of Sandor eating a bucket of KFC with a witty caption, apparently that equates to GoT being a great, well thought out and written program worthy of an Emmy.
  24. Oops, looks like someone is altering their memory, and misrepresenting the facts in order to cope with, and deny the reality of a story they personally find unappealing.
  25. Because he's not dead. OK, maybe he is, and maybe Cat technically isn't, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. The Northerners are not going to accept, or even consider for a second, an undead zombie as their ruler. When Robb's will is revealed, what is it going to amount to if it was Cat named as the heir? Nothing. That will be the end of it, and it will be as if Robb never did name an heir. It is a dead end. We all know that this is not the end of Jon's story. He is not staying dead, if indeed he is dead, and he isn't going to be some decomposed undead zombie in the same sense as Lady Stoneheart is. When Robb's will is revealed, and it names Jon his heir, sure he may not be accepted by everyone, but there will be some who do accept him, and it will result in either a decision for him to make, and/or any number of conflicts and drama to be dealt with, that will and can further the plot, and add something to the story. I agree that the interest level concerning this is subjective, and some might like, and some might not like Jon being named the heir, but as far as Cat is concerned, if she is the heir, there really is no story there for the readers to express their subjective opinions about.