Adam Yozza

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Adam Yozza

  • Rank
    Council Member
  1. Manderly controls all sea-bound trade with the North and rules the only city north of the Neck. They're definitely the richest house in the North are almost certainly richer than the average noble house from the south.
  2. Yes. Roose would betray Robb without Walder. Walder would betray Robb without Roose, though the method would almost certainly be different.
  3. Great idea! Except I'd give them a discount if they were gunning for the Frey's...
  4. The North or Dorne, I'm not really 100% decided on which.
  5. See you say that, but I personally find it highly unlikely that this will go down that way. Beyond the fact that I don't think there's enough time in the story for a war between the Starks, especially considering how out of character it would be for them, the most likely candidate to try and stake a claim on Winterfell is actually Littlefinger as a proxy for Sansa, but I find even that doubtful.
  6. Nope. It didn't actually. Getting involved with the affairs of the south is not one of the Nights Watch rules. The NW rules are laid out quite clearly in their oaths. Not taking part in events in the south is, at best, tradition. So no, with that, Jon is not breaking any rules, laws or oaths. Choosing to let Mance go is Jon's choice. He saw Mance as an asset. Slynt wasn't and would only continue to be a problem; he willfully chose the path of insubordination and Jon had no reason to think that he wouldn't continue to disobey orders in the future. That doesn't follow justice as we know it or even as most characters in the story would see it but Jon is about to be facing the one of the biggest threats to humankind on Planetos and can't afford to be dealing with a high ranking officer disobeying orders, just like he can't afford to waste an asset like Mance. And IIRC, Jon was not stealing Ramsay's wife. At the time he dispatched Mance to rescue the girl at Long Lake, 'Arya' wasn't yet married to Ramsay. Based on Jon's info, she was forcibly betrothed and chose to run away rather than go through with the marriage. As long as Arya doesn't go through with the marriage, she in not Ramsay's property and he has no right to claim her back. Jon, on the other hand, has every right to offer her shelter. But even if I've got the timeline mixed up and 'Arya' was already married to Ramsay before Mel's vision of the girl in grey, no argument can convince me that it would have been right to leave her in his hands. Jon did the right thing, even if he only did it because of his familial relation to his sister. As for Mance going to Winterfell, that was acting beyond Jon's orders. Preparing to march south to face Ramsay was almost guaranteed to be a suicide mission. The wildings and rangers had no chance at defeating Ramsay in battle, but they had no other choice anyway. Ramsay had directly threatened the watch, and they had no way to meet his demands even if they wanted to; which, quite rightly, the majority of people at Castle Black did not.
  7. Renly started his entire rebellion on the premise that he didn't want to support a Lannister regime (nevermind that he was just going to be replacing them with a Tyrell regime) so if Renly didn't crown himself, then the odds are that he would back Stannis regardless of whether he believed the incest claim or not. But even that's rather implausable given what we know of the character. A more interesting idea, to me at least, is what would happen if Stannis remembered this little thing called abdication and allowed his claim to pass to Renly?
  8. If he grew to be anything like his father, I'd say more than adequate as a knight and probably a damn good King too.
  9. My mistake then. However, that doesn't prove anything at all. Robert not wanting to have to do what he was told doesn't mean he was actively trying to overthrow the Targaryen dynasty. There is everything unjust about executing Rickard if he wasn't plotting to overthrow the Targaryen's and there is no proof that he was. Same goes for Robert.
  10. "Rest of the world" was just me mis-speaking. The rest of Feudal Westeros. That better? No how about you adress the actual point I made. No one else in Westeros would ever view Vic as honourable. Hell, I'm not even sure the Ironborn consider themselves honourable in all honesty. Honour seems like something they'd scoff at but I don't have proof for that so I'm not going to argue it. But the point is you're comparing a man from one culture (where he is practically universally regarded as honourable) to a man from a completely different one and judging their relative honour. It doesn't work. Regardless, we as readers know that the Ironborn way of life is fucked up and most definitely not honourable; by our own standards or the rest of Westeros. So, if you insist on comparing them, then Ned still comes out leagues ahead of Vic. To be clear: my point about Roose is not a serious point. As for Vic, I've admitted numerous times that he is pretty much the living embodiment of the Ironborn. Within his culture he may, may, be regarded as honourable. But by the same logic, so is Roose, because he himself technically never broke any traditions, oaths or customs. We as readers, however, know he is not honourable in the slightest and the same applies to Vic. Oh of course, my apologies. I forgot that there was no way Oberyn could have known how to use poisons before he went to the Citadel. It's not like he couldn't have had an affinity for them; that would just be stupid. Almost as stupid as a fifteen year old Jaime holding his own against the smiling knight, or fifteen year old Robb outsmarting Tywin and Jaime. No, no chance sixteen year old Oberyn could have had a decent understanding of at least one type of poison just from his own research and his trip to Oldtown was intending to expand his knowledge rather than begin it. Oberyn's reputation for using poison is continent wide specifically for that duel. We know he's absolutely willing to use that tactic. Why is it so hard to believe that he's done it before. We've seen inside the head of a lot of other characters and seen the actions of a lot more. Very few ever come close to Ned in terms of honour and the fact that his reputation reflects this years after his death and after a Lannister victory that should have sullied his name speaks for itself.
  11. See you keep saying that Vic is honourable within his culture because what the Ironborn see as honourable is different to the rest of the world. But here's the issue; you are comparing what the Ironborn see as honourable to what the rest of the world thinks of as honourable. Its a moot point. But if you have to compare them, then there's no question which culture is inherintly more honourable. With that in mind, to me at least, Ned ends up leagues ahead of Vic in terms of honour. Roose also doesn't ever act against his culture/society. He left a highborn lady; who was his prisoner; at the castle he'd been holding, it was Walder Frey who broke guest right and Roose never swore to Robb as King if you want to get nitpicky with it (as you've shown you're willing to do with your repeated Oberyn argument). So according to your own logic, since Roose has not gone against his cultures standards he must be considered more honourable as Ned. As for Oberyn, we have no idea the circumstances behind Anders accepting Quentyn being warder there. He may have hated his father, or Doran might have made an offer too good to resist. Hell, maybe Anders just didn't want to take it out on Quentyn. What we do know is that the nickname 'The Red Viper', given specifically for his use of poison, was given to him after that fight. Since we know he has both the knowledge and the will to poison his blades (from the Gregor fight) along with the fact that George specifically mentions the rumours that poison killed Lord Yronwood, it's pretty obvious that we as readers are meant to understand that Oberyn did poison Yronwood. Anyway, we're straying from the point. Is Ned really that honourable? Answer: Yes, quite frankly. The fact that his reputation still holds up five books later among pretty much every other character (Jorah, Stannis, Barristan, Robert, Littlefinger, some of the Tyrell's at some point I think, Yohn Royce, possibly some of the other Lords Declarent, nearly every northerner we ever meet, Tyrion, Jaime, possibly even Cersei at one point if I'm not mistaken) with only one character every openly questioning it (Joffrey, and we all know how reliable a character he is) pretty much speaks for itself.
  12. You say it's not a point for Vic's honour, yet in the next paragraph state that he is honourable given his culture. Not true. He honours his traditions, religion and so on. That does not make him honourable. If it did, Roose is a stand-up honourable guy too because he honours his culture and religion too. We know Oberyn used poison against Gregor. That is confirmed. It is highly likely that he also poisoned Lord Yronwood. He got the nickname 'The Red Viper' for a reason. Sure, it's possible that Yronwood died of a festered injury, but you're really clutching at straws there. Besides, even if Oberyn didn't posion Yronwood (he did), he still poisoned his weapon against Gregor. No matter how noble and just the cause that's still not honourable.
  13. That doesn't make it honourable! You can argue that Vic is acting according to hus culture and I wouldn't argue, but he is in no way, shape or form an honourable person. Neither is Oberyn (who used poison at least twice by the way)
  14. None of that makes them honourable. The Ironborn respect Vic because he is strong and brave and skilled, not because he has honour. Oberyn is beloved in Dorne because he's charming and handsome and talented and basically embodies Dornish culture. Nothing honourable about him though. The High Sparrow has the favour of the commoners because he's pious and they respect his piety, because they believe in the Seven. None of them have a reputation of being particularly honourable.
  15. Hahahahahahahaha. Seriously dude, check your facts before making statements like that. First Night was banned during the reign of Jahaerys and Alysanne. For reference, that's about 200 years before Roberts Rebellion. Rickard never lived during a time when First Night was legal, so your idea that this was his motivation for the marriage alliances in the south is, quite frankly, stupid. And you are of course aware that Robert only rose up against the Targaryen's after Aerys unjustly demanded his head right? Nothing about wanting to be 'his own man' in there at all.