the trees have eyes

Members
  • Content count

    1,539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About the trees have eyes

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,649 profile views
  1. 13

    12 is where it's at. 13 is just a terrible misunderstanding.
  2. Putting Garlan in Brightwater Keep considerably strengthens their position as it removes an overmighty bannerman and removes a House with a stronger claim to Highgarden than they have. As you well know..... The big happy family you imagine will never happen. The Tyrells aren't worried about the Lannisters, they are riding their coat tails to power and planning to supplant them. Getting rid of Joffrey puts Margaery in a far stronger position to influence and manipulate Tommen to secure a pro-Tyrell agenda. It's almost like that is exactly what Margaery goes on to do.... I know you like to adopt a position and defend it to the bitter end so let's just sidestep the next pointless iteration of yes vs no and you can note why I disagree with your position and I can note you still think it's valid and we can save ourselves a lot of time. Fell free to fight your one man war over the pie with the rest of the forum though!
  3. The skin can be damaged in a number of ways and, yes, a friction burn can cause damage, but not on this scale and not from this cause - scrambling over rocks. Sharp rocks will cut your hands and make them bleed but not burn them, the act of gingerly or even carelessly placing your hand is not done with enough force or speed to generate enough friction and heat to burn the top layers of the skin. Now, if her hands were already damaged, burnt from holding on to Drogon who was bleeding hot smoking blood from several spear and arrow wounds, then sharp rocks would easily cut into her damaged skin and exposed flesh. I've had the odd friction burn in my life and plenty of scrapes from scrambling over rocks and using her already damaged hands on jagged rocks sounds like it simply aggravates the existing injury rather than causing her hands to be burned so badly they weep a pale milky fluid (blood plasma). Most likely she burned her hands in Drogon's blood, either when she riped the spear out of his neck or when she was holding on to him in flight.
  4. I really don't think the Tyrells give two hoots about a potential Stark-Lannister alliance as they would still be more powerful, are further cementing their own already vast power by devouring the Florent lands, and are well aware of the bitter enmity between Stark, Lannister and Tully and how easy it would be to exploit that to weaken any potential Lannister power bloc, and are quietly engaging in pushing the Lannisters out of power and intending to be the power behind the throne themselves. Getting rid of Joffrey allows for all their plans to come to fruition through Tommen without the risk to Margaery or Loras that Joffrey represented. It's never been entirely clear who put Mandon Moore up to the attempt on Tyrion's life - and it was an attempt on his life, only jerking away at the last minute saved him from a fatal blow and the wound was nearly fatal as it was - with Littlefinger or Joffrey being the prime suspects (in Tyrion's mind). Both are plausible but there is precious little to connect them to it, no breadcrumb trail to follow, no suspicious behaviour or revealing comments. We get the Queen of Thorns fiddling with Sansa's hairnet (and exposition from LF to Sansa as to the how and why of it) and Tyrion & Jaime deducing Joffrey being behind the second attempt on Bran's life but there is radio silence on Mandon Moore.
  5. The quote you included says the exact opposite. This entire passage is about her hands. If you have ever had or seen a severe burn you'll know that the burn can "weep". This is exactly what GRRM is describing here.
  6. You are bouncing around worse than a sloppy drunk on an air matress. If you want to discuss Ned specifically in regards to his culture then stop telling us Victarion is as or even more honourbale than Ned when 1) Vic apparently holds to the Iron Way which is totally incompatible with the Westerosi notions of honour on which Ned's reputation rests and 2) Vic has no comparable reputation for honour among the Ironborn's culture in any case and 3) what Victarion does is both reprehensible, dishonourable and a crime, MURDER, by Westerosi standards and laws. You're argument is asinine and reprehensible. The Great Masters of Slavers' Bay and the Nazis had their own value system and notion of honour. Who gives a fuck if they adhered to their own value system and were considered honourable within their own society? Vic beats his wife to death with his fists, it's murder and a crime you dumbasss. Your whole argument that different cultures have different values is so utterly banal. The idea that we can't differentiate between the values and decide whether we approve or disapprove is dumb. Do you have any point at all? Again who gives a fuck if the Grand Masters think nailing 163 children to crosses is ok or if they don't have a problem with castrating thousands of children and murdering thousands of new born children? Who give a fuck if Victarion thinks beating his wife to death with his fists is ok? It's not. At least you have the wit to recognise that the Iron Islands have been subordinate to the laws of the Iron Throne for 300 years and that this act of murder is clearly a crime and has been for generations so there is no dumb pleading that this is what I am allowed / supposed to do so it's fine. Bullshit. You flat out stated "he beat a whore to death". That's entirely you, it doesn't come from the text at all. Don't try and sell it any other way. When it's pointed out that she was his wife you have begun a long retreat starting with the idea that she was effectively a whore, "she opened her legs for her husband's brother", again all you, not the text, , to the idea that she would be seen as a whore. This is bullshit. Whores are not beaten to death or treated as subhuman. Under the culture and laws of Westeros (medieval Europe) a wife who strayed would be subject to "chastisement" by her husband, even confinement for a time, but to beat her to death would be murder. Maybe in some other cultures, the Dothraki say, murdering your wife would be as acceptable as honour killing in some of real world societies today but if you are going to argue that honour killings are a, well, "honourable" thing so we can compare Ned and Vic then you can fuck right off. His brother seduced his wife (circumstances unclear) and he bludgeoned her to death because of it. Trying to compare this behaviour with Ned's reputation for honour is moronic. You may as well celebrate the Nazis for being true to their ideals and values, it's utterly moronic reasoning on your part. Well, hallelujah, aren't you the swell guy. You might want to consider the arguments you make and the language you use so freely and repetitively paint a different picture to your pleas of innocence. You might also want to avoid putting words in the mouths of chartacters that they never use in order to try and justify some of their actions. You know like defending a guy who beat his wife to death for sleeping with his brother because she was a whore and deserved it? If you can find examples of infidelity being routinely equated to whoredom and the wife being murdered for it rather than the whole thing being hushed up to avoid dishonour to both houses / parties then by all means bring them up for discussion. No? Well that figures..... Well, it's like this. Tywin suspected that Joanna may have slept around. Whether he really thought that is debatable and he may have simply been horrified by Tyrion's appearance and unwilling to believe he could have fathered a dwarf. The point is no one started speculating that she was a whore or thought that, had she lived, he might beat her to death with his fists. Now the king can sleep with whoever he wants, married or not - see Aerys, or Joffrey telling Sansa on her wedding day that he would come and put a baby in her belly and there is fuck all Tyrion can do about it - so let's take a non-royal example. Black Walder is known for sleeping with his half-brother's wives yet no one regards them as whores and expects them to be named, shamed and beaten to death for adultery. You claim that you are just reflecting the values of the society we are reading about but you are not, you are projecting what you think they are, probably based on your understanding of real world honour killings, so you really might want to be a bit more careful about making allegations about "whores" and how it's ok to kill them. If you are going to tell me the Ironborn have different values then I'm going to tell you again, so what? So do the Great Masters and so did the Nazis. You don't seem to have any point. For the reasons outlined in every post I have made and particularly this one. What is so hard to understand? Why must I tell you that the Great Masters murdering thousands of children or the Nazis sending millions of people to the gas chamber is not in any way excused by it being ok by their values? Are you really this thick? So the Great Masters and the Nazis are paragons of honour. Thanks for sharing! You have gone from absurd to comical but not in a good way. Don't be ridiculous. Despite your attempts to whitewash Oberyn he has a reputation throughout Westeros for poisoning his blade and for sleeping around, things we know to be true because we see his numerous children and we see him poison his blade. You cannot be this stubborn when you have no argument. Surely not? Utter tripe. Poisoning your blade in a duel fought under the eyes of the gods is not honourable. And Oberyn's reputation stems from a duel fought in Dorne against another Dornishman. You simply cannot argue that using poison in a duel is honourable and retain any credibiity. Sometimes you have to accept you are wrong. Oberyn's conduct is not honourable and this is obvious, why is that so hard for you to admit? Wow. Thanks for that pearl of wisdom. Not only are people only to be judged by their culture's norms so every wife murderer and child killer is honourable but now we are to turn a blind eye to dishonourable deeds within a culture's norm because no one's perfect, right? So poisoning your blade in a duel is totally ok because, you know, other people have their flaws too, so let's just let this slide. And you know, Walder Frey was a really honourable guy he just had a bad day over the Red Wedding and Gregor had a terrible migraine when he raped the innkeeper's daughter so let's not rush to judge, we are all only human after all. This is a ridiculously poor argument. Bullshit. Westeros is not a theocracy, the High Septon is not above the law, it is not his laws that are enforced it is the King's Laws. He is a subject like everyone else. He has a significant status and independence but it is not for him to wield power. What do you base your wild assertions on? In medieval Europe a Pope / Bishop might excommunicate a king / Queen but from where are you making up this stuff that the High Septon can arrest the Queen Regent if he so chooses. He's simply on a power grab. Oberyn is supposed to adhere to a code of conduct in a duel that conforms to chivalric and knightly ideals. Using poison is utterly in violation of this. The duel is also a trial to determine Tyrion's innocence so as an added dimension he is acting as Tyrion's champion or intermediary with the Gods so his dishonour in using poison goes a step further than in his original duel to first blood with Lord Yronwood. That added dimension is not as important as the simple violation of the code of the duel, i.e. that Oberyn cheated, it is simply an extra dimension. And what does asking the gods to witness a trial by combat and deliver a verdict have to do with religious extemism or the establishment of a theocracy? Nothing whatsoever. No, I neither like nor trust him but that's not the point. The point is whether he has done anything that is particularly honourable or dishonourable, ideas that are tightly fused with the code of conduct of the nobility and their interactions with each other. I simply don't see anything in his power grab that speaks to honour and, quite the contrary, the trap he sets for Cersei and Maergaery and the concessions he extracts, speak to a certain deviousness and ruthlessness. If you want to invent a system of honour which you think he ascribes to and is a particular examplar of, and which doesn't deal with morality, you'll have to try a lot harder to build a case and pressnt it. That's not encouragement to do so by the way. Not a religious zealot? Whe did he have Cersei perform the walk of shame? Why has he restored the orders of swords and stars? Why did he have Kettleblack scourged? Or say this: Riiiiight, totally not a zealot. Still with this. Yes, i disagree with the notion that beating your wife to death with your fists is compatible with honourable conduct, whether my own notion of it or Westeros's or Ned Starks's, the guy you started the thread off with by attempting to traduce. I don't care that the Ironborn may feel that the only way for Vic to deal with the presumption that he looked weak because his wife slept with his brother was to kill her. You might want to consider that if it had been anyone other than Euron he would have killed them in her place. He can't touch Euron because of the prohibition on kinslaying and to avoid looking weak he has to punish someone so it's her. I doubt he would have killed her had he been able to restore his image of a strongman by killing the other guy. Either way I don't care. I also don't care that Slaver's Bay thinks child murder is ok, that the Dothraki leaving crippled children for feral dogs is ok or that the Ironborn think murdering your wife / honour killings are okay. We are meant to be able to assess and pass judgment on these differing systems without being caught up on notions of cultural diversity preventing us from seeing a murderer for what they are. I simply don't see how you can start a thread and write so much if your point is simply that different cultures have different values and who are we to judge? It's mind-numbingly pointless. More white-washing. Jeor, Aemon and Noye all favour Jon because they see his potential and his character. The question you should be asking is why Alliser Thorne is different and why he tries to have Jon killed despite Aemon's objections. I guess you have a hard-on for Alliser Thorne too.
  7. Wait what? Sophia, you confused me too for a moment. I hate to be that guy but you should have said "Rhaegar and Lyanna Stark had a child, who is the granddaughter of Bonifer Hasty. Your sentence reads that Lyanna Stark was the granddaughter of Bonifer. Also, there may well be a theory on the forums, base on a lemon tree, that Dany is the daughter of Rhaegar rather than Aerys but the theory that can be drawn from the books is that Jon is the son of Rhaegar rather that Ned.
  8. I did and I enjoyed it Honestly, what are you trying to tell us? The Grand Masters of Meereen who crucified the 163 slave children and the Great Masters of Astapor who regularly castrate thousands of slave children and kill thousands of new born babies in completing their training are acting in accordance with their cultrure and society's notions. Does this make them honourable in the eyes of their compatriots? Probably. That tells us the society and it's notions of honour are severly twisted and that we should reject those values not witter on about how they are honourable in their own context. That is an obvious and worthless point and we are supposed to be able to distinguish between horrific (Ironborn, Dothraki, Slaver's Bay, Cannibal tribes) and flawed but still superior value systems (Westeros, Free Cities) while still being able to critique the latter. Equating them all is mind-numbing and giving a free pass for murder is hihgly objectionable. From a Wsterosi pov and, dare I say it, from our own, Ned is honourable. If you prefer the notions of honour that Vic adheres to, well, that's on you, but they are not held to by Westerosi society or the readership in general. You surely understand that the guy is known as the Red Viper because he is widely believed to have used poison in a duel and that this is incompatible with the notion of honour in Westeros including Dorne. Whether you argue that is all a misunderstanding or not is utterly irrelevant as we see him poisoning his weapon in his duel with Gregor so we know for a fact that he does use a poisoned weapon in a duel. Shifting your argument to one that Gregor is a bad guy and so, the end justifying the means, Oberyn is okay to poison the weapon therefore is not only pointless but shows you misunderstand the notion of honour in Westeors because the duel is supopsed to fought on even terms in the eyes of the Gods and Oberyn violates this. Indeed your argument that in this case the end justify the means actually violates the whole notion of honour which is that you adhere to a code of conduct and system of oaths whatever the consequences. When Jaime breaks his oath to Aerys whether or not it is to save a city from destruction or to remove a madman he abandons his honour, when Oberyn poisons his blade in a duel he adandons his honour. It's that unbelievably straightforward....
  9. Just stop. The framework we have for discussing Ned Stark's reputation for honour is the Westerosi system of oaths and fealty, loyalty and honesty and the attendant notions of chauvinism and chivalry...and the idea that men, who hold all the power, protect women. That is what is Ned is judged on and it is people who hold to those notions who judge him to be a paragon of honour and to be a notable exemplar of these ideals. You seem to be adding a completely different framework for assessing honour and though that may interest you it is utterly ridiculous to take a completely different society's notion of honour and try and compare who is "more honourable". The Dothraki leave crippled children for feral dogs to devour, the Great and Grand Masters of Slaver's Bay murder any brutliase any number of slave children, the cannibal tribes of the ice-river no doubt live up to their name, and the Ironborn who follow the old way practice rape, pillage and reaving for fun. None of these alien societies and value systems are germane to the discussion and arguing that the Meerenese Masters who crucified and disembowelled 163 children, or the Dothraki who sacked the Lhazarene village and raped and pillaged, or the husband who beat his wife to death with his fists are honourable in their own society and thus as honourable if not more honourable than Ned is meaningless. Separately but particularly troubling is your repeated insistance that a wife who was unfaithful is tantamount to a whore and will be viewed and treated as such, which apparently means that she becomes subhuman and is deserving of brutal punishment even murder. I am well aware that there are societies in our world in which the punishment for adultery or infidelity is death, usually by public stoning or some other horrific method but - and this is the really important part for you - Westeros does not suffer from this horror. It is based on medieval Europe where a husband is allowed or expected to chastise his wife for disobedience but murder is murder and is a crime. Do you understand that murdering your wife in a fit of rage is a crime in Westeros and not a a badge of honour? "treats women who commits adultery fairly" =/= beating that woman to death. What is hard to get here? Yes, I am well aware of the ugly double standard by which a man who sleeps around is seen as a "stud" or a "casnova" but a woman who sleeps around is seen as a "slapper" or a "tart". What I find really ugly is you throwing the term "whore" around so freely as if you agree. I am going to use caps to try and make it clear for you: SHE WAS HIS WIFE, GET IT? HIS WIFE AND YET YOU REPEATEDLY LABEL HER A WHORE. NO ONE IN STORY DOES, NOT EVEN VICTARION, BUT YOU KEEP DOING IT. AND YOU PROTEST ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF VICTIM-BLAMING BEING UNFAIR TO YOU?? STOP WITH THIS MISOGYNISTIC SHIT. And the Dothraki and the Ice River Cannibals and the child-murdering Grand Masters of Slavers' Bay are the most honourable people in story . If you just started this thread to point out that different cultures have different values do you honestly think it was an intelligent or original thought to share with us? Why bother telling us water is wet? Why head up a thread "Was Ned Stark really that honourable?" to tell us that wife-murdering is okay in another society's fucked-up system so Ned is not really all that honourable despite how he is universally regarded in story? What is your point, do you even have one? What? That he crippled Wyllas Tyrell in a joust is fact and completely indisputable. What is debatable is whether he intended to do so: the Tyrells clearly think he intended to (based on their longstanding enmity) while he is clear to Tyrion that he intended him no harm. The Tyrells remember this infamous joust but he has no Westeros-wide reputation or moniker because of it....but he does have a Westeros-wide reputation for poisoning his blade in a duel and a moniker "The Red Viper" because of it. Again his reputation is a fact and indisputable. It may suit your argument to pretend that he is unjustly accused and that his moniker is falsely earned but then we get to see him poison his spear in his duel against Gregor so actually we know that the dishonourable thing he is renowned for is true and your argument is totally undermined. Yes, betrayal and kidnap. He has no authority whatsoever to arrest two Queens, one the Regent, strip them of all their clothing, and keep them prisoners in the Great Sept with armed guards preventing any interference with his plan to use them as hostages and bargaining chips to lever concessions from the Crown on his naked power grab. Again, the only framework you seem to acknowlege is the personal world view and ambitions of the individual. According to that inner compass people can do whatever they want, kidnap someone to gain power or beat their wife to death. It's a meaningless way of looking at "honour": that is a concept that has to have a meaning that is commonly understood and believed in and measurable. And I have to say your idea that a religious ideologue is honourable is one that troubles me. ISIS and the Taliban would agree with the High Septon but it's not a point of view that benefits the people and it should not matter to you whether or not the zealots think it will make society better to force it into the straightjacket of their beliefs. If you are offended by the ISIS / Taliban comparison try Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale. That's what you should be seeing in the High Septon not "honour". You have lost me. It seems you are determined to whitewash Alliser Thorne and I think you overlook the obvious point that Thorne turns on Jon when Jon stands up to him and stands up for Sam: "That was a grievous error, Lord Snow", and quickly falls in with Janos Slynt. Even when Jon is elected Lord Commander Thorne can't hide his personal enmity and keeps calling him bastard to his face. He is uiversally despised by the boys he trains and is seen clearly for what he is by Tyrion who mocks him for it. He would have had Jon killed if Aemon had not intervened and whatever he may believe (or whatever pretext he may seize on to have him executed) he ignores the fact that Jon brought warning of the Thenns attack and held The Wall after Noye's death and plots to have him killed by the Wildlings instead. This isn't honour, it's sly, vindictive and cruel and an attempt to kill someone he has a grudge against.
  10. Now this is plain flat out ugly from you. She is not a whore, she is his wife. You may choose to equate her behaviour to that of a "whore" whatever perjoratives you mean to give to that but it is simply false. Care to back any of that up? There is no doubt that a man / husband can spread it around while a woman / wife cannot but you understand what a whore is, right? You seem to throw that term around a lot and I think is says more about how you think than whether a straying wife would be viewed or treated as such. There is nothing in Westerosi culture that says beating your wife to death with your fists is honourable. Nothing. Shocking argument I don't know what you are trying to say. He has a moniker, "The Red Viper" precisely because of his use of poison in his duel with Lord Yronwood. We even get to see hom use a poisoned spear in his duel with Gregor..... Using a poisoned weapon in a duel is not honourable. He has a reputation throughout Westeros for doing this. We see him do it. How hard is this for you to accept? If you aren't shocked by his methods - and clearly he's an "ends justify the means" kind of guy then you'll still have to explain how anything in his betrayal and kidnap of Margaery and Cersei to gain power is honourable. What in his conduct makes him honourable at all as opposed to driven and ruthlessly pragmatic in trying to accomplish his goals? And how does this make him more honourable than Ned? It doesn't, it's like comparing a fish with a potato. So it's ok to assume guilt and punish him accordilngly despite his conduct at the Wall being a direct contradiction of this? That's pretty absurd. Slynt and Thorne are motivated by personal bias against Jon. Jon, the son of Eddard Stark and Mormont's choice for his personal steward - and so being groomed for command - just decided to join the wildlings? Riiiight.... And coming back to save Castle Black from an ambush that would have captured it and allowed the Wildlings though the Wall because he had cold feet? Ok.... It's quite obvious that Aemon and Noye who are balanced and clear thinking know and believe Jon but that Thorne and Slynt are biased and simply want to kill him. Thorne is not honourable, he is proud, arrogant, sly, vicious, vindictive and treacherous but not honourable or trustworthy at all. You'll be telling me Slynt is more honourable than Ned next no doubt but you are not convinving me
  11. Yes and that's the problem. Oberyn is known as the Red Viper and not for his fight with Gregor, he poisoned his blade in his duel with Lord Yronwood. Brushing aside things like this don't do anything for your argument. One man is known through Westeros for poisoning his weapons in a duel, another for being a paragon of honour. Oh and we get to be inside one man's head as well to understand his decision-making. Which might it be? She was his salt wife but still his wife and very far from being a prostitute but nice victim shaming! Westerosi culture does not in any way approve of murdering your wife - see Lady Hornwood and Ramsay Bolton - or see it as honourable. The code of chivalry works in excatly the opposite way here. The fact that the Ironborn practice the Old Way, reave, rape and pillage is not something the reader is meant to consider a laudable system but one we are meant to reject. And Victarion killed her to avoid looking weak in front of the other Ironmen, nothing to do with honour but with strength. When he starts scourging more people and cuttting off hands or hanging people for religious trangressions come back to me on this one. The Spanish Inquisition or ISIS, take your pick, but a religious ideologue in power is a truly terrifying prospect. He doesn't care for the people, he cares for their souls and will happily make them suffer in order to become the "better" people he has decided they ought to. I think you misunderstand what he intends. Jon would have been executed on the spot despite holding the Wall after Noye's death if Aemon had not protested and sent ravens to Eastwatch and The Shadow Tower. Thorne then hit on the scheme of sending him out to be killed by Mance. Of course he knows Jon did not desert, he was handpicked by Qhorin and returned to warn of a wildling assault and then held the Wall, any man at Castle Black can vouch for him on this. I also suspect Thorne had a hand in the Ides of Marsh.. There is nothing in these men that shows any reason they would have a particular reputation for honour and, as it happens, they don't. It's pretty straightforward
  12. Wait, what? Alliser Thorne who has been plotting to have Jon killed for several books using whatever pretext or trick he can? Oberyn who is notorious for using a poisoned weapon in duels? the High Sparrow who is a militant ideologue on a power grab? Victarion "I beat the woman I loved to death because my brother seduced her and she was only a piece of property [chattel] so it was totally ok" Greyjoy? Ned is supposedly less honourble than these people?? Buckle up: turbulence from alternative reality growing stronger...
  13. Harrenhall is seen as a curse and has been fom the minute it was built by Black Harren. LF has no men and no money, what he has is sheepshit on the Fingers and what he can get his hands on that properly belongs to Robert Arryn or maybe Harry Harding but it does not belong to him. The military powers in the riverlands are Tully, Frey, Mallister, Blackwood and Bracken and maybe Piper and Vance. Harrnehall was constructed by the Ironborn and there is no indication that it has any significant power or resources in it's own right: it changed hands during the Wot5k often and easily enough due to this fact. No one there has an ounce of loyalty to LF or an ounce of influence in the RL. Compare that with his position in the Vale with Robert Arryn under his wing and it's quite obvious why he is working in the Vale without even the hint of a token command or letter sent to his "bannermen" in the RL in all this time. He left the RL in disgrace and has never set foot there since. The nobility of the RL will remember him but not fondly and will have just as many reservations about following this social inferior as the Vale Lords do. And he doesn't have custody of the heir to force them into obedience. So do you think he aspires to be king? I think his MO is to be the power behind the throne not to seek too much power himself as he knows he would never be accepted due to his low birth. And why would a Vale army do that? The River Lords will flock to Edmure Tully and his heir, perhaps to Robert Arryn as Hoster Tully's grandson and, equally, perhaps to Sansa as His granddaughter but never to LF. His power plays revolve around posession of the individual who has the claim and the loyalty of the Lords/common folk for he has neither and never will. Given he appears to be poisoning Robet Arryn, or at least to be preparing for his death he loses his leverage in the Vale and one potential lever in the RL. That leaves Sansa but he appears to be preparing for her to cement his power in the Vale. It's worth pointing out that LF has never married and has no heir so what would be the point of him ruling directly in any region? A succession crisis would simply occur every time he caught a cold or stubbed his toe and someone would always be angling to replace him. Indeed why would they follow him in the first place as House Baelish has no strength and is a dead end? Long live King Petyr, first of his name? I don't think this is his game at all. He wants to bring low those who thought themselves so superior to him and profit in the chaos this creates but he does so by appearing to be a friend to them and keeping his hands clean.
  14. Interesting. I agree with everything up until the last paragraph. Davos is a good man and a loyal one too but he is a lifelong smuggler from Fleabottom who fought a number of skirmishes against royal / cosatguard ships trying to arrest him. We like him and the role he plays in story is divorced from his smuggling past but there is no suggestion that he was a Robin Hood kind of criminal benefiting the poor so his past seems incompatible with the notion of honour by any definition. A good act does not wash out the bad as a man once said. Aerys was mad and murderous and was after his head. Defying him is not dishonourable as Jon Arryn very clearly decided too. Lies, omissions and secrets are a fundamental part of human nature and relationships at every level, that can't be argued against. The purpose of those things and the impact on the person(s) affected is what matters. Are they harmed or protected by those things? And if a person might be harmed in some way, say Robert, what if there is a greater need to protect another, Jon? And what if the omissions to Robert - the truth of Lyanna and Rhaegar and of the paternity of Robert's children - are designed to shield him from unnecessary hurt and bleak despair? I don't see any dishonour here, merely taking the best / least worst course of action in each case.
  15. Because being LP of the Riverlands is an empty title. Harrenhall is a ruin and gives him no men and no power and as an outsider he has no connections in the RL. It's a completely different picture in the Vale where he has control of the heir, Robert Arryn, and all of House Arryn's resources, plus all his connections from serving Jon Arryn. He's on home ground. And what does he want in the Riverlands? Hs is not going to become King and he is not going to make an overt play for power that will have some powerful House(s) decide to end his pretensions, he is far more likely to rule through manipulating others whether it's Robert Arryn, Harry the Heir or a revealed Sansa. I don't really see LF ruling form HH any more than from KL. It's possible that he will make some kind of play though Sansa for either the North (Stark heir) or the Riverlands (Tully heiress, Edmure notwithsanding) but I think that will be through her claim not his own. His title is afer all a reward from the Lannisters and can (and most likely will) be taken away by the next monarch.