• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LordPathera

  • Rank
    Landed Knight
  • Birthday 01/20/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Character Study, Writing, Fantasy, Butterfly Effect

Recent Profile Visitors

719 profile views
  1. 1) He has Ramsey under control, though his own admittance wouldn't suggest that he has Ramsey "fully" under control. Especially now that Ramsey is lord of Winterfell and married to (f)Arya. 2) The novels tell us that they now have many firmly committed enemies whereas the supporters are only tenuously on the Bolton's side per Roose and Lady Dustin. Assuming that they're surrounded by enemies isn't too far-fetched when Bolton himself admits as much.
  2. ^This. Roose saw a chance to raise up House Bolton and consolidate control of the North. It seems that he's accepted that Ramsey is a chaotic variable that he can't truly control, but thus far he's managed to use Ramsey to his advantage. Especially if you believe that Ramsey's actions during Clash of Kings were directly or indirectly part of Roose's plans as Roose only rebukes Ramsey for his lack of subtlety rather than the actual bloodshed. But Roose was truly just a pawn of Tywin's plan and now that Tywin's dead and the Lannisters are doomed to collapse in on themselves, Roose's actions have left him practically surrounded by all of the lords and people that he and his son pissed off.
  3. And how do you know that Rhaegar acted while "controlled by his dick" rather than trying to fulfill the "Prince that was Promised" prophecy? Even Ned Stark highly doubts that Rhaegar would ever visit a brothel. A man who lets his passions and lusts get the better of him is a more accurate description of Robert Baratheon than Rhaegar.
  4. The Tyrells only sided with the Lannisters because they saw a chance to join with the throne via Margaery. However, if the Westerlands are steam-rolled and conquered between the Ironborn and North/Riverlanders, that deals a massive blow to the Lannister power-base. Enough to where siding with the Lannisters would be an even bigger risk and have less pay-off for the Reach. Hell, the Tyrells may just stay neutral and let Tywin and Stannis duke it out over King's Landing, then bend the knee to the winner.
  5. The true test of which legacy is stronger depends on what happens when they're gone. When Ned died, the North remembered. It ceded from the Iron Throne and even after the Red Wedding, the North still remembers and marches through ice and snow to save Ned's daughter from traitors and usurpers. When Tywin died, most of House Lannister's power and capability died with him. At this point, it's not a question of if House Lannister will collapse, but a question of who will deal the mortal blow (Dany, Aegon, Euron, or Jon) and when the axe will fall. At this point it appears as though Eddard's methods were better for the North and his family; can't say the same for House Lannister and the West.
  6. He's arrogant, but he's not stupid. If Tywin knew that Jon was Rhaegar's bastard son, he'd view it as a potential threat to the Lannister-Baratheon hold on the throne. Remember that the 7 Kingdoms still have houses who called Robert a Usurper and that both Dorne and the Reach were Targaryen loyalists with Dorne doubly hating the Lannisters over the murders of Elia and her children. Also, the North was only loyal to the Throne because of Ned's friendship with Robert, if given the choice between Robert and Ned, most would rally to Ned. The Vale may stay out of the future war entirely since Jon Arryn would likely try to make peace and the Riverlands could go either way. Long story short, Jon's very existence would be seen as Tywin as a future threat. This is the same man who ordered Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch to slaughter Rhaegar's trueborn children. I doubt that he'd hesitate to kill Jon. True, Jon's only Rhaegar's bastard, but that didn't stop Daemon Blackfyre and his descendants from launching five wars to take the Iron Throne. Tywin is too pragmatic and ruthless to not kill Jon now before his very existence potentially starts a war that threatens to topple his dynasty from the Iron Throne.
  7. Robert hated the Targaryens and hated Rhaegar most of all. Yet, he also loved Ned as a brother and Jon is Lyanna's son (also Rhaegar's too). Tywin comments that Robert would not kill children while Robert himself ordered Dany's death (though relented on his deathbed). Is there anything to say that Robert's love for Lyanna and Ned would outweigh his hatred of Rhaegar and the Targaryens? I'm leaning towards the idea of Robert killing Jon, at least enough to agree that Ned made the right call in keeping Robert in the dark.
  8. I was referring to the real-world application of Sallic Law as created by Medieval France. In Westeros, yes woman can inherit (except for the Targaryens after the Dance with Dragons).
  9. Depends. There's nothing with liking a villain for being a villain. Good and interesting antagonists make for some of the most entertaining characters in a story. A good villain serves as a formidable obstacle to the heroes and therefore, you're interested and invested in seeing if this villain can be beaten and how they'll be beaten. You can also add depth to a villain by giving them "human" traits like a sympathetic backstory, likable qualities that make them into 3-D characters, and other quirks and mindsets. This can lead to things like Tragic Villains; Anti-Heroes; Anti-Villains; Punch-Cloak Villains; or even "Good Guys" who are villains by virtue of opposing the main characters like Inspector Javert or Iron Man in Civil War (the movie). Some villains may make you think and admit that if your life sucked as much as their's did, you may have gone on the same path. The thing with Cersei is that the show tried to make her more sympathetic by heavily white-washing her personality as compared to the books. Lena Headly does a good job with what she's got, but for all of that bluster of making Cersei more relateable and sympathetic, they failed because there's nothing remotely likable or identifiable about Cersei. Heck, the show still has to follow the book's story and thus Cersei still does most of the horrible things that she did in said-books. The High Sparrows being one of them and the show somehow thinks that we'll accept the notion that Cersei is the victim and the High Sparrows are the bad guys. It's like trying to paint a child rapist as deserving pity. Explain the man's story all that you want, no one will look past the fact that this monster raped a child. At some point, most writers understand to just let villains be villains and let evil folk be evil folk. That includes Martin himself who still has plenty of objectively evil characters despite injecting plenty of nuance and grey-grey morality into the stories. At no point does Martin try to excuse Tywin for Tysha nor paint him as deserving of sympathy, same with LF, the Boltons, Darkstar and Cersei herself. The show on the other hand...actually had Jamie rape Cersei and expect us move along like nothing happened and that Jamie's still a "good guy" now. So it's unsurprising that they really want Cersei to be seen as a "tragic figure". Missing the fact that most tragic characters start off as admirable and likable people who bring about their downfall due to a flaw. There's no tragedy if you don't feel anything for the character apart from contempt, annoyance, loathing or outright waiting for the schmuck to die. As for people who do relate to Cersei even though there's nothing to relate to? I can't answer that one.
  10. They don't miss it, they just rightly point out that it was stupid, unnecessary and that LF could have thought of a way better plan than hand Sansa over to get raped and tortured by the Boltons. And it's made more ridiculous by the notion that someone as well-informed and intelligent as Littlefinger wouldn't know about the Bolton's true nature or what he was throwing Sansa into.
  11. Sallic Law my friend, some people don't understand that Sallic Law was only strictly followed by medieval France. Though in all fairness, male heirs were culturally and historically preferred over female heirs in most cultures in medieval times as a De Facto rule rather than a De Jure one. This didn't prevent females from outright inheriting, but this mostly happened when there was no closely related male suitor to be found. At least that's how I understand it. Feel free to fill in any blanks that I missed.
  12. Well said. I'd also point out that Cersei has only dug her ditch deeper. Ironic considering that this is the one actually decent plan that she's pulled off (Robert's death doesn't count, too much reliance on luck). And the result is really a pyrrhic victory to where that crown of her's is going to get snatched off pretty quickly next season. Let's do a headcount of how many people she's truly antagonized: 1) The Faith of the Seven by murdering the High Septon 2) The majority of the smallfolk since they liked the High Sparrows, Tyrells and despised the Lannisters 3) The Reach 4) The Citadel thanks to Pycelle's murder 5) Various other lords who had friends and family that died in that explosion Add on to the fact that the Vale and the North are Allies; Euron is striking on his own; that Olenna, Dorne and Yara/Theon's fleet are allied with Danaerys and her army of Unsullied and Dothraki screamers; and the Long Night is on it's way...and all indicators show that Cersei is screwed. Jamie strangling her to death would be mercy at this point, she should've taken Ned's offer and ran out of town when she had the chance.
  13. If Rhaegar wasn't Jon's father then why were the Kingsguard present? If Lyanna were any other mere paramour, they would've been duty-bound to protect Rhaegar and the Royal family over obeying Rhaegar's orders to stay. But they didn't. As in the books, they were absent from the Trident where Rhaegar died, King's Landing where Aerys and his family were, Storm's End where the last royalist major force was present and Dragonstone where Viserys and Queen Rhaella were staying. So we have Lyanna having gone missing, "kidnapped" by Rhaegar, being found by her brother dying from childbirth and she makes Ned promise to look after her son. Then we get a timeskip transition shot from the baby's face to Jon Snow's face. Sorry OP, looks like R+L=J has been confirmed in the show, just like it's bound to be confirmed in the books sooner or later. Martin set this one up in the very first book after all. The question now is how Jon will ever discover the truth and what he'll do with it.
  14. Because of bad writing and plot contrivance. Not because Jon is incapable.