Spoiler: Dany's Small Council

[Targaryen Restoration]

12 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

The boltons and the freys butchered the starks at a wedding not at a battlefield (if rhegar had won jaime never would have killed aery's). Also sansa and jon grew up there and spent pretty much their whole lives in winterfell where as dany has left westero's before she was a year old. So dany is essentially a foreigner coming to take back a throne in a country she has never seen where as jon and sansa spent most of their lives in winterfell. Your letting your dislike of jon get in your way of seeing this. and before you say I am letting my dislike of dany do the same I actually like her

The First Men had no rights to Westeros and yet they still took it.  Beyond that, they slaughtered the native inhabitants and cut down their sacred trees.  The Targaryens are much, much better than the First Men.  Westeros belongs to Dany.

 

[Targaryen Restoration]

24 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

jon didn't break his oath. He died which ended his oath that was essentially the whole reason to kill him in terms of writing. and since he was no longer part of the nights watch he wasn't breaking any oaths by taking up arms against ramsey

If he died and came back then Jon is essentially a wight.  That's the rules that govern "resurrection" in the story.  

D&D created their own character of Jon Snow and he is nothing like the one in the books.

Spoiler

They erased the pink letter from the plot and how Jon betrayed the watch to rescue Arya.   Just like they conveniently will sweep away that polygamy is illegal and he's a bastard. 

Perhaps they will sweep his oath-breaking under the table on the show.  They basically swept away the fact that he's a wight on the show to keep the Stark fans happy.

[Cron]

1 hour ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

If he died and came back then Jon is essentially a wight.  That's the rules that govern "resurrection" in the story.  

D&D created their own character of Jon Snow and he is nothing like the one in the books.

  Reveal hidden contents

They erased the pink letter from the plot and how Jon betrayed the watch to rescue Arya.   Just like they conveniently will sweep away that polygamy is illegal and he's a bastard. 

Perhaps they will sweep his oath-breaking under the table on the show.  They basically swept away the fact that he's a wight on the show to keep the Stark fans happy.

Um, I don't think Jon is a wight.

(a) He clearly was resurrected by R'hllor, NOT the forces of Death, and (b) his actions and behavior bear NO resemblance to wights we have seen.  Not even remotely.

The wights are basically zombies.  Jon is NOT a zombie, and does not behave anything remotely like a zombie.

[Nowy Tends]

35 minutes ago, Cron said:

Um, I don't think Jon is a wight.

Calling Jon Snow a wight is the latest trend since GRRM called "poor" Beric Dondarrion a "fire wight" in a recent interview…

The way some fans throw themselves on this kind of statement is pathetic (albeit somewhat understandable).

[Fexyr]

On 28/07/2017 at 1:35 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Ok, this is really one of Jon's many faults.  He lost his head in that battle and charged ahead.  A person in his position needed to look at the big picture and be willing to sacrifice Rickon for a more effective battle strategy.  I will repeat what many of his critics including myself have been posting here:  Stannis had to bail Jon out from the wildlings.  Littlefinger had to bail Jon out from the Boltons.  Jon has not won a battle that he led. 

 Jon had no chance against the wildlings. None, at all. Stannis saved him, yes, but I don't think that the Battle of CB counts. He did what he could do, and it wasn't much.

[Samwell_Tarly]

39 minutes ago, Cron said:

Um, I don't think Jon is a wight.

(a) He clearly was resurrected by R'hllor, NOT the forces of Death, and (b) his actions and behavior bear NO resemblance to wights we have seen.  Not even remotely.

The wights are basically zombies.  Jon is NOT a zombie, and does not behave anything remotely like a zombie.

George RR Martin confirmed Jon is a (fire) wight.

So White Walkers resurrect the dead and they are then controlled by the White Walkers/Night king. These are recruited into the Army of the undead and are Wights.

So Beric Dondarrion and Jon snow are resurrected from the dead by a priestess/priest who works through the Lord of Light so effectively are resurrected by the fire god. They are to be used by the fire god in the wars to come. 

There was a passage that was said by George RR Martin in a Times interview, ''[Beric's] heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, he’s a wight, but a wight animated by fire instead of by ice, now we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing."

This idea takes us on to many theories about Jon and Beric.

[Nowy Tends]

6 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

George RR Martin confirmed Jon is a (fire) wight.

Source?

[The Knight of Flours]

GRRM confirmed Beric is a fire-wight and people are joining the dots

[HoodedCrow]

I'm a feminist, but whenever I see a portrayal of a mildly assertive female I call them out. If they have no obvious beauty flaws to destroy them with, I will not call them out, comparing them with equivalent male peers but I will nitpick and call them witchy. I will ensure that they are submissive in sexual encounters or I will call their lover deorogatory names. I will excuse any obvious mental and emotional flaws in males, and I will adore violent talk...ooo.. as long as they drink a lot or fight. Females must be perfect and no one can go wrong trash talking girls of any age, no matter what their intentions or actions are, while men can be drenched in blood, violence and lies, because that's so cool. I am for female advancement, but I think feminists go too far. I like being complicit. Scapegoating women is so much fun, because it's not me.

[cade]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:35 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Absolutely right.  Daenerys has just as much, if not more, rights to take back Westeros as the Starks have to take back Winterfell. 

Ok, this is really one of Jon's many faults.  He lost his head in that battle and charged ahead.  A person in his position needed to look at the big picture and be willing to sacrifice Rickon for a more effective battle strategy.  I will repeat what many of his critics including myself have been posting here:  Stannis had to bail Jon out from the wildlings.  Littlefinger had to bail Jon out from the Boltons.  Jon has not won a battle that he led. 

Dany, on the other hand, won over Khal Drogo, led a weakened khalasar through harsh desert and into Vaes Tolorro, rescued 8500 Unsullied from their slave owners, took down an entire sellsword company with minimum loses on her side, and ended the slave trade. 

She didn't end it, unfortunately. There's still slavery in Volantis and probably many other places in Essos alone. D&D just ignored this, presumably thinking (correctly) that virtually no viewers would care. (Not to guilt-trip anyone for not caring. I realize it's just tv and Dany being in Westeros will be much more entertaining.). But yes, Dany deserves tremendous credit for her accomplishments in Slaver's Bay. Far more impressive to me than what she achieved, though, is just what she sacrificed and risked for people that a vast majority in her position never would've lifted a finger for other than to buy and use for themselves. So if she had failed like Jon did at the Wall, she'd still be a hero to me just as he is - at least in a rational sense. Emotionally, I've never cared that much about his character, whereas Dany is far and away my favorite, but Jon has so many parallels with Dany, I don't think they're nearly as different as the fans pitting them in competition make it seem.

I get that you are just comparing their strategic thinking but even there, as others have said, Jon did about the best he could against the wildlings. While he did show bad judgment in the BotB, and bad impulse control with Littlefinger, Dany has some impulse problems herself. They're Targaryens!

[snow is the man]

6 hours ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

If he died and came back then Jon is essentially a wight.  That's the rules that govern "resurrection" in the story.  

D&D created their own character of Jon Snow and he is nothing like the one in the books.

  Reveal hidden contents

They erased the pink letter from the plot and how Jon betrayed the watch to rescue Arya.   Just like they conveniently will sweep away that polygamy is illegal and he's a bastard. 

Perhaps they will sweep his oath-breaking under the table on the show.  They basically swept away the fact that he's a wight on the show to keep the Stark fans happy.

Yes they changed stuff from the books but everyone knows that. Also How does polygamy come into this?

 

And since they did change the way jon came back then given what we know jon isn't an oathbreaker. so on the show your argument is useless.

[snow is the man]

6 hours ago, Targaryen Restoration said:

The First Men had no rights to Westeros and yet they still took it.  Beyond that, they slaughtered the native inhabitants and cut down their sacred trees.  The Targaryens are much, much better than the First Men.  Westeros belongs to Dany.

 

Yes but the targs essentially came into a country that was already well setteled with people who think and act similar to them and just conquered everything. The first men came into a place where their were no humans. I am not saying what they did was right because it wasn't. But you can't realistically compare the two. And your idea that westero's belongs to dany is wrong. She has to conquer it but in the show who really supports her and why.

Olenna is only supporting her so she can get vengence

dorne is essentially just fighting to survive since the sand snakes and that women who's name I can't remember killed a princess for vengence and screwed over their whole country.

theon and his sister yara are doing so because they won't survive otherwise.

So essentially we have their 3 biggest supporters are not their for dany or that they believe she will be a good ruler but because one wants to see cersei die and given what she said doesn't care if tens of thousands of people die as long as cersei does too. And the rest because they put themselves in a position where they have no other choice.

So who really wants her back because she is the rightful ruler.

 

 

Also your essentially comparing an entire people to one family. It's like comparing all of europe to one family. Of course an entire people has done horrible things and far more then one family did.

[Cron]

4 hours ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

George RR Martin confirmed Jon is a (fire) wight.

So White Walkers resurrect the dead and they are then controlled by the White Walkers/Night king. These are recruited into the Army of the undead and are Wights.

So Beric Dondarrion and Jon snow are resurrected from the dead by a priestess/priest who works through the Lord of Light so effectively are resurrected by the fire god. They are to be used by the fire god in the wars to come. 

There was a passage that was said by George RR Martin in a Times interview, ''[Beric's] heart isn’t beating, his blood isn’t flowing in his veins, he’s a wight, but a wight animated by fire instead of by ice, now we’re getting back to the whole fire and ice thing."

This idea takes us on to many theories about Jon and Beric.

Very interesting.  Perhaps the word "wight" in ASOIAF has a much broader and looser definition than I suspected.

Perhaps to GRRM it means simply "someone who has been resurrected from the dead, whose body no longer functions as a normal human being."

Because beyond that, I see almost no similarities between (a) Jon and Beric and (b) the WW/Others' wights.  Most notably, their behavior is dramatically different.  The Ice Wights behave like classical zombies, slow, shuffling, not speaking, seemingly existing only to attack and kill the living, with, as near as I can tell, NO free will or independence of thought or personality of their own.  (Coldhands, I believe, is in some kind of semi-dead state).

Jon and Beric, on the other hand, behave like normal human beings in nearly all ways, and still fight FOR the living, even though they are "undead."

By the way, I would agree that Jon and Beric are "undead," but I never thought of them as wights before.

However, based on what you produced, I guess that in GRRM's world, Jon and Beric are "wights" of some kind.  Again, though, maybe to GRRM, the definition of that word merely means "someone raised from the dead, whose body no longer functions like a normal human being," which are things we already knew about Jon and Beric, and which I would concede are true of them.

[Cron]

4 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Calling Jon Snow a wight is the latest trend since GRRM called "poor" Beric Dondarrion a "fire wight" in a recent interview…

The way some fans throw themselves on this kind of statement is pathetic (albeit somewhat understandable).

Well, as I just wrote in a fairly long Reply to another poster, above, I think it depends on the definition of "wight."

In ASOIAF, GRRM makes the rules, and defines the words.  In this case, it seems to me that GRRM's definition of the word "wight" is "someone who has been raised from the dead, and whose body no longer functions like a normal human being," cuz those are pretty much the only similarities I see between Jon, Beric, and the Ice Wights.

As I mentioned above, after those similarities, their behavior is dramatically different

Incidentally, a while back I looked up the word "wight" in a dictionary, and yeah, it is EXTREMELY vague.  Basically, according to my source, as I recall, a wight is an unfortunate living being, especially a human being, which made me go "What??"  I get the "unfortunate" part (although, again, that is extremely vague), but "living being"???  What?  GRRM's wights are undead.  The very definition of "wight" seems to be contrary to how GRRM is using the word even for the Ice Wights.

If anyone has further insight into this, though, I'm all ears.

[snow is the man]

8 minutes ago, Cron said:

Very interesting.  Perhaps the word "wight" in ASOIAF has a much broader and looser definition than I suspected.

Perhaps to GRRM it means simply "someone who has been resurrected from the dead, whose body no longer functions as a normal human being."

Because beyond that, I see almost no similarities between (a) Jon and Beric and (b) the WW/Others' wights.  Most notably, their behavior is dramatically different.  The Ice Wights behave like classical zombies, slow, shuffling, not speaking, seemingly existing only to attack and kill the living, with, as near as I can tell, NO free will or independence of thought or personality of their own.  (Coldhands, I believe, is in some kind of semi-dead state).

Jon and Beric, on the other hand, behave like normal human beings in nearly all ways, and still fight FOR the living, even though they are "undead."

By the way, I would agree that Jon and Beric are "undead," but I never thought of them as wights before.

However, based on what you produced, I guess that in GRRM's world, Jon and Beric are "wights" of some kind.  Again, though, maybe to GRRM, the definition of that word merely means "someone raised from the dead, whose body no longer functions like a normal human being," which are things we already knew about Jon and Beric, and which I would concede are true of them.

Well their bodies still work like most people's given that they bleed and breath and everything. That said I think GRRM was talking about the books and not the show. In the books beric is alot more extreme in his differences then in the show.

[Mikkel]

Regarding Jon and Beric - Beric has been losing himself via his many, many "deaths" and resurrection cycles - Jon only has the one. Whether that'll make a difference in the end, I don't know - was GRRM even talking about show-Beric or book-Beric? Because those are very different characters (with the latter essentially killing himself because the man he was, was almost gone anyway).

[snow is the man]

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Regarding Jon and Beric - Beric has been losing himself via his many, many "deaths" and resurrection cycles - Jon only has the one. Whether that'll make a difference in the end, I don't know - was GRRM even talking about show-Beric or book-Beric? Because those are very different characters (with the latter essentially killing himself because the man he was, was almost gone anyway).

To be fair it seems like beric in the show is like a regular person not someone missing pieces of himself. I think GRRM was talking about the books not the show

[Greywater-Watch]

11 hours ago, divica said:

People that criticize their plan tend to Forget a lot of things.

1) why would anyone believe that the tyrells bannermen would answer cersei's call after what she did to the tyrells? It would be the same as having the dornish betray the sandsnakes... Besides it isn t common to have so many bannermen revolt against their lord.

2) The reach and dornish armies are civilised, westerosi and between 100 to 150K soldiers. why should it be hard for this many soldiers to siege KL and keep the lannisters soldiers inside? (at most 40 to 50K and I am being generous)

3) Danny and the show writters don t want to make her a villain. It is pretty hard to film a person burning thousands of people in a city and don t make her appear as a villain. Besides, all the people in westeros would hate danny. She would never have peace. In order to rule by fear you have to be a monster and it has its drawbacks and advantages...

ad 1) I do believe it and it doesn't surprise me that the Houses of the Reach re-consider their loyalties.

The Reach was not as unified in the recent years. Remember how the conflict between Stannis and Renly split great parts of the army of the Reach? In the Battle of the Blackwater half the army of the Reach fought with Stannis, the other half against Stannis, siding with the Lannisters.  And now there is actually no heir and no male leader (in the Show) left for House Tyrell.

It is not at all out of logic that the bannermen of House Tyrell look out for new and better allies. Look at what happened with the bannermen of House Stark once this seemed gone and powerless, and the Northerners are known to be extra-loyal.

ad 2): A siege is different from taking a City. A siege can last years, it is a more defensive tactic on both sides. Taking a City is another thing, here the walls and other defences of the City or Castle come into full account. It is often said that one man on a wall is worth 5 - 10 below.

 

ad 3) You better discuss this with Lady Olenna, she could explain it to you better than I ever could. Or just watch here exchange with Daenerys in Episode 1.

[Mikkel]

58 minutes ago, snow is the man said:

To be fair it seems like beric in the show is like a regular person not someone missing pieces of himself. I think GRRM was talking about the books not the show

I would tend to think that too (since it matches the facts as I see them much better), but I haven't watched the actual quote, and I have no idea in what context it was given.

That's deviating a bit from the topic of Dany's small council though, at least until such a time as Jon goes and joins it, which everyone (understandably) seems to expect will happen. But hey, she's already adding the wonderful Melisandre to the mix, so between her and the Queen of Thorns now hell-bent on revenge at any cost, there'll be no shortage of fire-and-death loving people around her.

[Samwell_Tarly]

4 hours ago, Cron said:

Very interesting.  Perhaps the word "wight" in ASOIAF has a much broader and looser definition than I suspected.

Perhaps to GRRM it means simply "someone who has been resurrected from the dead, whose body no longer functions as a normal human being."

Because beyond that, I see almost no similarities between (a) Jon and Beric and (b) the WW/Others' wights.  Most notably, their behavior is dramatically different.  The Ice Wights behave like classical zombies, slow, shuffling, not speaking, seemingly existing only to attack and kill the living, with, as near as I can tell, NO free will or independence of thought or personality of their own.  (Coldhands, I believe, is in some kind of semi-dead state).

Jon and Beric, on the other hand, behave like normal human beings in nearly all ways, and still fight FOR the living, even though they are "undead."

By the way, I would agree that Jon and Beric are "undead," but I never thought of them as wights before.

However, based on what you produced, I guess that in GRRM's world, Jon and Beric are "wights" of some kind.  Again, though, maybe to GRRM, the definition of that word merely means "someone raised from the dead, whose body no longer functions like a normal human being," which are things we already knew about Jon and Beric, and which I would concede are true of them.

Alot better explained than myself :-)

I agree that the Jon and Beric share no similarities with the wights that the White walkers resurrect, other than the fact they are all resurrected from the dead. They are both wights one by ice and one by fire but behave differently as they are needed for different reasons. The wights resurrected by the Night King are needed only to fight and nothing else.