Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KingMudd

  1. 5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

    There are laws during peace time, not so much when there is a civil war and parts of the realm are in open rebellion.

    Expecting a Crown you have rebelled against to punish people for fighting against you is odd.

    Well yeah, this is pretty frequent right? Had Robb been victorious I doubt there would have been any blowback on the Northern soldiers raping, pillaging and sacking settlements in the Riverlands. His men are likely given amnesty for most of the crap they were doing.  Laws tend to be ignored during wars.

    The Battle at the Twins will have no blowback, the Red Wedding inside may well do, breaking customs held dear by Religious institutions may see blowback whether the current Government likes it or not.

    Yeah I agree, you pretty much said the same as me, not sure why you seem to think we have differeing views.

  2. On 12/28/2018 at 4:24 AM, Dorian Martell's son said:

    He will accept that his mother and father are Lyanna and Rhaegar, But his dad has always been and always be Ned 

    I could see Ned saying to Jon "He may have been your father, boy. But he wasn't your daddy."

  3. On 6/13/2019 at 12:24 AM, Tyrion1991 said:


    The problem is that there isn’t a formal set of laws in Westeros. People just do whatever they want and the only firm rule is “trial by combat!!!!”. It’s quite farcical compared to actual medieval courts. Really, if Westeros is War of the Roses then you are getting well into the Renaissance.

    So you can’t say, well we’ll send some royal judges to arrest the Freys, take testimony, put them to a trial by jury and then sentence them to hang after a long duration. Just not as melodramatic as Uncat murdering them at a Wedding.

    There are laws and Ned Stark actually does exactly what you say can't happen. He sends Berric Dondarrion out to arrest Gregor Clegane to put him on trial. There's also Tyrions trials as well. Trial by combat is just another way of trying to prove innocence (which was actually real in Germanic law). People don't just "do whatever they want" you're cherry picking things to make your argument fit. The only reason the Freys got away with it was because it was sanctioned by Tywin and carried out against a rebel army.

  4. 8 minutes ago, Maia said:

    The mountain clans _are_ northeners. Northeners who didn't want to join the Stark kingdom and had to be conquered, subdued, and held docile via child hostages, who were sometimes executed, for a long time before they accepted the Kings of Winter as their overlords.

    Of course they did it to increase their power - to "steal" it from competitors. Nobody elected the Starks to rule the North - they conquered and massacred and murdered until their rule became uncontested. As did all the formerly royal Houses of Westeros.

    In the books, simple soldiers aren't taken prisoner after a battle - they either manage to run away after a defeat, or they are killed. Sometimes, they may be lucky enough to be able to change allegiance - but that's usually only something that mercenaries can get away with. If their lord bends the knee, they get spared with him. Robb was chivalric towards nobles and knights in the books - he didn't care about the commoners at all, except for the personnel of Winterfell.

    Did he take simple soldiers captive in the show? Even if he did, it was far from normal. He also did nothing to stop his own soldiers depredations on the allied Riverfolk, as, IIRC, was demonstrated via Brienne in the show.

    As to Tywin  he only stopped execution of civilians in the show, because he knew that he would be staying at Harrenhal for some time and needed servants. In the books, some folks, including Arya, were just rounded up and driven to Harrenhal for this purpose.  After the Battle of the Blackwater, all Stannis's nobles, who had been taken prisoner, were given the choice of swearing to Joffrey or dying. Only the R'llor fanatics among them chose the latter.


    This should have been the case for any winner, if the narrative remained somewhat realistic. There was no need to stoop to "kill them all!" insanity to show this. No effective leader can be a good person with clean hands - certainly not back in the Middle Ages and not even now.

    One of the things that distinguish the great Danish show "The Killing" (Forbrydelsen) from it's US copycat, is the brilliant depiction of the moral fall of a genuinely idealistic and promising politician, who has to compromise his principles again and again, in the attempt to win an election.

    And yet, what is the solution? Not to try at all?


    Well that's another example of Tyrion's abyssmal advice to Dany - it would have been far better for the citizens of KL, if she had taken the city with her unsullied immediately upon arrival, instead of using her Westerosi allies to do it. Unlike the Reach and Dornish troops, the Unsullied would not have sacked the city without an order. I mean, imagine the Dornish, with all that pent-up hate, being let loose on the KL! And the Reachmen wouldn't have been far behind.

    Also a "benevolent dictator" is somehow  very workable as long as it is a Stark, right? Queen Sansa? King Bran? Or Tyrion, even, if show Bran doesn't intend to truly rule.

    A lot of people expected it or wanted it to happen because:

    Dany was introduced as a member of the antagonist family, who were initially presented as complete villains. Yes, so was Tyrion, but from the very beginning he was shown to sympathise with various Starks and like them more than he did his own folks. Also, he is a man and we are used to men being anti-heroes and getting redemption arcs.

    Once people guessed Jon's identity, it became clear that Dany was his competitor as a claimant to the throne and as a prophecised hero. We are conditioned by hoary tropes to expect that in such as situation the man is the hero and the woman is the villain - Arthur vs Morgan, etc.

    Dany is a grey character - she is ambitious, she is ruthless. Given her circumstances, she couldn't have been anything else if she were to become significant. She believes in and takes solace in her birthright - so does everybody else among the noble PoVs, of course, but the Targaryens were introduced as justly deposed, so it is seen negatively. She has to deal with the fallout of her mistakes and negative consequences of her decisions - something that Jon, for instance, has nearly always been protected from by the narrative. She is a foreigner. She occasionally has visions - which is not a sign of insanity in that universe, but is in ours. Etc.

    Making her a villain was a really low-hanging fruit with some unpleasant implications - which is why some of us didn't think that  GRRM would go there.


    But that doesn't even make any sense in the show - his wondering. It seems to come from some parallel universe, where the characters are still the shades of grey, rather than St. Tyrion, St. Varys, St. Jon, weebo-martyr Cersei and Lucifer-Hitler Dany.

    Yes, it would have made vastly more sense for the situation to be such that Jon could legitimately wonder about his decision. In fact, the show ending relies so heavily on gaslighting, character inconsistency, reliance on the poor memory of the audience, etc., that one can almost hope that something more nuanced was envisioned at some point. 

    For instance, if Cersei remained the same character who was prepared to poison Tommen and herself while sitting on the Iron Throne in season 2, who blew up the sept in season 6 and easily got over Tommen's death, she would have planned for the ways to kill Dany even if the city surrendered.  The failed attempt on Dany after she accepted or was in the act of accepting the surrender would then have led to the sack, aggravated by the wildfire caches under the city. It also would have made Dany very angry, distrustful and hard-line, and a legitimate danger to Sansa and anybody who didn't fall in line immediately. She would have  blamed Tyrion - with some justification, because of his constant Cersei-stanning during the last 2 seasons, and would have been looking at execution. The things could have proceeded as they did from there, without violating any of the previously established characterizations.

    Oh, and Varys should have been treated as what he was in the show - as somebody who became so addicted to kingmaking, that he just couldn't stop until he found the perfect puppet. It was super-weird how early in the season 7 they expressly reminded the audience how he wanted to replace Robert with Viserys  with the help of Drogo's Dothraki (!), yet the show then proceeded to treat him as a saint who was genuinely all for the good of the realm. I don't remember - did the show also show that he was present when LF lied to Cat about the assassin's dagger?

    Just my opinion

  5. 7 hours ago, the Other Wolf said:

    "How will it all end? I hear people asking. The same ending as the show? Different? Well… yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes. And no. And yes."

    The same then. He says the same as the show? Different? Yes and no. So the same then. It'll be a bit different as there are more characters but the general outcome will be the same.

    I guess well see when he finishes it. 

  6. 14 minutes ago, the Other Wolf said:

    They are different stories. You clearly have NO clue. All GRRM has said in regards to it ending the same is who sits the iron throne.  I could then argue there is NO iron throne.  Or maybe Bran does. Either way, THEY ARE DIFFERENT, read them and you will know for yourself.  


    12 minutes ago, the Other Wolf said:


    GRRM said Arya kills the NK?

    There is No Night King!!! But they are the same...

    Yeah keep telling yourself that. I've read all the books he's released. GRRM has said the endings will be the same but whatever man I don't really care if you believe that or not.

  7. 4 hours ago, oggy1324 said:

    Hi I have a question regarding to the Faceless Men Company

    I have finished 5 books recently but still cannot figure out based on which condition do they accept to kill a person. So far I know that they don't kill for gold nor personal hatred. What I understand is they kill according to the prayers, if so then they accept every name from every prayer? 


    In A Game of Thrones during the small council meeting about assassinating Daenerys Grand Maester Pycell suggests hiring the faceless men to do it. Littlefinger then says it would cost twice the price of hiring an army. So they do kill for gold.

  8. On 9/15/2018 at 4:53 PM, Loose Bolt said:

    Actually any house controlling Harrenhall should be major player. At least one major town Harrentown, very fertile land, direct access to major lake, so they could have massive fishing fleet, they could control trade of Trident and collect custom revenues of that trade (naturally assuming that their superiors would allow that) and finally they are very close to largest city of Westeros. Or that area would have huge potential for trade. 

    In fact many masters of HH had been major players in the game of thrones and also payed the price with lives of theirs and their families.

    I was always under the impression that Harrenhal is so big that it's actually a burden to the current lord. If the Riverlands could find a very rich family to take on Harrenhal, restore it and use it to its fullest potential it would probably rival Kings Landing.

  9. 47 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

     I guess Ep6 may seem "good" if you have the ability to put your brain on standby for 1h30. After all, putting brains on standby is one of the goals of television. Except that GoT did exactly the opposite until the showrunners were left to their own devices.

    I see you have only quoted half of what I actually said, it was a good ending but needed more time.

    That's your opinion and I've stated my opinion. I didn't need to put my brain on standby to enjoy it. I saw the flaws and chose to just enjoy it for what it was. I don't see why you feel the need to tell me that my opinion is wrong and try to insult people who enjoyed the ending.

  10. 54 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

    Yeah. You had to do "a search", it says a lot. Without "a search" you had zero argument. How credible.

    As for her brother, you're talking about the guy who just threatened to tear her baby out of her belly with his sword, right? In a sacred place where no one is supposed to carry a weapon, right? She's not stupid, she knew that Viserys had just condemned himself to an atrocious death. Viserys, with whom she feels less and less connected because he is so vain…

    Um, that's how theories and facts are obtained. You have to search through the material. They found what they were looking for as well so it's quite credible.

    The hints are there even if you don't believe them. Just like the hints are there for Jon's parentage.

  11. 2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:


    Almost always prefaced with “I ve always hated Daenerys”. It’s never been a neutral theory and has been maintained by individuals who’ve resented the idea that the Starks or Baratheons wouldn’t be the central characters. 

    The people who wanted that ending, I know a close friend whose reaction to KL being burnt was “YES!”, have always wanted Danys story to amount to nothing and for her be a failure. They got their wish.

    It’s never been a sincere analysis of the themes involved with Danys storyline. It’s simply that people wanted Jon as King, Arya/Gendry, Tyrion or even Stannis on the throne. Nobody wanted Bran as King funnily enough. That'll go down like a wet fart; thanks George.

    This is why it’s a poor storyline. If you want to tell a fantasy version of the Dark Phoenix saga and for this to be a cult tragedy people will remember for years you have manifestly failed at that task if a sizeable chunk of your readers hate the character and wanted her to implode from the beginning. Most of those people would have looked the other way had Stannis put a city to the fire; none of them remotely care about the good people of KL. 


    I don't mind Daenerys as a character. I enjoyed her the most after Drogo died and and the dragons were still young and small. 

    I'm of the opinion if it's a good story then I don't mind what happens. I have my favourite characters but don't mind if they turn out evil or die off because that's the story that GRRM wants to tell. 

    It's your opinion that it's a poor storyline. I'm guessing there are many people who think the opposite and that's fine. If you're only in it for a select few characters then you are going to be angry and upset like you when something you don't like happens to them. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's a bad story.

  12. The fact that quite a lot of readers have theorised that Daenerys will become the villain and go "mad" means that the signs have been there all along. I like that she becomes a villian in the end and Jon is left wondering if he has done the right thing by killing her. I read something I like on here that basically said Jon brought everyone together to stop ICE (the army of the dead) and then stopped FIRE (by killing Daenerys) and I think that's a good way to end it.

  13. 7 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

    The peak of Jon’s idiocy was when he killed Dany, went to Grey Worm and surrendered because "honour". Why not just tip toe out of there?

    Because that's not him. What Jon done was completely in character and it's what he would have done all throguhout the series. It's the same reason Ned had for warning Cersei that he was going to tell Robert about the incest and it's the same reason Robb had for beheading Rickard Karstark. All three could have just not bothered but thier honour made them do it.

  14. No. The books are still great. I do believe the ending will be generally the same. The show ending was good and just needed more time to flesh it out a bit which won't be a problem for the books. I'm not a huge fan of Bran as King but it's not that bad.

    The show was awesome untill season 5 and after that it was still a great show, just not as good as it had been. I'll still rewatch the show because I still love it and I'll re-read the books and continue to wait for TWoW and ADoS to see how GRRM ends it himself.

  15. 7 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

    I am thinking about getting one at a time and not the box set. I don't think I would read them if I had all 5. They would end up being decoration for real. 


    That's what I done. Had A Game of Thrones for a while, read it and then bought A Clash of Kings and read that, and so on. It means you can read other stuff in between if you get burnt out. I think if I had all the book before reading them it would make me think I have to read them all one after the other.

  16. 10 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

    It had nothing to do with Bobby B killing him and everything to do with Ned attempting to end the Targaryens. The Starks lying to Jon was in their interests as it prevented him from doing the only thing any remotely driven individual would have done: attempt to reclaim the throne. It's clear everyone is manipulating Jon during this season, as you pointed out Sansa couldn't keep the secret because it benefited her to attempt to cause disunity. Dany wasn't asking Jon to do something that wasn't forced on him his whole life by someone else already, her actions were far less evil than Neds as they weren't revolving around attempting to kill off half of Jons heritage.

    We obviously have fundamentally different ideals so I don't think we will come to a resolution in this discussion. 

    You have completely misunderstood Ned as a character. Ned loved Jon as much as his own children. He didn't want another war and wanted to protect Jon. He couldn't care less about ending the Targaryens becasue if he did he would have been on board with what Tywin done to Aegon and Rhaenys and he would have been fine with assassinating Daenerys. Throughout the time we see Ned he has given us no reason to think he wanted the Targaryens extinct. You are completely making this up to fit your own view.

  17. On 5/25/2019 at 11:06 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

    At the war council in episode 4 the agreed upon plan was that the allies would bottle Cersei up in Kings Landing with a conventional medieval siege. With the idea that the people would eventually turn on her. This, unsurprisingly, being Jons bright idea.

    However Jon has no reason to believe this will succeed. The riots in KL didn’t overthrow the almost non existent garrison of the city. Now, it has the GC, Ironborn and presumably the entirety of Tywins army; more than enough to discourage any uprising by unarmed civilians.

    This would likely create a situation similar to what happens to Astapor in the books. A million people who would die slowly of starvation and disease. Hunger weakens people to sickness and it would kill the elderly and the children first. Food would go to Cersei’s army and the people would starve.

    Even IF a general revolt happened it would still involve horrendous blood letting. Unarmed civilians against tens of thousands of armed soldiers. They would likely be strong enough to crush any sporadic uprising.

    He is risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people here; if not the entire city. Yet it’s presented as the good guy solution compared to a direct assault to end the siege quickly. 

    I find it really disappointing that the series prided itself on being morally grey and grounded but now hand waves the implications of “the good man” and his actions. I am sure Machiavelli had sieges in mind when he wrote the Prince and Jon is using fear here to get what he wants. 

    So Jon is being a hypocrite since his actions would have led to women and children starving to death and dying of disease in droves. Far more than if Dany had just destroyed the defences and not snapped. 

    But I doubt they would have had Jon enter the city and see all the babies whose mothers had smothered them rather than see them starve during the siege? We can’t be having that now can we?

    We get it, you hate the character Jon. You can stop creating pretty much the same thread over and over again.

  18. 47 minutes ago, Suzanna Stormborn said:

    For the money spent/production value of this show. it is easily the worst finale ever, episodes of Robot Chicken are 1000x better. GOT final Season had terrible writing, no plot, no sense at all. #worstshowever

    I disagree. I have seen worse finales and shows that are a hell of a lot worse that Game of Thrones.