Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aeverett

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because people kill and enslave with swords, doesn't justify doing the same with dragons. Both are evil, but dragons are solely accessible to those with special blood, which leaves those possessing such blood effectively unaccountable for their actions. A man or woman who murders or enslaves with a sword can be made to answer for their crimes far more easily.
  2. Yes, Tywin is meticulous, but I believe he fail in being precise enough, that it was an oversight rather than intentional. But he learned. He was far more precise come the Wot5K.
  3. Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were going all R'hllor / Great Other on me with your previous statements, basically crediting a deity or intelligent designer for all of Westeros' woes.
  4. Magic doesn't necessarily wake the White Walkers (mixed my media with the books and shows, mea culpa). Think of it like a person kept unconscious with sedatives. Remove the sedatives, or dilute them to the point where they can't do their job, and the person wakes up. The magic of the Wall kept the White Walkers asleep. Weaken it enough and they wake.
  5. While I agree it's a dragon and egg problem, which came first, the death of dragons or the decline of magic, the reason for these swings in magic remain unclear. Yes the Doom of Valyria may have been the cause, but what if the Doom was a result of magical decline? Still, whatever caused the decline of magic, the Wall's magic would follow with all the other magics, allowing the Night King to waken and set up shop in the Land of Always Winter. Oh no, now I've had a really dark thought. What if the reason the Free Folk are on the northern side of the wall was as a blood sacrifice to the Others? They weren't just on the wrong side of the wall, they were put there to be slaughtered when magic got too weak and the Night King rose again in order to generate enough blood magic, via their deaths and resurrection as wights, to jumpstart magic in the world because those who built the Wall had a vested interest in preventing magic from disappearing from Planetos.
  6. To what purpose? And why are the 7 Kingdoms so special that they have to be unified through forces outside their own will? What's more, there appeared to be too much free will in Beric Dondarrion for him to merely be a tool of a flame. Mellissandre makes too many mistakes. Seriously, the flame that you've given intelligence and intent to looks like a major screw up if its goal is unification without regards to human interests like who stays on what side of what wall or who sits the Iron Throne, or who's god is worshiped where, etc.
  7. I was thinking about what could have woken the White Walkers, and I had an idea. We know from various sources (Quaithe, the acolytes at the Citadel, the Pyromancer in Kings Landing, etc.) that when dragons left the world, magic declined, making it impossible for glass candles to be lit and much harder for those trained in magic to use it. What if this wasn't merely a problem for those using fire magic, but all magic. If so, then the Wall's spells might gave been slowly weakening over the century and a half since the last dragon died. What if one of the Wall's functions was to keep the White Walkers asleep. When the magic weakened, the Walkers woke up, and started killing people, effectively creating blood sacrifices everywhere they went. Each death increased the well of global magic until it grew large enough to power the hatching of dragons eggs. The dragons created more magic, as they kill more people, etc. I've stated in other posts that in the World of Ice and Fire that magic could be an added layer of nature that doesn't exist in our world. As such, it would follow certain natural laws particular to that world. If so, then the Citadel's supposed goal (according to Marwyn) of ridding the World of Ice and Fire of magic is a fool's errand. It would be like ridding our world of gravity, expecting to live without it. This would also mean that Euron Greyjoy isn't some outlier, performing some magical ritual rather than participating in the game of thrones, but he's playing to win the game of thrones by making such a massive blood sacrifice that he controls the game permanently.
  8. Renly. People, both highborn and low, wanted him as their king. He could compromise where Stannis wouldn't. He wasn't some ascetic who'd kick all the prostitutes out of Kings Landing and try to force a foreign religion onto his people. Renly would likely have worked out a deal with Robb, something akin to what Dorne traditionally had, where the North would be effectively independent while still nominally part of the Seven Kingdoms. He also would have accepted that the Lannisters were a part of life in Westeros. He'd remove them from power and have Cersei and Joffrey executed for treason, but he'd negotiate to have Tommen, and Myrcella, and possibly Tyrion, kept as hostages at Storm's End rather than killed, for the right price (Robert's debts wiped or at least the Lannister portion of them). Renly wanted peace and a return to normal, minus Lannister influence, and he'd be willing to horse-trade a hugely beneficial deal behind the scenes with Tywin once he had all the other Kingdoms on his side. Getting the Lannisters out of Westeros all together, taking Casterly Rock from them, would take years longer, both in fighting and siege, and cost countless more lives; better to beat them down and make a point the way Robert once did with the Greyjoys after their rebellion. Once Tywin saw Renly as having the entire realm on his side, save the Westerlands (and possibly the Iron Islands), he'd bend the knee, accept his losses, and move forward. Once the peace was negotiated, Tywin's primary goal would be getting Jaime to safety and under his own control (if Jaime was still alive). If paying off the crown's debts and higher taxes until the Iron Bank, the Tyroshi cartels, and the Faith were paid off was the price of that, he'd swallow his ego and go along. Even if Jaime was killed Tywin would grieve and then begin the task of rebuilding. He'd take a keener interest in controlling the lives of his siblings and their children, likely remarry despite his distaste for the idea, and set his attention to ensuring he lives long enough to raise family #2 better than family #1. Tywin would see the fight to regain power as a fight for the next generation, with his war being against time in order to prepare them. Thus Renly would be king and the realm would lick its wounds, at least until the Night's Watch found a way to convince people of the threat of the dead. However, Renly, through his flexibility and his lack of great conviction beyond removing the Lannisters from power and becoming king, would have kept far more people alive to fight the dead once he was convinced of the threat. Ultimately, that was the most important thing.
  9. I never said Tywin wasn't culpable for the Mountain raping and killing Elia, only that I believe he didn't order it. I'm 100% certain he ordered Rhaenys and baby Aegon's deaths. That was totally in keeping with Tywin. Indeed, I'm also of the opinion that it was Tywin who sent assassins after Viserys and Dany after they left the House with the Red Door, not Robert, as Jon Arryn had him on a leash when it came to killing children during those years. That said, I think we've gone around and around on this. We both see the situation differently. We should just agree to disagree.
  10. If Ned had been the one to reveal the truth to Robert, knowing Robert's temper, then yes it would have been Ned's fault. To say other wise removes Robert's agency. Once told, Robert would have a choice to make. Ned knows his BFF well enough to know what choice he'd make. So if things had gone down where Robert had lived and been told BY NED, then yes, Ned would be responsible.
  11. No, he didn't pay enough attention to his orders regarding Elia. He was hyper-focused on killing Rhaegar's children to prevent any threats to the future children of Robert and Cersei that he overlooked Elia, likely ordering her brought to him or Robert. He forgot to add 'alive'. It was an oversight he paid for in loosing a potential bargaining chip with the Dornish.
  12. Ned was playing the game of thrones, even if it wasn't in his uppermost thoughts at the time he was doing it. He was trying to right the succession and protect his BFF's legacy. However, doing that required he put 3 children's lives in serious danger. His duty and his place in the game was in conflict with his morality. So he tried to thread the needle, to get Cersei to solve his problem for him by taking the children far away. He told Cersei to run because it would make his life easier, allow him to secure his BFF's throne and disempower people he viewed as dishonorable. That's the game of thrones. The truly moral choice would have been not to threaten the lives of three children, to give up the game, grab his daughters and household staff, and head back to Winterfell. I never said Ned's choices were easy or that they weren't necessary, only that they weren't based in morality and that they were hypocritical. And Ned's telling Robert he was exaggerating was meant to calm his friend's anxiety about a looming threat. To put it in a modern context, he was patting Robert on the head and saying 'There, there, everything will work out. You can't know the future. Joffrey's still a boy'. Ned wanted to believe this because the alternative was to admit that the heir to the throne was a dangerous psycho, at that point he believed a trueborn dangerous psycho, but a psycho none the less. And no, finding a moral solution wouldn't have been utopic. If he'd failed to warn Cersei that he knew, grabbed his household, and headed to Stannis, he could have brokered for the lives of Cersei's kids. Tywin is a realist. When confronted with all the other kingdoms united against Joffrey, he'd sue for peace to protect his house. When faced with the potential annihilation of that house he'd cut his losses. His only real demand would be Jaime being exiled rather than killed. Jaime could marry and father heirs to Casterly Rock just as well in Lys as he could in Westeros, and Tywin would have a new generation to sculpt into the Lannisters he'd wanted Jaime and Cersei to be. He'd insist on keeping Jaime safe because in his eyes, Jaime was his heir and without heirs, House Lannister would die off anyway. With Jaime executed there would be no reason not to go down fighting, burning half of Westeros in his wake before House Lannister died off. Ned could have gone this route, but that was the hard path. Threatening Cersei was easier. Jon would have been just as safe in Ibben, the Summer Isles, or the Free Cities, but Ned wanted the option of keeping his home and his family. He betrayed Robert by protecting Jon, put Robert's throne at risk. Pretending that Jon was his own bastard wouldn't protect Jon from shit Robert ever found out the truth, any more than Cersei's kids would be protected. Yet a hard life of exile is good enough for Cersei Lannister and her offspring, but not good enough for Ned Stark and his nephew. That's hypocrisy and game of thrones playing. As for Tyrion and Tysha. Yes, Tywin did need to punish Tyrion and Tysha, and in his eyes, gangrape was the right way to get his point across. It's twisted, true, but in the brutal, morally messed up power politics of Westeros, Tywin saw it as necessary to retain his family's reputation, power, and survival. The definition of petty requires small-mindedness or spitefulness, and thus is antithetical to a well thought out strategy, devoid of deeper emotion. Tywin had Tysha gangraped because he believed it would hurt Tyrion enough to force him to change his ways. Tysha had reached beyond her grasp in knowingly marrying a Lannister. To fail to punish Tyrion was to invite mockery of their house and that mockery could lead to a loss of position in the realm. By using such brutal means of punishing his own blood, he was reinforcing his reputation and thus the implicit threat in defying him, which is what much of his power in the realm is based on. That's not petty. Evil, yes, but not petty.
  13. Firstly, Ned had options with Jon too. Why didn't he run away with Jon to the Port of Ibben or the Summer Isles or the Free Cities as he suggests Cersei do? You think this confrontation with Cersei was some benevolence on his part, not a means of sopping his conscience about putting 3 kids at risk, but if exile is so great, why didn't he do that with Jon? Remember, Robb was already alive and protected by Hoster Tully, and Benjen hadn't yet joined the Night's Watch. That meant Winterfell had male heirs. No, Ned wasn't all that concerned about Robert's honor or his throne when it was Jon's life on the line (being a bastard would have meant nothing to Robert, Jon, if R+L=J is true, still makes Jon Rhaegar's biological son and Robert's enemy), but all of a sudden these things become important when Cersei's kids are bastards. Ned didn't mind getting away without consequences for deceiving Robert about Jon, why should he suddenly care so much about Cersei's deception? Face it. Ned was playing the game of thrones. He lost. And yes, Ned knew of Joffrey's temperament. He'd had to put down Lady for it. He'd witnessed some of it and Robert had told him that he'd run off to the Free Cities and become a sellsword if he didn't fear Joffrey on the Iron Throne. Yes, Ned had a hard road head of him regardless of what he did, and his choice was understandable, but understandable and MORAL are not the same thing. The moral choice would have been not to place 3 childrens' lives in danger and work to find a peaceful solution where Joffrey was denied the throne, but not his life or the lives of his siblings. Perhaps he could have used his influence, once safe with Stannis, to get the other Kingdoms behind Stannis. Renly would see which way the wind was blowing and bend the knee under those circumstances, and with him the Reach. Once it became clear that only the Westerlands would back Tywin, he would have sued for peace. The kids would have been declared bastards and sent back to Casterly Rock. So long as he got Jaime back alive and removed from the King's guard, Tywin would have bent the knee to Stannis, and Ned could have worked to get Stannis to accept not being able to punish Jaime beyond exile as the price for a peaceful, and less indebted (Tywin would have had to forgive the loans he gave Robert as part of the deal), realm. Stannis would not have gone after Cersei and Jamie's kids if they accepted their bastardy and bent the knee. He's too much of a legalist for that, and being a bastard born of incest isn't a crime in and of itself in Westeros. As for Tywin's feeling on Elia, you're right that w e can't know, but there is no evidence that he had anything against her, certainly nothing that would see him order her raped and murdered. And yes, from the Westerosi point of view, Tyrion did 'do wrong' in marrying Tysha, as did Tysha. To you and I there was nothing improper, but Tywin needed to punish Tyrion, and Tysha, and having Tysha gangraped was his method of doing so. It was a means to an end, getting Tyrion to stop humiliating House Lannister as much as possible. That's not petty in Westeros, especially when your family has such a high position in the realm. Same thing with Masha Heddle, Chitaya's daughter, Tytos' mistress, etc. From Tywin's point of view, that's survival, while holding onto power. Tytos' failures had taught Tywin how fragile a house's reputation could be, and Tyrion's existence was already a threat to that reputation, yet Tyrion kept throwing fuel on the fire, sticking out and refusing to behave by Tywin's point of view. I'm not justifying Tywin's actions, only proving that Tywin saw them as imperative and gave them thought. They were not petty or driven by instability. If anything, they were sociopathic, driven by too much reason coupled with too little empathy.
  14. Firstly, Cersei's bad actions are irrelevant in determining the morality of Ned's decision to expose her children's paternity and in doing so, almost certainly signing their death warrant. Morality isn't about what others do. It's about what you do when faced with a tough choice. Ned's writing Stannis was the same as telling Robert as, had Robert lived, Stannis would have told Robert. My point about Tyrion was that Ned knew what it was like to be an uncle who'd loose a beloved nephew if Robert discovered their true parentage. He wanted HIS nephew protected, but wasn't willing to protect Tyrion's, or his niece either if it made his BFF look bad. What's more, Ned knowing Joffrey is a sadist doesn't mean Ned had to expose the children's paternity to Robert. Robert was well aware of Joffrey's personality disorder, and if Robert had lived, Ned could have stayed on, helped him in guiding Joffrey, or at least attempted to. He could have given Robert a kick in the pants about his bad parenting and letting Cersei control his heir. He never did that. If Robert died, Ned could have told Stannis but urged peace with the Lannisters. Joffrey and the kids would be spared, but loose any right to the throne. Stannis is rigid, and he'd demand Cersei and Jaime's heads. However, he wouldn't murder innocent children if they bent the knee and a peaceful solution could be found to get him his rightful throne. As to the issue of Elia Martell's death. Tywin had no beef with Elia. She was a woman who did what she was told to by her older, male relatives, and thus didn't do anything 'wrong' in Tywin's eyes. Her children were the threat, not her, so killing her would have been unnecessary. Tyrion did do wrong. He married a common girl. Tywin had to punish him. Tywin isn't as petty as you'd like to make him out to be. The Mountain is. As for Tywin not seeing Elia as a bargaining chip, that's BS. Yes, Tywin killed her children, but she was still useful in keeping her brothers at heel. Just because Tywin has no genuine feelings for his own relatives, outside of shame and disgust in regards to Tyrion, doesn't mean he can't recognize the bonds between family members in other people. Tywin knew Oberyn, and likely Dorran, loved their sister. They'd be pissed at their niece and nephew's deaths, but if the Lannister's had Elia hostage, they'd likely be kept in check. We know for a fact that Tywin told the Mountain and Amory Lorch to kill the Targaryen children. He likely failed to mention Elia, assuming the Mountain would just bring her to him after the fact. The Mountain didn't.
  15. Exactly. Tywin had people killed for specific reasons, not because he enjoyed killing. For this reason, I don't think he ordered Elia raped or murdered. She made a far better bargaining chip alive. Her killing, and especially her rape, sounds far more like the Mountain's choice. Yes, you could argue that Tywin should have been held accountable for the Mountains actions, as he was carrying out the hit on little Rhaenys and baby Aegon at the time it happened, but saying he ordered Elia raped or murdered is unfair as we have no proof and it seems out of character for Tywin.
  • Create New...