Jump to content

RFL

Members
  • Content count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RFL

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Cerseis blowing of the Sept is ignored because it was so long ago. We "got over it". Had there been a few more episodes we would have gotten over the shock of the destruction of kings landing. Really it was the shock that provided the controversy.
  2. RFL

    How would you have ended it?

    Not my idea entirely but going back to the execution of the Tully men. First Cersei would have already instituted trial by combat. The Tullys would have demanded it from Dany and the line (not my line) “Fire is the champion of house Targaryen would have been uttered”. Kings Landinv would be utterly destroyed and no longer fit as a capital. Jon would have been accused of treason for telling his lineage. He would demand trial by combat and the same line uttered but Drogon would have torched her. Some explanation is to why she is no longer the unburnt (Lisa of innocence?) from Brann. Jon is offered the iron throne, declares he does not want it, and begins to leave. We see various people moving towards it but Drogon torches it and then flies off. Jon declares himself done as a piece in the game of thrones, notes that it can only harm people, and leaves for the north. Our parting shot plays the opening music but we see seven independent kingdoms with major players wearing crowns We are shown Brann in a cave somewhere with roots forming around his feet
  3. Killing nobles, previously granted guest right, is far different then killing half a million peasants in flea bottom. At least in Westeros.
  4. RFL

    Was Sansa aiming for Jon?

    He doesn’t care for his well being. He gave Melisandre explicit instructions not to resurrect him again prior to the Battle of the Bastards. That was before Rickon died in his arms and before he “had” to kill Dany
  5. The destruction of Kings Landing was not out of character for Dany. She would have done similar sooner except for her advisors and she did in the case of Vaes Dothrak. We just allow ourselves to believe “they had it coming”. It wasn’t even, as others have successfully argued, out of the norm in regards to military tactics of the day it’s just dragons are MUCH more efficient than trebuchets. But, partly because of how it was shown to us, we reacted to it differently. Aside from the breaking the wheel speech Danys actions were entirely in character. If it was madness it was madness that existed for most of her story arc.
  6. RFL

    The Perils of a Reluctant King

    When Jon was Lord Commander he was so bad at it he was killed in mutiny. Even Lord Mormont was. Now we can say what we want about who makes up the nights watch but they were far better than the Lannisters and Tyrells. Outside of the north Jon would not last any longer than Dany as monarch.
  7. We said earlier that the Tully’s should have demanded trial by combat. Dany should have uttered “Fire is the champion of house Targaryen” and burned them (not my suggestion on the line but perfect). What if Dany accused Jon of treason, given him trial by combat, uttered those same words, and had Drogon destroy her. Of course I’m forgetting the I burnt thing.
  8. Why necessarily Jorah. More telling if we had more indication of dragons smarter than men. She commands Drogon to destroy Jon but he turns between them and destroys her instead. Especially if there had been more scenes of understanding between Jon and Drogon
  9. RFL

    Was Sansa aiming for Jon?

    I’ll give you she may not have survived after. That is a point. Even then if he balances all the lives in KL against one he is far from neutral.
  10. RFL

    Was Sansa aiming for Jon?

    Wouldn’t asking Arya to kill Dany, after sending her out to kill the Nights King, been far more efficient in terms of human life?
  11. Dany seemed to know you could rule through love or through fear. I am not certain she was good at combining the two and not making it all or nothing. Of course her crucifixion of the masters while being loved by some of the people could argue she was. Ultimately though she wanted the people to love her, at least until episode 5 when betrayal was all around her and Jon pulled away. "Fear it is" Had she continued on that theory, having believed Jon betrayed her, she would have been fine because there is no way a fully armed Jon approaches her alone in that throne room. But she wavered back to a need to be loved. Love is what gave her ambition. Where would she had been if she had never loved Drogo and had been left a life living as his property? But Drogo loved her and promised her the world, she bought into the prophecies of the stallion that would mount the world, and she dreamed. Her conquest in hand (she was going to take Kings Landing) she felt no one loved her (her advisers were turning on her, Messindai and Jorah were dead, and Jon had turned from her and betrayed her by telling her secret). She was ready to rule through fear. She might have been successful. Jon killing her, someone who was able to create the fear in the nobility that would temporarily pause the wheel with her at top, likely created chaos in the realm and ultimately a breaking of the remaining kingdoms because no one has enough power or influence to hold it together.
  12. I think there can be an argument that Dany was a net loss to Jon in the battle of Winterfell against the Night King. I'm not certain its a correct argument but I think it can be a compelling argument. Dany did hand over the Night King a dragon. Without that dragon its conceivable the fight is at the wall rather than in Winterfell but that is hypothetical. The Dothraki charge did not gain anything The Unsullied did not gain anything. Remember the Night King ended up re-animating not just his own dead but also all the other fallen. I think this might be a key point to. If your enemy can reanimate the dead (over and over) bringing him more potential bodies to reanimate is a bad idea. Recall that this was part of Jon's reasoning for sailing to Hard Home. The dragons did not seem to do anything in that battle because they were too busy looking for the Night King and his dragon so let's call that at best a wash (though the Night King having a dragon to use on the wall definitely was useful to him).
  13. The list of Jon's successes, especially successes in leadership, is pretty short. One could argue that Tormund and the wildings are so easy to take him as a figurehead because he really lacks the capability to be more. We complain about Dany not listening to her advisors. What of Jon? Letting the wildings through the wall, going to Hard Home, seeking Dany for help... time an time we are shown where he disregards the advise of those around him. By the way the whole going to Dany for help? What did it gain him. An ice-dragon as an enemy capable of tearing down the wall.
  14. 13 in the book. The show has it (according to a Quora article I read) 17 years since Roberts Rebellion so there is a noticeable age difference.
  15. RFL

    Why Did the Show Turn on Jon?

    And who confirmed and then insisted that Jon be told about it? This is why I reject the idea of a neutral Brann who just happened to fall into the throne
×