Jump to content

UnFit Finlay

Members
  • Content count

    496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About UnFit Finlay

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

896 profile views
  1. One thing we know about Tywin is that he was a very very proud man. He'd have happily served Robert, if Robert had asked. He wasn't going to beg or scheme for a position though. Particularly since only "lesser" positions" were available. Plus I'm certain he knew what kind of King Robert would be, that Robert would delight in humiliating him at every opportunity and that Tywin would have absolutely no option but to suffer it. I mean, really, what could he do? Robert was the only ally he had at that point, and really the only person keeping House Lannister from being destroyed. It was far smarter to just keep out of the way. Cersei didn't know about it at that point. When Boros threatens to go to her during the confrontation, Tyrion calls his bluff and asks Joffrey if they should send for her. Joff flushes and says nothing. He clearly didn't want her to find out. Cersei was also the one who told him not to beat her, which is why he gets his Kingsguard to do it in the first place. But, yes, I agree. Joffrey was just a bully and an abuser. How can he have wanted to "send a message to the realm" if he didn't even want his Mother to find out? Then there's all the other abuse, most of which was private, and the threats after the war was won. Where was the political message in cheerfully telling her was going to rape her?
  2. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    I disagree. If anything you've got it backwards. He came North to protect the Realm. The Northern Houses supporting him is a by product of that. After all, all but one of the Northern Houses originally rebuffed him and he continued to fight I think his priorities are made clear when he says this to Jon. Also, as irritated as he's been with the Night's Watch's procedures and traditions, he has allowed them to carry them out, when he could simply have seized control. He might not respect those traditions but that does not mean he doesn't respect the institution and the men that are there. He also moans that Robert didn't "at the very least" send Jaime to the Wall for killing Aerys which suggests he does see it as an appropriate form of punishment. I don't know about that. It's possible that Myrcella could be a problem but, by joining the Night's Watch, Tommen is renouncing all his claims and swearing to never have children. If he escapes, and not released from his vows as Stannis and Robb intended for Jon, then he's an oathbreaker whose life is forfeit. The kids he swore never to have can't turn up and demand the birthright that he's already forfeited. It would be like Benjen Stark declaring himself Lord of Winterfell.
  3. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    There is this from Davos IV in Storm. It definitely reads like he's planning to have them killed. Saying (once) isn't doing, of course. And there is a huge difference between the "abominations" whose existence mocks his brother, and who have effectively usurped Stannis' Throne, and the trueborn baby of a Lord he merely dislikes. It is a valid point even if I still don't believe he'd kill Walda and her child.
  4. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    You said that Stannis was going to burn Edric JUST because Melisandre asked him to. That is blatantly false. There was a ton of factors going on at that time. The most important of which, as I and others have said numerous times, is because it seemed like the only possible way to save the realm. You may ignore that if you choose. No I didn't. Hell, I'll just copy and paste what I just wrote "I used examples of Stannis' extreme views on justice as evidence that he wouldn't murder a baby that is innocent of any crime. Has Randyll ever mutilated a man who saved his life? Would Randyll ever Knight someone as lowborn as a smuggler? Or spare someone like Asha Greyjoy? Christ, Randyll threatened to kill his son because he was fat and liked to read, while Stannis fully intends for Shireen to take the Throne after him." You said "every noble" punishes criminals. Tywin is a noble and yet he chose not to punish criminals who were useful to him. I very much doubt he is alone there. We know, for example, that Stannis wanted Janos Slynt punished for his corruption but Robert merely laughed it off. Hell even Jeor Mormont let the Night's Watch away with a little oathbreaking in Moles Town. I really can't see Stannis doing that. Are you seriously going to edit out my entire point except for two words and then pretend you're responding to it? Really? Stannis demanded fealty from the North and was rebuffed by almost all of them yet he's fighting their battles anyway. The Northerners who are with him are there because he asked them to help him against *their* enemies, not because he demanded it, and there are at least two Houses who have sworn fealty to him without his knowledge. He isn't fighting the Iron Born or the Boltons to win the support of the North. They are supporting him because he's fighting the Iron Born and the Boltons. This is completely against your argument that he needs to kill kids to win the North to his cause. As I said previously, if he defeats their enemies they aren't going to go "Not enough. Kill the kids too!" Perhaps. Not by Stannis' hand though. There is nothing in his character to suggest that he'd murder an innocent child solely for the crimes of it's father. Nothing at all.
  5. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    Not the point. There is no evidence that Stannis is afraid of anyone's unborn children. If there was then why hasn't he wiped out the Houses of anyone he's ever crossed? You know, in case their children come for revenge? Well that's just blatantly false. Melisandre and Selyse were begging him burn Edric for ages and he rebuffed them every single time. It was, as I've said, only when all hope looked lost and it appeared to be the only way to save the Realm that he even considered it. At which point Davos removed the option before Stannis could even make the decision. This was blatant treason on Davos part, yet Stannis hasn't punished him for it. Because he realises that it was the right thing to do. It's an entirely different scenario to what you're proposing - That he's a coward and monster who'll kill infants for no real benefit - You may ignore that as much as you like. Actually I didn't and I'd thank you not to twist my words. Thanks. I used examples of Stannis' extreme views on justice as evidence that he wouldn't murder a baby that is innocent of any crime. Has Randyll ever mutilated a man who saved his life? Would Randyll ever Knight someone as lowborn as a smuggler? Or spare someone like Asha Greyjoy? Christ, Randyll disinherited his son because he was fat and liked to read, while Stannis fully intends for Shireen to take the Throne after him. Your point about every noble punishing criminals in their realm is irrelevant as well. The point is that Stannis has gelded his own men at a time of war. Those men have given up everything to fight for his cause and he had them gelded for crimes against the enemy. Because it was the right thing to do. That is not something that every Noble does. Case in point, Tywin Lannister. He knew full well what the Mountain did and, yet, I seem to have missed any reference to him being gelded? In fact he kept him (and the Brave Companions) around specifically to rape and murder innocent people when required. Is he? So far as I've seen all the Northern Houses have sworn themselves to him willingly. He hasn't said "I'll get rid of the Boltons and the Iron Born if you swear fealty to me". He's said "I'll get rid of the Boltons. Will you help me?" He certainly returned Deepwood Motte without any promises of fealty from it's Lord because no one knows where Galbert is. For absolutely no reason. As @The Weirwoods Eyes said in her excellent post earlier. Exterminating an entire House, children and all, is something that rarely happens in Westeros. In fact I can only think of two times that it's happened in recent memory - Tywin wiping out the Reynes and Tarbecks and Aerys exterminating almost all of House Hollard. I think we can all agree that Stannis isn't the Mad King.
  6. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    Is anyone suggesting that he is? Stannis not being a boy scout doesn't make him a monster and he has shown numerous times that he will not compromise his values to please others, which is essentially what you are arguing.
  7. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    Is there any indication in the series that Stannis is the type of guy to be scared of an infant? And Stannis absolutely did change his mind. He was originally completely against the idea. It was only when he was at his absolute lowest point, when it seemed like the only option left to him that he began to consider it. That hardly means that he'll execute any kid, out of hand, just because someone asks him to. Randyll isn't Stannis. Case in point. Randyll is disgusted with Brienne, who is innocent. Stannis, meanwhile, continues to protect Asha, despite her being an enemy combatant, and despite pressure from his men to execute her. Actually here's a better example - Randyll quickly attacked House Florent when they jumped to Stannis after Renly's death. Stannis, on the other hand, refused to attack Claw Isle when Lord Celtigar bent the knee to Joffrey, because he considered it "evil". In fact it was Davos objection to that plan that convinced Stannis to make him Hand of the King. Again, despite the pressure from pretty much everyone else. Even Davos himself objected to that decision. Stannis does what Stannis does though. Murdering women and children isn't vengeance. The Northmen aren't fighting for Stannis' cause either. He's fighting for theirs. He and his men gave up their lands in the South to protect the Wall. He restored the Glovers to Deepwood Motte, despite pressure from his own men, and is now fighting to free Winterfell from the Boltons. If he manages to defeat the Boltons and restore the Starks, do you seriously think the Northerners are going to go "Not enough. Kill the kids too!"? As for why he'd want to murder Robb's relatives. He wouldn't. That's my point. He's not the kind of guy to punish innocent people for the crimes of others, which is what are you are suggesting. He considered Robb a traitor but he's fighting for his people, because it's the right thing to do. He's not going to murder a baby just because of who it's father is.
  8. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    Nope. The man who briefly considered sacrificing his nephew, after much protest, and when it appeared to be his only hope to save the realm would absolutely have a problem with killing children just for the sake of it. The guy gelds his own men for rape and even mutilated the man who saved his life for his prior crimes. That's not a man who is going to execute innocent kids just because someone asked him to. Aside from that Robb was just as much a traitor to Stannis as Roose is. Do you think he's going to wipe out the Starks too? Or do you seriously imagine that Stannis Barathon is going to commit an atrocity so the Northerners will like him? That's what I'm saying. If the Northerners had the attitude that "All Traitors must be killed. Including the innocent children" then House Bolton wouldn't have been around even for Aegon's Landing. Is it even really that common in Westeros anyway? I'd imagine it isn't or Tywin doing it to the Reynes and the Tarbecks wouldn't have been such a big deal.
  9. UnFit Finlay

    Fat Walda's Future

    What? Are you suggesting that Stannis - the guy who has a ridiculous sense of justice - would execute children? Including a new born baby? That's not my read on the character in the slightest. Again I don't see the Northerners openly calling for the execution of an innocent child. Frankly, if they had that sort of attitude then House Bolton would've been extinct centuries before.
  10. UnFit Finlay

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    Agreed. We're miles off topic now but this has actually made me wonder whether that was the first time that Pycelle betrayed Aerys. If you search a World of Ice and Fire for him, almost all the results are related to Tywin. He's also a key source of information about how Aerys felt about Tywin. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd been giving Tywin information all along. For example, we know that Aerys was paranoid about the Harrenhal tourney, and thought it was an excuse for his enemies to conspire against him. Pretty much the only major Lord not to attend was Tywin. In hindsight, it seems very likely that Pycelle warned him not to go.
  11. UnFit Finlay

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    Jaime saying that Pycelle convinced the King to open the gates in no way proves that Tywin wasn't outside claiming loyalty. In fact, surely it would be out of character for the Mad King to act just on Pycelle's words alone? Tywin's actions that day, and Robert's support of them, very nearly led to the end of Ned and Robert's friendship and almost directly led to the War of Five Kings. Whether Ned was present or not, I'm fairly confident he wasn't just wildly throwing allegations out there. It's also interesting that Robert, who was defending the Lannisters, doesn't deny that they took King's Landing through treachery. He just says that the Targaryens had it coming. He tries to convince Ned to forgive Jaime for sitting on the Iron Throne after killing Aerys because "there was nowhere else to sit." Why wouldn't he attempt to convince Ned that Tywin didn't take King's Landing by treachery. It's not Tywin's fault that Aerys opened his gates after all. Why wouldn't Robert say that to Ned? I'd find it very hard to believe that Robert wouldn't know. Especially when Ned's been kicking off about it for years and years. Incidentally, isn't Pycelle's involvement a secret? Tyrion didn't know about it until he had Pycelle arrested. Surely the official story isn't just that Aerys opened the gates because YOLO?
  12. UnFit Finlay

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    That's not what Ned believes in AGOT "Aerys Targaryen must have thought that his gods had answered his prayers when Lord Tywin Lannister appeared before the gates of King's Landing with an army twelve thousand strong, professing loyalty. So the mad king had ordered his last mad act. He had opened his city to the lions at the gate." Ramsay did. As Reek. And, yes, It's a perfectly valid comparison. You're insisting that Ramsay taking Winterfell doesn't count because "it was by betrayal" even though Aerys suffered a far bigger betrayal. Theon didn't even know "Reek". He thought he was just some commoner, who would likely betray him anyway. Jaime was a sworn Knight of the Kingsguard who Aerys fully believed would protect him. Again - Far bigger betrayal there. I never said you did. In fact I've been pretty clear that it's a popular theory that just annoys me. Read harder. I'm mostly just responding to your double standard when it comes to betrayal and/or morality. Not to mention your insistence that two situations that were almost exactly the same were somehow completely different. Firstly......did you skip the entire bit where "Ramsay" was killed by Rodrik? The Starks literally believed that they'd killed him. On sight. With no trial. How is that NOT a threat? Also - Quit changing your arguments. You implied that I was "severely disturbed" for suggesting that Ramsay had a legitimate claim to Winterfell, just because he's a terrible person. Tywin murdered children, in Robert's name, to curry Robert's favour and Robert rewarded him for it. That makes them all terrible people, at least in my view. Because YOU'RE saying that a Castle taken by "betrayal" doesn't count as Right of Conquest. Tywin took King's Landing by betraying Aerys and then swore allegiance to Robert. That's how Robert took the Throne. Going by your logic Robert was never the real King. The Lannisters did originally claim the City by the way. Ned and Robert discuss it in AGOT. Robert refers to "our men taking the city" and Ned points out that they'd flown the Lion of Lannister and not the Crowned Stag. It's a small point but it's enough for Ned to hold a grudge over so many years later. And? This has nothing to do with what I'm saying at all. Again - You're arguing that a Castle taken in a dishonourable way doesn't count as Right of Conquest. Yet Theon took Winterfell far more honourably than the forces that took King's Landing. That's undeniable. Yet you think one counts and the other doesn't?
  13. UnFit Finlay

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    .......bit early to make that call, I think. I, for one, really don't expect to see a single Frey make it to the end of the series. They're dropping like flies already. (Though, yeah, they did it openly. At a wedding. Against their King.)
  14. UnFit Finlay

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    Tywin arrived at King's Landing under the guise of supporting Aerys against an enemy army, convinced them to open the gates and then attacked the Targaryen forces when they did. Ramsay arrived at Winterfell, supported Theon against an enemy army, convinced him to open his gates and then attacked the Iron Born when they did. Again - What's the difference? Hell, Theon and Aerys were even both betrayed by men who'd sworn oaths to them. Aerys was arguably even more of a betrayal there, since Jaime was an anointed Knight of the Kingsguard and "Reek" appeared to be just a bloke who smelled bad . Ramsay sacking Winterfell was worse than the sack of King's Landing too. He set the place on fire, killed all the men, took the women and left it a ruin. King's Landing was at least functional after Tywin handed it to Robert. Ramsay being scum has nothing to do with it either. If you insist that the Targaryens have absolutely no claim on the Iron Throne (as many do. Mostly people who hate Dany and/or Jon) then you have to also acknowledge that the Starks have no claim on Winterfell. I don't agree with it personally, like, but it'd be hypocritical to claim Right of Conquest is ironclad in one situation and not in another.. You also can't pretend that Robert taking the Throne was all nice and honourable. I mean, Aerys and Tywin were BEST FRIENDS at one point and Tywin ordered the deaths of his infant Grandchildren after going "Hey! Open the gates. I'll protect you!". How is that NOT a betrayal? Actually, thinking about it, how come that doesn't make Tywin scum, a war criminal, etc? Or Robert for actively supporting - and rewarding - his actions? Are people "seriously disturbed" for thinking Robert had a claim to be the rightful King? In fact, of three situations. Theon was by far the most honourable. He used stealth and clever tactics, but there was no deceit and very little violence in comparison to either Tywin/Robert or Ramsay. So how come his reign as Prince of Winterfell is somehow invalid to you?
  15. UnFit Finlay

    Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

    What difference? The Boltons took it from Theon in the exact same way that Tywin took King's Landing from the Targaryens. Both pretended to be there to help and then sacked the place when the gates opened. Of course I've personally never believed in the whole "The Iron Throne is like the Elder Wand out of Harry Potter so The Targaryens have no claim at all!! Especially DANY!!" stuff that people come out with. I mean, it's a chair. However, if you DO think that Right of Conquest trumps all then you should also support Ramsay Bolton's claim as the rightful Lord of Winterfell.
×