JonSnow4President

I actually think Ned's dumbest decision is not taking full use of the political power of the hand and consolidating practical power in the hands of people he controlled. You can't look at these things purely objectively without also considering the objectives of the people involved. Ned absolutely does not want to kill innocents and become part of King ruling as Aerys reborn. Saving Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella is entirely consistent with that objective, and a very human move.

As I work for a company making super maneuverable fighter aircraft, I don't think Robin has the temperament for anything besides not planning properly and then riding purchasing to buy parts and get them here tomorrow.

If you assume 100% buy in and he thinks it's a binary outcome between either he becomes king to unite the kingdom against The Great Other or else the world is doomed, it's Edric vs every person in Westeros. And quite frankly, given that premise, it's purely illogical not to sacrifice Edric, since he's dead either way. That's ultimately why I thought he would be burning Shireen well before any other fanfiction that I may have seen brought it up. He's going to kill his own blood in the most painful way possible because he thinks he's doing the right thing, and he's going to be wrong.

It was even more frustrating when the people making the television adaptation took that same message away. For the record, I am a fairly large Stannis fan. I think it's a fantastic ethical situation. The trolley problem has no objectively correct answer, and, to the extent you believe Stannis is motivated by duty vs fighting for his rights, analogous to sacrificing Edric. The logic of sacrificing one of anything to save many thousands is undeniable, but at the same time paves the way to some of the worst atrocities possible for society. And for what it's worth, I think Stannis is much more motivated by duty, and to a lesser extent pride, than any sense of ambition. We know Ned Stark is supposedly "one man in ten thousand" for having the reputation of choosing honor/duty over the love of his family, but Ned actually chose his family unbeknownst to Jon. But Stannis is actually that man in 10,000. He's the man that knows "his own crown [will consume] his flesh and [turning] him into ash." He's pursuing that duty knowing it will result in his own personal destruction. It's misguided, it's wrong, and it's going to blow up in his face, but he's motivated by better reasons than many of the other players. And that purer motivation is going to lead to one of the worst atrocities we're going to see. And Stannis has Selyse. Sacrificing his manhood isn't that big of a sacrifice. That's already happening. Compare what the Northern lords are doing for "Ned's little girl" compared to what Tywin's own children are doing for Tywin's legacy.

They're less than a mile away before Tyrion is woken up. My fat current self can walk that in 20 minutes. Realistically, you're looking at 10ish minutes.

This may be Martin being bad rather than intending it, but as written, Roose caught Tywin's army completely with it's pants down, completely encamped, and then stopped to form battle lines and give the Lannister's time to form their own lines. If the Northern foot didn't wait to form up and give Tywin time to do so, Tywin is destroyed at the Green Fork without a serious fight.

I haven't actually read the books for years, but isn't that only an allegation brought forth by Cleon, a man who is trying to seize power for himself?

I'm going after Bethesda for being behind it's relative contemporaries. It's probably not all that fair for Skyrim, which used the old engine for great effect, although I would argue it has not aged well. But the Fallout releases in particular have been abysmal.

To me, that isn't what makes ASOIAF unique. It's the political intrigue and more grand strategy, paired with the character work. That's much more in the vein of CK3 or Total War than a Bethesda game on an engine almost as old as I am (slight exaggeration), or any other game that primarily focuses on action/adventure.

You mean the letter they sent to everyone? How is that them breaking neutrality?

@HugorfonicsCan you explain why you think Janos' execution was the wrong thing? Quite frankly, it's a near forced decision. Not executing Janos for his blatant and public insubordination is far more dangerous than killing the man who publicly spit in the face of the authority of Jon's office.

I don't think he's categorically wrong to say higher status. There's an argument to be made that Thorne, as an anointed knight, Master at Arms, and veteran with almost 2 decades of service, was a higher status in the supposedly meritocratic organization. I disagree, and think the baseborn acknowledged son of the most powerful Lord of the immediately neighboring region has more status, but there's room for disagreement. However, it's set right next to rampant, illogical Jon hate. Calling Slynt's execution "inappropriate" in setting is silly. Focusing on Jon's anger management, but giving Dany a free pass is silly. Saying most people would abandon Arya is silly, as is his comparison of familial issues facing modern members of the armed services to Arya's situation. It's all the same old picking and choosing the best of your favorite characters, while focusing on the worst (or exaggerating the worst) of your least favorites.

This is the only acceptable answer.

I think most people are capable of appreciating stories that don't go the way they expected/wanted it to go, as long as the story is well written. So far, I think the only legitimate complaint that could be held against Martin is the bloat. If we do get the rest of Dany's story, I expect it will be a much more convincing journey than what other media may have written. It won't be a late game sudden flip. I'm obviously a big Jon Snow fan. I'm also a big Sam and Stannis fan. While I'm far less certain on where the story is going with Jon or Sam, I think I have a good idea of the general direction of Stannis's story. If Martin takes it a different way, I'm still going to enjoy it as long as he doesn't pull a BS reversal. It just needs to be consistent with the world and established characters, with any changes making sense. He's been fantastic in that so far.

Except Bobby B was already rightfully (within their system) there, and was pulled into needing to conquer as a result of Targaryen action, whether you blame Rhaegar or Aerys. Aegon just conquered.

I guess we have different readings of Mace. I read the level of fool he portrays as a bit of an act, and him being consistently unwilling to dedicate himself fully to causes without personal/dynastic benefit. That's not to say he's disloyal. He's still committing, but not as much as he could have. He's no Roose that's going to actively throw a battle (as written) while killing off the forces of his fellow Northern Lords while preserving his own, and later work with the enemy. He's going to sit besieging a castle with incredible symbolic significance but fairly far from the fighting with an army far larger than what it needs to be for the task, while he sits in relative comfort and feasts. That can be read as foolish. And that can be read as doing just enough to be compliant without actually throwing in.

I think he was more loyal than early war Roose Bolton, who arguably intentionally threw the first fight against Tywin (or Martin wrote unintentionally horrible tactics). or Swann making sure he had a son fighting on each side. It may be simple incompetence, but with the overall political situation I believe it makes more sense (and is more consistent with Mace) that he was doing enough to be considered loyal but not to throw himself fully into the rebellion.

They really weren't loyal though. All the bulk of the Reach did was sit outside Storm's End while Mace bided his team waiting for a clear winner. Dorne engaged because Elia was a hostage held by Aerys, not out of any love for the Crown. The Crownlands were under direct control. The Iron Islands stayed out of the conflict before joining the Rebels late after the Trident. The West stayed out of it because Aerys alienated Tywin. As with any dispute between the King and a Lord, there will be vassals that stay loyal to the Crown in the hopes of gaining land/higher title. But the bulk of the Vale, Riverlands, Stormlands, and North remained loyal to their Lords.

My personal, very much God-of-the-gaps headcanon is that Ned and Ashara did have a romantic relationship. As Harwyn tells us, neither Ned nor Ashara were pledged to anyone. Brandon was alive, and Ned was free to pursue what he wanted. I think he and Ashara fell for each other. I think one of the broken promises Ned keeps bringing up was an informal promise to Ashara to marry her that was ruined by Brandon's death and Ned having to step in to marry Cat for tradition/the war effort. I think knowing he did father a bastard and slept with Ashara out of wedlock made it easier for Ned to claim Jon as his bastard, as he knew he did actually father a bastard that he would have acknowledged if not for the circumstances around everything. I think she does actually kill herself after finding out her child with her love miscarried, her lover had to marry someone else, and her lover ended up killing her brother (at least officially, and potentially as a result of her providing the location of the ToJ.) Afterwards, he and the Daynes are able to come together over their shared grief while he's delivering Dawn, leading them to think highly enough of him to name their heir after him. Like I've said, I can't point to anything that says this happened. But I can't point to anything to falsify it either, and I think it ties together a lot of the threads nicely, at least to my mind.

He's already come across one, since he's with Marwyn.

So, the war correspondent who witnessed everything but didn't fight outside a panicked stab in the back has more experience than the person who fought off the Southern raid, and commanded the wall for days against the Northern attack? I do agree with you that he was selected for more than combat ability. Specifically, it was some part as a result of his Stark blood (less, I think), and some part as a result of his argument to Maester Aemon for passing Sam through training (more, I think). But he is clearly at least a competent fighter. Competent enough that his win over Qhorin wasn't suspect.

Tywin's way worked in the short term, as long as their was a single force able to keep it going. The second that was gone, everything turned to eating itself. Meanwhile, Ned's legacy lives on. Ned may have lost individually, but his way of doing things is winning for his dynasty. Tywin has lost. Ned is on his way to winning.

It doesn't come out of the blue. But barring a last minute teleportation of Shireen, it can't happen as it did in the books. Stannis has already come through worse than what the show portrayed, and Shireen isn't anywhere to burn. Personally, I think Stannis is one of the most tragic characters in the series. He inherently wants to do what he believes to be the right thing, and takes his duties more seriously than anyone else remaining in the series, save maybe Brienne. He believes he is the prophesied hero that has to save the world, never seeking out that role. And he's going to sacrifice everything trying to fulfill that role. And ultimately, he's going to be wrong.

Are we talking book Jon or Show Jon? Book Jon gets chosen to be groomed for command largely because he demonstrates leadership potential (training yard, arguing for Sam to be graduated out of training). Show Jon swing sword good, but is an incompetent buffoon who cannot do anything right other than swing sword good.

They've all wronged us personally. They got us invested in this story, which isn't being finished.