The Bittersteel Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 It has to do because that is when Hoster, the theme of the OP, comes in. No matter what Lysa did what Hoster did was monstrous. hahaha I know what the theme of the OP is I wrote it! I just thought it was odd because you quoted that particular post where I was replying to someone else. In the OP I outline why I think it was bad for practical/political reasons but for your peace of mind I believe it was awful for moral reasons too. The child is innocent of any crime at all, whatever way you look at it and its clear Lysa wanted to keep it so certainly unjustifiable morally IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 hahaha I know what the theme of the OP is I wrote it! I just thought it was odd because you quoted that particular post where I was replying to someone else. In the OP I outline why I think it was bad for practical/political reasons but for your peace of mind I believe it was awful for moral reasons too. The child is innocent of any crime at all, whatever way you look at it and its clear Lysa wanted to keep it so certainly unjustifiable morally IMO. Sorry for being bitchy. My point was tha Hoster did abused Lysa, no matter what she did what he did was abuse. The fact that other people had done worst thing that doesn't mean that what Hoster did was not monstrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon stark I Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 I don' really know much about Hoster but his treatment of Lysa is a curious one.I tend to look it on a different angle then most readers do.While secretly giving an abortion pill to Lysa was disgusting overlooking that I can totally understand what he was doing.LF fought for Cats hand like a week ago and now he learns that Lysa is pregnant to his child, I can totally guess what he thought about that.He probably thaught LF was only after themoney and the power of Tullys and he was manipulating Lysa to his own ends.Also think about the scandal that marriege can cause.LF fought for Cat a week ago and you marry the same guy to your other daughter after that.Basicly you are naming LF your second heir after Edmure.I think he tohught like this and acted accordingly to that.About him marrying Lysa to Jon, I think it was a good match for Lysa because she wasn't a virgin and Jon was old basicly by this pact Hoster put Lysa in high place of power and by Westeros standards Lysa marrying someone was a longshot at that moment.While I think it was a bad decision I think he did the best he could for Lysa.Jon was old and who could have guessed he would live this long.About his treatment of Blackfish.I think it was a little complicated between them.Being unmarried seems like a very unusual thing in Westeros.Other then KG nearly everyone has a wife or a mistress.But Blackfish was unusually isolated from females and this strikes Hoster as a wrong thing.Also I think Hoster never understood Blackfish, all his life he wanted to be a KG and I think that is why he didn't marry anyone but his brothers insisting of that point made Blackfish tihkn Hoster wasn't believeing him or he wasn't thinking he deserved to be a KG.I didn't know a bout the villeges I am really shocked about that are you sure it is his work and one of his bannermans like how Bolton behaves under Stark banner but their monsterous actions cannot be Starks because they have no knowlage about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Hoster couldn't have killed the entire village. He left Lord Goodbrook's son alive for crying out loud! You don't kill everyone except the son of the guy in charge. In fact most men would have killed the son so as to prevent him growing up to seek revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Hoster couldn't have killed the entire village. He left Lord Goodbrook's son alive for crying out loud! You don't kill everyone except the son of the guy in charge. In fact most men would have killed the son so as to prevent him growing up to seek revenge. Well the village is abandoned and the people who live nearby say that he came with torch and sword. I don't believe that it could be more clear. Also why he couldn't had done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Well the village is abandoned and the people who live nearby say that he came with torch and sword. I don't believe that it could be more clear. Also why he couldn't had done that? It's clear that the village was attacked and burned and then abandoned but how many people were killed is 100% not clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 It's clear that the village was attacked and burned and then abandoned but how many people were killed is 100% not clear. Torch and sword. It's clear enough, even if 1 of them survived what is the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Torch and sword. It's clear enough, even if 1 of them survived what is the difference? there is big leap from attacking the village with torch and sword and killing every person including women and children in the village. We have no idea how many people were killed in the village and I'm not going to assume that Hoster Tully ordered the killing of everybody in a whole village on very little evidence. It doesn't make sense for Hoster to do that, Ned Stark would not stand for that nor would most of his bannermen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 there is big leap from attacking the village with torch and sword and killing every person including women and children in the village. We have no idea how many people were killed in the village and I'm not going to assume that Hoster Tully ordered the killing of everybody in a whole village on very little evidence. It doesn't make sense for Hoster to do that, Ned Stark would not stand for that nor would most of his bannermen. You mean the same Ned who needed him? Do we know when he did it? No. Do we know if Ned was near him? No. Of course Ned would have done it back then. When someone say that he putted a vilage to the sword it means that he killed a village. I don't need someone to say to me that 2+2=4 I can do it myself. It's easy; Hoster was ruthless, the Goodbrook's "betrayed" him and he attacked them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanml82 Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 there is big leap from attacking the village with torch and sword and killing every person including women and children in the village. We have no idea how many people were killed in the village and I'm not going to assume that Hoster Tully ordered the killing of everybody in a whole village on very little evidence. It doesn't make sense for Hoster to do that, Ned Stark would not stand for that nor would most of his bannermen. Ned might not have been there. As for his bannermen, let me see: We have cannibal Manderly, Bolton, the GreatJon, Jeor Mormont who let Craster sell his sons to the White Walkers... nah, I don't think most of his bannermen would object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 You mean the same Ned who needed him? Do we know when he did it? No. Do we know if Ned was near him? No. Of course Ned would have done it back then. When someone say that he putted a vilage to the sword it means that he killed a village. I don't need someone to say to me that 2+2=4 I can do it myself. It's easy; Hoster was ruthless, the Goodbrook's "betrayed" him and he attacked them. where did it say "he put the village to the sword" . There is a big difference between saying he "came down on the village with torch and sword" and saying "he put the village to the sword" one implies that the village was attacked but makes no implication of how many if any villagers were killed and the other implies everybody in the village was killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 . When someone say that he putted a vilage to the sword it means that he killed a village. I don't need someone to say to me that 2+2=4 I can do it myself. It's easy; Hoster was ruthless, the Goodbrook's "betrayed" him and he attacked them. It's not actually quite so easy. " Hoster was ruthless, the Goodbrook's "betrayed" him and he attacked them." does not automatically lead to "and Hoster murdered everybody in the village including women and children." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Torch and sword. It's clear enough, even if 1 of them survived what is the difference? If you're going to leave one person alive, you don't leave the son of the disobedient lord. Because that son is likely to grow up to cause problems. Hoster would have known this. If he let Goodbrook's son live, then he let others live as well. Yes some people were killed. There is no question of that. And yes the village was burned and no one moved back. That does not mean he pulled a Tywin. It's also possible that he ordered the people out of their homes and torched them, and only those who tried to intervene were killed. That still includes both fire and sword. You're trying to argue that an intelligent man, and great strategist did something incredibly, terribly stupid. I agree with you about his treatment of Lysa, but on this you are reaching. You're either trolling or looking for excuses to hate the guy, which is silly because you've already got enough with what he did to his daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theon {HUNGRY WOLF} Stark Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 If you're going to leave one person alive, you don't leave the son of the disobedient lord. Because that son is likely to grow up to cause problems. Hoster would have known this. If he let Goodbrook's son live, then he let others live as well. Yes some people were killed. There is no question of that. And yes the village was burned and no one moved back. That does not mean he pulled a Tywin. It's also possible that he ordered the people out of their homes and torched them, and only those who tried to intervene were killed. That still includes both fire and sword. You're trying to argue that an intelligent man, and great strategist did something incredibly, terribly stupid. I agree with you about his treatment of Lysa, but on this you are reaching. You're either trolling or looking for excuses to hate the guy, which is silly because you've already got enough with what he did to his daughter.Agreed :) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrannogDweller Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 You mean the same Ned who needed him? Do we know when he did it? No. Do we know if Ned was near him? No. Of course Ned would have done it back then. Timeline-wise, it would make sense for Ned to have been at least close by. Hoster joined the Rebels after Ned and Jon married his daughters, so the Goodbrook village would've happened after that. And Ned isn't a guy who would overlook unnecessary cruelty. Even if he wasn't present, he definitely would've learned and we see no sign of him having a problem with what his father-in-law did. Therefore, what Hoster did was probably a (relatively) measured response, considering the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
averde Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Really looking at Hoster Tully and what little we know about him gives a definite Tywin vibe. He was certainly a man trying to increase the power of his house.He's just viewed in a more favorable light because he ended up siding with Roberts victorious rebels. if things had played out differently, say the Lysa-Jaime marriage happened as planned, the Riverlands and the entire story could be very very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 where did it say "he put the village to the sword" . There is a big difference between saying he "came down on the village with torch and sword" and saying "he put the village to the sword" one implies that the village was attacked but makes no implication of how many if any villagers were killed and the other implies everybody in the village was killed. Sword means sword means death. snip If he torched the village then there would be no swords. But the village in unpopulated and as far as we have seen abandone meaning that they are all dead. Timeline-wise, it would make sense for Ned to have been at least close by. Hoster joined the Rebels after Ned and Jon married his daughters, so the Goodbrook village would've happened after that. And Ned isn't a guy who would overlook unnecessary cruelty. Even if he wasn't present, he definitely would've learned and we see no sign of him having a problem with what his father-in-law did. Therefore, what Hoster did was probably a (relatively) measured response, considering the situation. Wrong, Hoster can had done it after Tthe Rebellion anjd even if Ned was there he wouldn't had said anything because at this time they needed Hoster/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrannogDweller Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Wrong, Hoster can had done it after Tthe Rebellion anjd even if Ned was there he wouldn't had said anything because at this time they needed Hoster. Possible, but very unlikely. From what we know, Hoster had to crush the local loyalists before assembling a sizable army and going off to fight. So it makes more sense for the Goodbrook village to have been made an example of in the early days of the Rebellion in the Riverlands - after the weddings, but before the Bells or the Trident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy the Ruin Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Lysa raped poor Littlefinger :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Sword means sword means death. If he torched the village then there would be no swords. But the village in unpopulated and as far as we have seen abandone meaning that they are all dead. Wrong, Hoster can had done it after Tthe Rebellion anjd even if Ned was there he wouldn't had said anything because at this time they needed Hoster/ Why would Hoster have done it after the rebellion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.