Khal Boner Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 none of them are good at crippling small armies with 20 men being led by a crazy shirtless man. Yet you believe one man can rescue a King from INSIDE a castle. I give up again. We're through the looking glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagLover Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Again - I'm not denying that this is a pretty amazing series of events. But it's not an outright impossibility like 20GM is. In that story Barristan sneaks into a fort and manages five confirmed kills. That's not impossible. Actually reading that story it sounds allot more preposterous. Particularly, as has been pointed out multiple times, one possible explanation is that some of the mercenaries WHO DESERTED SOON AFTERWARDS had been bribed to help Ramsay into the camp and start the fires. We have one story that is very preposterous and another story where we see only the very beginning and the very end and have to fill in the gaps inbetween ourselves and come up with a number of different plots where it is very achievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khal Boner Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Particularly, as his been pointed out multiple times, one possible explanation is that some of the mercenaries WHO DESERTED SOON AFTERWARDS had been bribed to help Ramsay into the camp and start the fires. Stannis states it himself when he says they were either asleep or working with the Bolton's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Yet you believe one man can rescue a King from INSIDE a castle. I give up again. We're through the looking glass. Actually I don't think I've defended that, think its been protar defending that. Look at the first reply to this thread it's me calling rodrick cassels stupidity a plot hole I've got no problems saying stuff in the books don't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Actually reading that story it sounds allot more preposterous. Particularly, as his been pointed out multiple times, one possible explanation is that some of the mercenaries WHO DESERTED SOON AFTERWARDS had been bribed to help Ramsay into the camp and start the fires. We have one story that is very preposterous and another story where we see only the very beginning and the very end and have to fill in the gaps inbetween ourselves and come up with a number of different plots where it is very achievable. good storytelling doesn't necessitate that the audience conjure up something like 'they bribed the mercenaries'. this is like the insane defenses that were given for Arya and the Hound announcing their true identities at the Vale and then walking away--maybe LF did it on purpose, the soldiers didn't have authority to detain them, blah, blah blah when it was just again SLOPPLY and LAZY construction and the show ignoring what they have already put on screen where the Hound is easily recognized multiple times and there is a huge bounty on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khal Boner Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Actually I don't think I've defended that, think its been protar defending that. My apologies then. These nit picks all start to blend into one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Put it this way. They are both high end feats for any character. The thing is in the Selmy instance we just have to except that he was some mythological god who could pull it off. In the Ramsay instance we don't have enough information so you can stack the odds in his favor enough (they had weeks to plan, they had guards in on it, they knew exactly where the supply tents were, they did the minimum to burn the siege weapons and food all at the same time and darted out in the confusion, they burnt at most lit at most 2 fires a piece) and then you fill it in by saying the knights were good enough to pull it off. It's still a high end feat, but it's not the Rambo thing that Barristan pulled off either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Put it this way. They are both high end feats for any character. The thing is in the Selmy instance we just have to except that he was some mythological god who could pull it off. In the Ramsay instance we don't have enough information so you can stack the odds in his favor enough (they had weeks to plan, they had guards in on it, they knew exactly where the supply tents were, they did the minimum to burn the siege weapons and food all at the same time and darted out in the confusion, they burnt at most lit at most 2 fires a piece) and then you fill it in by saying the knights were good enough to pull it off. It's still a high end feat, but it's not the Rambo thing that Barristan pulled off either. Yes it is they're both nigh impossible tasks people just give the barristan one more leeway bevause barristan is the greatest living knight and ramsay is a shirtless rapist. They're both equally out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViniciusMJ Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Barristan in Duskendale defies our sense of one man's capabilities and of establishes great stupidity for the Aerys captors. The 20 Good Men is just plain stupid for all involved. From Roose accepting his son's plan (which is suicidal) to the aftermath. And then again, the Duskendale story is not highly detailed in the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Actually reading that story it sounds allot more preposterous. Particularly, as his been pointed out multiple times, one possible explanation is that some of the mercenaries WHO DESERTED SOON AFTERWARDS had been bribed to help Ramsay into the camp and start the fires. We have one story that is very preposterous and another story where we see only the very beginning and the very end and have to fill in the gaps inbetween ourselves and come up with a number of different plots where it is very achievable. Well why wasn't that established in the story? That's a pretty big deal. Because if Stannis did have traitors in his army, that raises other questions, like why exactly these men decided to betray Stannis and how the Boltons contacted them (both initially and on the night of the attack). Quite frankly you have been indoctrinated by the show into thinking it's your job to explain huge plot points that aren't fulfilled. I've said before that the show has created a cult of acceptance and adoration and that's barely an exaggeration. It's one thing to enjoy the show as a shallow, nonsensical bevy of breasts and fight scenes and it amuses you to come up with convoluted explanations for how it might be consistent. But to actually think that it's okay for the writers to leave huge plot points for the audience's to fill in, and then attribute those explanations to them? That is cult level thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagLover Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 As I have said the show does not have to hold your hand. You might have noticed as well that the Boltons had allot more cavalry than before- after the mercenaries had deserted Stannis..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Cornered_Wolf Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 And bolton land is different from stark land it be different I'd stannis was camped near the dreadfort or the men were Stark men at arms lead by a Stark (even then I'd call the scene fucking dumb but it's a bit more logical) but they weren't they were Bolton's who had never been near the field lead by ramsay a crazy shirtless man. Exactly. It is akin to saying the West Virginia National Guard would have the advantage of terrain when fighting in Colorado because they have similar geography and climate. They wouldn't, because the advantage of being a native on your own terrain involves intimate knowledge of that terrain, not just that they are climatologically similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 As I have said the show does not have to hold your hand. You might have noticed as well that the Boltons had allot more cavalry than before- after the mercenaries had deserted Stannis..... Okay, I'll play. Why would the mercenaries go to Roose? Why would they expect to be paid by him, or trust him considering what is known about his actions? Why wouldn't they head to Eastwatch to go back to Essos ASAP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Put it this way. They are both high end feats for any character. The thing is in the Selmy instance we just have to except that he was some mythological god who could pull it off. In the Ramsay instance we don't have enough information so you can stack the odds in his favor enough (they had weeks to plan, they had guards in on it, they knew exactly where the supply tents were, they did the minimum to burn the siege weapons and food all at the same time and darted out in the confusion, they burnt at most lit at most 2 fires a piece) and then you fill it in by saying the knights were good enough to pull it off. It's still a high end feat, but it's not the Rambo thing that Barristan pulled off either. It's quite the opposite. Barry's rescue mission is a fantastical event but he's the greatest living knight, he's sneaking into a castle on his own and he kills probably less than a dozen men. You can believe that. But 20GM? It's not possible. It doesn't matter if they had weeks to plan. There is no plan that would allow them to do that. They have no way to establish contact with guards on the inside. They have no way to know exactly where everything is in Stannis' camp. They can't synchronise all their fires at once and dart out in the confusion. And even if you can come up with some actual airtight explanation for how it's possible (which you can't): I don't care. Because D+D didn't write it. This is not handwaving an insignificant event which happened twenty years ago. This is the climax of a major character's story line. It's not the audience's job to cover D+D's tracks. They didn't write it? I don't want to hear about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViniciusMJ Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 As I have said the show does not have to hold your hand. You might have noticed as well that the Boltons had allot more cavalry than before- after the mercenaries had deserted Stannis..... If it is not established that they went to the Boltons, they did not. It is not my lazyness, it is the show's. By the way, it is never established why the Boltons had such high numbers to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 As I have said the show does not have to hold your hand. You might have noticed as well that the Boltons had allot more cavalry than before- after the mercenaries had deserted Stannis..... Which again - raises further questions. I can buy men deserting to Bolton after burning Shireen yes. But before? First of all why? What do they gain from this? Stannis has his Iron Bank loan so he's got loads of money. Does Bolton have more? Who knows? And then there's the question of how. Did Ramsay prepare for his mission by sending men into Stannis' camp before? To speak with the sellsword captains and persuade them to join him? Why was this not mentioned? How did Ramsay communicate with them on the night of the assault? What you're doing here is Voodoo Sharking. You're covering up a plot hole, but the cover is itself a plot hole. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VoodooShark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 No Protar you don't need every detail explained as long as it's a reasonable possibility. It's like the people that complain about that scene in The Dark Knight where Batman jumps out the building and leaves Joker in a room full of people and call it a plot hole. The simple explanation is that he escaped before the cops got there.We've seen in the show and the books that traitors can exist and be bought off. Is it plausible that a bunch of sell swords who later abandoned Stannis before the battle could be bought off? Yeah, we've seen betrayals happen dozens of times on the show. It's not like we got a full ledger for the Red Wedding planning process to accept that Roose and Walder would betray everyone like that. And we know half of Stannis' army isn't loyal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViniciusMJ Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 No Protar you don't need every detail explained as long as it's a reasonable possibility. It's like the people that complain about that scene in The Dark Knight where Batman jumps out the building and leaves Joker in a room full of people and call it a plot hole. The simple explanation is that he escaped before the cops got there. We've seen in the show and the books that traitors can exist and be bought off. Is it plausible that a bunch of sell swords who later abandoned Stannis before the battle could be bought off? Yeah, we've seen betrayals happen dozens of times on the show. It's not like we got a full ledger for the Red Wedding planning process to accept that Roose and Walder would betray everyone like that. And we know half of Stannis' army isn't loyal. But it is not even hinted in the show. Not one shred of evidence from the show supports this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 No Protar you don't need every detail explained as long as it's a reasonable possibility. It's like the people that complain about that scene in The Dark Knight where Batman jumps out the building and leaves Joker in a room full of people and call it a plot hole. The simple explanation is that he escaped before the cops got there.We've seen in the show and the books that traitors can exist and be bought off. Is it plausible that a bunch of sell swords who later abandoned Stannis before the battle could be bought off? Yeah, we've seen betrayals happen dozens of times on the show. It's not like we got a full ledger for the Red Wedding planning process to accept that Roose and Walder would betray everyone like that. And we know half of Stannis' army isn't loyal. GRRM has unlimited time in his books and we still have little gaps like that, they have 10 hours a year to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 But it is not even hinted in the show. Not one shred of evidence from the show supports this claim. Because why bother no one puts the show under any serious scrutiny especially compared to something like breaking bad or true detectives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.