[Spoilers] What if most Northern Lords are now opportunists?

[Orphalesion]

On 12/05/2016 at 2:20 AM, The Baelish Mockingbird said:

 the Northerners are among the most honourable people in Westeros

The Northeners, honourable? Ha! Good joke.

Those "honourable" people include pure scum like Rickard Karstark and spineless slavers like Jorah Mormont, so no, only because the Northerner's constantly growl about (their messed up interpretation of) honour and had a pretty good lord in Ned, doesn't make them more honorable, on average than the nobles of other regions.

I can see very much see the son of Rickard Karstark selling out the Starks, particularly if he comes after his father. And remember in the books the house of Karstark is, at present also very opportunistic and not at all interested in a Stark restoration (with the exception of Allys, who's not on the show)

The problem is, I think that they don't show any of the houses still loyal to the Starks, like the Manderleys or any of those that, at the very least are anti-Bolton, like Lady Dustin.

[Ser Matt Dayne]

8 hours ago, Wyman Manderly's Meat Pies said:

Because they needed Stannis out of the way so Jon can liberate the North. Nevermind it'd be way cooler if they'd had Stannis court the Umbers and then put off the battle (That we didn't even see) until next season where Jon can still be at the head of it with Stannis. Then Littlefinger swoops in with Bronze Yohn and they mirror the Rebellion as they march to take the Riverlands. 

Shit, I got all giddy at the thought of that....then sadness came over me when reality struck.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

8 hours ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

In books, despite there being tons of horrible things happening, there is still many people who are motivated by noble reasons. That's why although it is dark, it is not bleak.  You don't come away from the books feeling completely hopeless.

 

The show is completely different, seems the only motivations people have are power, greed, lust, ambition, and vengeance. That's it. It's a very nihilistic and misanthropic world and far more grim and depressing than the books.

 

I agree. In the novels there are lots if horrible things going on but you get constant splinters of good too. Dead Freys, Lady Stonheart, The North Remembers. I get that the books and show are different things but I think show watchers are missing the point. In the novels you learn people work against their own self interest, being a good guy doesn't guarantee you'll win, being sneaky doesn't either. And in Roose's case, be careful what you wish for. The show is bleak, and they've turned the Boltons  into an unstoppable  juggernaut, led by Ramsay who just so happens to be a better tactician than Stannis . In the novels  you get the feeling Roose knows he's over reached, and he basically admits House Bolton is doomed. You don't get any of that in the show. The Northern Lords won't follow him mostly on simple principle, he realizes this too late when he asks for hostages and nobody complies. I can see changing things for TV dramatic purposes but you can't fundamentally change WHO Northmen are because it's easier. Lord Umber turning traitor makes no sense. He has Rickon, Lord Stark himself, with that knowledge build an army of loyal Stark Northmen, get rid of Ramsay and become Rickon's guardian and deal with the Wildlings anyway you want.  Breaking a thousands of years old oath, is not only NOT necessary, but it doesn't make sense.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Question, what do you think Jon does with the army of Wildlings in the books if he has nobody to fight?

[Cas Stark]

11 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

 

It's also worth noting that in the books, Karstark is a thoroughly dishonorable POS.  They left the real heir in prison hoping he would be killed.  They attempted to force Alyse into a marriage she didn't want.  So, you can't even say it's the Karstarks plural, its the single lord who wants to become the Lord.  So, again, very different.

A huge them of the series is that, you know, the North loves the Starks.  LOL.

[Tijgy]

The main problem that those Northern Lords are siding with the Boltons is not really their loyalty towards the Starks but they are all doing this while the Red Wedding happened. That is something normally the North would never forget... 

Yeah, North remembers became the North forgets. 

 

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

People always misunderstand those of us who love the North. We get that there's politics going on up there too. People are clearly trying to get ahead. Manderly comes to mind. But it's not the Littlefinger, Tywin, Cersei, win at all costs, screw everyone over, politics. There is a distinct difference. The Northmen who do betray others for personal advancement stand out like a sore thumb.

[Orphalesion]

Just now, The Broke Howard Hughes said:

People always misunderstand those of us who love the North. We get that there's politics going on up there too. People are clearly trying to get ahead. Manderly comes to mind. But it's not the Littlefinger, Tywin, Cersei, win at all costs, screw everyone over, politics. There is a distinct difference. The Northmen who do betray others for personal advancement stand out like a sore thumb.

 

Maybe not so much personal advancement, but even here you have the current Lord Karstark and Roose (who is a Northerner), but can you honestly say that Rickard Karstark was an honourable man? That a man who butchered two POW, who also were children, in a blind act of senseless vengeance and then demanded amnesty from his king solely because they are related by blood has a single ounce of honour in his bones?  if he had had honour he would not have killed them in the first place, or at the very least would have taken his punishment with dignity.

And you could also argue that the Northerners reject Roose because he is not a Stark, the family that has reigned over the North for thousands of years. And that's not honour, that's traditionalism. If Ned had turned out to be a Roose or a Ramsay and the North would still follow him because "the Starks have always ruled the north" would that be honourable?

Only because a Northerner is more likely to stab the dagger in your face than in your back doesn't make the murder any better.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

21 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

 

Only because a Northerner is more likely to stab the dagger in your face than in your back doesn't make the murder any better.

You're generalizing here, I get it. But there are no examples of Starks murdering anyone (Arya notwithastanding). Justice isn't murder. It's killing, but killing and murder aren't the same thing. And the North not following Roose isn't as much about Stark loyalty. Of course that plays into it, but about the Red Wedding. Roose murdered Robb, that's murder, so he could usurp him. He didn't have the strength or backing to hold it, and that's less to do with the Stark legacy than him just being a distrusted dick.

[Cas Stark]

24 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

 

Maybe not so much personal advancement, but even here you have the current Lord Karstark and Roose (who is a Northerner), but can you honestly say that Rickard Karstark was an honourable man? That a man who butchered two POW, who also were children, in a blind act of senseless vengeance and then demanded amnesty from his king solely because they are related by blood has a single ounce of honour in his bones?  if he had had honour he would not have killed them in the first place, or at the very least would have taken his punishment with dignity.

And you could also argue that the Northerners reject Roose because he is not a Stark, the family that has reigned over the North for thousands of years. And that's not honour, that's traditionalism. If Ned had turned out to be a Roose or a Ramsay and the North would still follow him because "the Starks have always ruled the north" would that be honourable?

Only because a Northerner is more likely to stab the dagger in your face than in your back doesn't make the murder any better.

Or, maybe the Northerners reject Roose because he's a petty tyrant who flays people, cuts out their tongues, sends a psycho as his son's BFF and rapes brides on their wedding day?  And there was that thing about stabbing his liege lord through the heart and orchestrating the deaths of thousands of Northerners.

Ned didn't turn out to be a Ramsay though, the implication being that possibly if one raises their children with a sense of honor, they'll be generally honorable, even if they may be a little on the wild side like Brandon and Lyanna, and not perfect.  But, not flaying, woman hunting torture nuts.

[John Doe]

On 12.5.2016 at 2:20 AM, The Baelish Mockingbird said:

While it makes a lot of sense, and as many people will point out, the Northerners are among the most honourable people in Westeros and would never bow down to a savage like Ramsay.

That's a common misconception. The reality is that northeners are among the least honorable people in Westeros, probably even the least honorable people. Ned Stark was the exception, not the rule. 

 

[John Doe]

23 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Or, maybe the Northerners reject Roose because he's a petty tyrant who flays people, cuts out their tongues, sends a psycho as his son's BFF and rapes brides on their wedding day?  And there was that thing about stabbing his liege lord through the heart and orchestrating the deaths of thousands of Northerners.

 

Quote

Roose Bolton's cold and cunning, aye, but a man can deal with Roose. We've all known worse.

Doesn't seem like it. Shows also what a morally bancrupt realm the North is were "they've all known worse" than Roose Bolton. 

[Maid So Fair]

No I think they're just (written to be) that dumb. Giving Rickom to Ramsay makes no sense even if the Umbers are simply trying to end up on the winning side. If he wanted to get into Ramsay's good graces, stupid enough to trust a man that just killed his own father and brother, all he had to do was swear fealty to him. And I Ramsay wasn't willin to help him with the wildling gate (but if he wasn't what use is he as an overlord to the Umbers?) he could THEN OFFER to give him Rickon. Mutual exchange of favours and the very basis of how negotiations work. Instead, he simply gave Ramsay all the leverage the Umbers had in exchange for literally nothing.

[João Carlos]

44 minutes ago, Maid So Fair said:

No I think they're just (written to be) that dumb. Giving Rickom to Ramsay makes no sense even if the Umbers are simply trying to end up on the winning side. If he wanted to get into Ramsay's good graces, stupid enough to trust a man that just killed his own father and brother, all he had to do was swear fealty to him. And I Ramsay wasn't willin to help him with the wildling gate (but if he wasn't what use is he as an overlord to the Umbers?) he could THEN OFFER to give him Rickon. Mutual exchange of favours and the very basis of how negotiations work. Instead, he simply gave Ramsay all the leverage the Umbers had in exchange for literally nothing.

This. Just like LF gives Sansa away in S5 for literally nothing.

The show runners have no clue about what the word "leverage" means.

[Maid So Fair]

1 hour ago, João Carlos said:

This. Just like LF gives Sansa away in S5 for literally nothing.

The show runners have no clue about what the word "leverage" means.

Yeah,this particular malady doesn't seem to be confined to the Northern lords. LF does the same thing as did Jaime with Trystane and Doran with Myrcella.

Also, let's not forget that the show Boltons have exchanged their Lannister alliance and the protection of the IT for a Stark marriage and then promptly proceeded to lose that Stark - chiefly because the guy that is now in charge just couldn't control his most base impulses and decided to horrifically abuse a girl who (allegedly ) came to his bed willingly. Oh and he has no heir and his only means of getting one is now missing in the Northern wilderness. And Winter is here. Why anybody even halfway sane would think this is somehow a winning combination is beyond me. If we never see Lord Umber again it's because hes been crushed by the sheer weight of that idiot ball he's been holding. 

[The Baelish Mockingbird]

10 hours ago, Maid So Fair said:

No I think they're just (written to be) that dumb. Giving Rickom to Ramsay makes no sense even if the Umbers are simply trying to end up on the winning side. If he wanted to get into Ramsay's good graces, stupid enough to trust a man that just killed his own father and brother, all he had to do was swear fealty to him. And I Ramsay wasn't willin to help him with the wildling gate (but if he wasn't what use is he as an overlord to the Umbers?) he could THEN OFFER to give him Rickon. Mutual exchange of favours and the very basis of how negotiations work. Instead, he simply gave Ramsay all the leverage the Umbers had in exchange for literally nothing.

Hm, perhaps. But I just question whether or not the Umbers fear that siding with anyone other than Ramsay and his allies in the South (I know the South didn't care but the North probably don't know that) will be the destruction of their houses. It would make sense for a couple of the houses to just look at the pieces on the table and decide what is best for their families to survive.

[lancerman]

15 hours ago, The Broke Howard Hughes said:

I agree. In the novels there are lots if horrible things going on but you get constant splinters of good too. Dead Freys, Lady Stonheart, The North Remembers. I get that the books and show are different things but I think show watchers are missing the point. In the novels you learn people work against their own self interest, being a good guy doesn't guarantee you'll win, being sneaky doesn't either. And in Roose's case, be careful what you wish for. The show is bleak, and they've turned the Boltons  into an unstoppable  juggernaut, led by Ramsay who just so happens to be a better tactician than Stannis . In the novels  you get the feeling Roose knows he's over reached, and he basically admits House Bolton is doomed. You don't get any of that in the show. The Northern Lords won't follow him mostly on simple principle, he realizes this too late when he asks for hostages and nobody complies. I can see changing things for TV dramatic purposes but you can't fundamentally change WHO Northmen are because it's easier. Lord Umber turning traitor makes no sense. He has Rickon, Lord Stark himself, with that knowledge build an army of loyal Stark Northmen, get rid of Ramsay and become Rickon's guardian and deal with the Wildlings anyway you want.  Breaking a thousands of years old oath, is not only NOT necessary, but it doesn't make sense.

I disagree with a lot of this. It was never implied that Stannis was a worse tactician than Ramsay. It was that Stannis had a weakened army and needed to rely mostly on sellswords who couldn't care less about his cause. He was crippled on the Blackwater, the Iron Bank gave him a bandaid, then fortune went completely against him and he marched on a Northern House in the middle of Winter because he would have been stuck at the wall for quite some time. Stannis was in a poor scenario and got stuck playing a bad hand.

I think even the idea of the Bolton's being portrayed as a powerhouse is misguided. They were desperate to secure the North. So desperate that Roose notes that they sacrificed the support of the crown for Sansa to create some unity. Roose was constantly chastising Ramsay because he saw how reckless he was being. Roose even goes as far to say that beating Stannis' army didn't mean much because of how beat up and disadvantageous a position they were in.

[Maid So Fair]

5 hours ago, The Baelish Mockingbird said:

Hm, perhaps. But I just question whether or not the Umbers fear that siding with anyone other than Ramsay and his allies in the South (I know the South didn't care but the North probably don't know that) will be the destruction of their houses. It would make sense for a couple of the houses to just look at the pieces on the table and decide what is best for their families to survive.

What allies in the South?  As Roose explained last episode, the Lannisters are pissed off with them because of Sansa gate and he's just killed Walda and her baby, presumably losing the Freys. And Ramsay is an out of control psychopath - the Boltons' position is precarious at best and as the Boltons admit, they NEED at lest theUmbers, Karstarks and Manderlys otherwise they're fucked. This is NOT the winning side by any stretch of the imagination.

And even if you accept this premise - the Umbers being dumb enough to think Ramsay will come out on top - why the hell would they give him their valuable hostage without even being asked? All that Umber had to do was swear fealty to Ramsay, the one thing he refused to do because reasons.  If he's right and Ramsay wins, he's just both antagonised him for no reason and given away any leverage he might have had. And this is the man who he knows just killed his own father because he got in his way. 

[The Baelish Mockingbird]

2 hours ago, Maid So Fair said:

What allies in the South?  As Roose explained last episode, the Lannisters are pissed off with them because of Sansa gate and he's just killed Walda and her baby, presumably losing the Freys. And Ramsay is an out of control psychopath - the Boltons' position is precarious at best and as the Boltons admit, they NEED at lest theUmbers, Karstarks and Manderlys otherwise they're fucked. This is NOT the winning side by any stretch of the imagination.

And even if you accept this premise - the Umbers being dumb enough to think Ramsay will come out on top - why the hell would they give him their valuable hostage without even being asked? All that Umber had to do was swear fealty to Ramsay, the one thing he refused to do because reasons.  If he's right and Ramsay wins, he's just both antagonised him for no reason and given away any leverage he might have had. And this is the man who he knows just killed his own father because he got in his way. 

As I explained, just because us show watchers have seen snippets of moments where Roose will admit they don't have the support or the South will solidify their lack of care doesn't mean that everyone in the North would be just as informed. I think half of Cersei's chapters in the book are her cursing out the North anyway.

I'm not sure why they would give out Rickon and I do accept that at this very moment it does seem like that would be going nowhere but I'll be interested in seeing how they pull it off.

[kissdbyfire]

On 13 May 2016 at 9:41 PM, Madhur Singh said:

I actually believe this is a ruse by the North for a few reasons. First you have to remember that Sansa lit the candle in the tower and was told that she still has friends in the North. I feel as if that is a signal for the Great Northern Conspiracy to begin.  

Secondly, Ramsay can't kill Rickon Stark because then by default Sansa Stark's claim will be superior to him. Sure the larger houses MAY stay on his side but any political capital he held will be gone.

Thirdly, I have to say that Smalljon's excuse to betray the Starks wasn't that great. Having Rickon in his custody is the best bargaining chip that House Umber has. Not to mention it seems fairly clear in the scene that Smalljon knows that Jon Snow is an able commander. If Smalljon truly were an opportunistic backstabber then I would think he would use Rickon for his benefit which means keeping him alive. Hell he could use Rickon to rally the North behind him and serve as his most trusted adviser. 

Also, not really convinced that Shaggy Dog is dead. Could have been a large wolf. Ramsay wouldn't know because he has never seen one.

I disagree. Ramsay "can't kill Rickon" because it would undermine his claim? Doesn't make sense, especially because the houses siding with Ramsay are anti-Stark apparently, and wouldn't care about Rickon's death. Also, Sansa is Sansa Bolton now, until Ramsay is dead or the marriage annulled, something that won't happen. But despite all this, Ramsay will kill Rickon. 

As to the Smalljon's reasons, even if he hates the Starks and Boltons and plans on turning on Ramsay, why on earth would he hand over his biggest asset? You said so yourself. Why not keep Rickon and use him to either rally the north or as a bargaining chip? If he has any sort of plan that is different from what he said to Ramsay, then the whole plot becomes even dumber, and the Smalljon becomes one of the stupidest characters ever.