Jump to content
Ran

[Poll] How would you rate episode 606?

How would you rate episode 606?  

460 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your rating from 1-10, with 10 being the highest/best

    • 1
      23
    • 2
      13
    • 3
      21
    • 4
      27
    • 5
      36
    • 6
      57
    • 7
      97
    • 8
      99
    • 9
      46
    • 10
      41


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Alex7s said:

Voted 1. Pointless episode

Jamie Lannister riding up the steps alone gets you to a 3 in this one.  

But it was more a building episode.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, YOVMO said:

I don't find a problem with the necklace. As you say, that isn't important. I mean, it is annoying and shows a certain carelessness, but still fine I will let it go. How about how Arya's entire plot arc was just totally destroyed by adding compassion to her character that defies her very reason for being. How about having 5 minutes of talking about cousin orson and smashing beetles but  not adding Tyrion's whole motivation towards nihilism in the "where do whores go" plot despite the fact it was already set up by him telling the tysha story to shae and bronn. 


Benjen is insane. The children saved him by performing the same ritual that created the nights king? And ok, I kid about Gendry...but here is what bothers me. GRRM has given d&d source material that dreams are made of and d&d has basically turned it into shallow crapola. 

The character motivation for Tyrion, for Arya, for the tyrells, for tommen, for Jamie freaking lannister has been robbed. When is the last time on the show that Jamie showed the kind of depth he did when he was speaking with Cat or even when he was in the bath with Brienne. Now he is just a characature.

Why is kevan all of a sudden pro sparrows? Who is the lord of Casterly Rock? Why is Arya making a return to Arya stark when becoming nothing was literally the most interesting thing. And don't start me on Dany. Wtf? They took a genuinely interesting character, took away all the interesting parts and replaced it with guuuuurrrrrllll power. 

 

d&d are like kids who were left a fortune in a will and wound up going broke anyway, They have a huge budget, a huge following and source material for days. What do we get? 10 minutes of Braavosi theater recreating the red wedding and an arya who all of a sudden isn't dead inside despite that being her whole character arc.

haha.  agreed on Arya.

Her holding needle was like the most confusing thing to me.  I'm like, you shouldn't want to be leaving, yet you are.  I guess you forgot about those beatings pretty quickly.  

The rest as well.  It's feels like many of these characters are in a holding pattern until the major plot points finally unfold.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vastet said:

You gave me nothing to argue against. None of my points has been refuted or challenged successfully. My last 3 or 4 responses have been parroting responses that claimed I was wrong without providing any substance to back up the claim. Come up with an argument and I'll defeat it or concede defeat. Simplycall me wrong or insult me and you'll get the same in response.

OK fine, here is the problem with your argument.

You are actually right on one point. The Watch vows do not mentions giving up swords and personal belongings, as you have so stated. The Watch vows say:

 

Quote

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

[6]

Now hopefully you will agree that the bolded infers that that once taking these vows it means that you give up your rights to all inheritance as the first born son of a house. You can not inherit your fathers lands and castle, meaning you give up your right to become the lord of said house. This is the specific reason that Randyll sent Sam to the wall, so that he had no rights to the Tarly lands and the title of Lord Tarly. With Sam's joining of the Watch these rights now belong to Dickon.

First Longclaw: 

When Jeor went to the wall, Long claw was already his property, As he was joining the Watch, he decided that he wanted to pass Longclaw to his son before he was dead, as apposed to the normal custom of it being passed upon his death. Note I said custom, there is no law in which it states that a house sword must be passed down to anyone. If you dispute this, please provide a quote from the show or a passage from the book, instead of the irrelevant retort that you had used earlier. Jorah left the sword, so Jeor's daughter decided to send it back to him. He didn't inherit it, It wasn't his right to have it returned, she wanted him to have it. This is why he has Long Claw, it was a personal belonging that was returned to him, not inherited. 

Also, he decided to leave it to Jon since his son was exiled and disgraced. This would contradict your assertion that Long Claw would belong to the family and that it is the law to pass it down to your first born son. It was his personal property to give to whomever he pleased, family or not. 

Now Heartsbane:

I've already established that by Joining the Watch, Sam has forfeit his rights to Horn Hill, and the title of Lord Tarly. Longclaw is passed down to the first born son not only because he's the first born son, but because being the first born son also means that you will become the Head of the house. Now custom, and I reiterate custom, not law, would dictate that Heartsbane would belong to the head of the house. This means that Sam, by giving up his claim as head of the Tarly house, has also given his rights to Heartsbane. This doesn't mean that Randyll could not give it to him if he still wanted to, just that Sam has given up his entitlement to it.

Also, with Sam being in the Watch, he is no longer considered a part of the Tarly house, he is a brother of the Nights Watch. If you assert that Heartsbane is the property of house Tarly and not Randyll's, then it would be contradictory of you to assert that Heartsbane should also be the property of Sam.

...

This is why Sam is a thief, not only has Sam given up his rights to Heartsbane, but it is Randyll's choice whether he gets it or not. Yes, he is breaking the custom of Heartsbane going to the first born son, but he is not breaking any law as you would claim. 

And if you still want to be obstinate to all of the above, there is the simple fact that Randyll is still alive. Just for arguments sake, let's say your are right and Sam is still entitled to Heartsbane, it is still Randyll's property until he either gives it to Sam or until he is dead. Sam stole Heartsbane, this is a fact, not an opinion. 

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Sam stole heartsbane, I do not think it brave, because he did it slyly, when nobody was watching, literally a thief in the night. Watching Sam at dinner was terrible, I was disgusted by his lack of courage, with his character regression. Sam was at the fist when the WWs struck and despite this he is still terrified of his father??! I call bullshit!! Man up Sam, stand up for youself and tell your father and the rest that WWs are real and are coming for Westeros, or F--k off! Watching that scene was horrible, Sam was supposed to have changed, to have seen the hiorror and to have found courage, but he acted like a scared little boy, I was so disappointed in him and the scene!

Edited by Neds Secret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Neds Secret said:

I agree, Sam stole heartsbane, I do not think it brave, because he did it slyly, when nobody was watching, literally a thief in the night. Watching Sam at dinner was terrible, I was disgusted by his lack of courage, with his character regression. Sam was at the fist when the WWs struck and despite this he is still terrified of his father??! I call bullshit!! Man up Sam, stand up for youself and tell your father and the rest that WWs are real and are coming for Westeros, or F--k off! Watching that scene was horrible, Sam was supposed to have changed, to have seen the hiorror and to have found courage, but he acted like a scared little boy, I was so disappointed in him and the scene!

:agree: 

But this is d$d's season of empowered women, so all character progression  is thrown out the window, turning Sam into the sniffling little wimp that he was before he came to the wall, all so that his big, bad, strong woman could come to his rescue. :rolleyes: 

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now hopefully you will agree that the bolded infers that that once taking these vows it means that you give up your rights to all inheritance as the first born son of a house. You can not inherit your fathers lands and castle, meaning you give up your right to become the lord of said house. This is the specific reason that Randyll sent Sam to the wall, so that he had no rights to the Tarly lands and the title of Lord Tarly. With Sam's joining of the Watch these rights now belong to Dickon.



I fully agree with this.

When Jeor went to the wall, Long claw was already his property, As he was joining the Watch, he decided that he wanted to pass Longclaw to his son before he was dead, as apposed to the normal custom of it being passed upon his death. Note I said custom, there is no law in which it states that a house sword must be passed down to anyone. If you dispute this, please provide a quote from the show or a passage from the book, instead of the irrelevant retort that you had used earlier. Jorah left the sword, so Jeor's daughter decided to send it back to him. He didn't inherit it, It wasn't his right to have it returned, she wanted him to have it. This is why he has Long Claw, it was a personal belonging that was returned to him, not inherited.



I agree with this, more or less. See below. I really don't have a problem with Mormont keeping Longclaw. And even if I did, the moment he gave the ssword to Jon it was no longer an issue. But I do think that if the NW vows automatically eliminate ALL inheritance, that he had no business keeping it and should have told his sister to pass it on to her children.

I've already established that by Joining the Watch, Sam has forfeit his rights to Horn Hill, and the title of Lord Tarly. Longclaw is passed down to the first born son not only because he's the first born son, but because being the first born son also means that you will become the Head of the house. Now custom, and I reiterate custom, not law, would dictate that Heartsbane would belong to the head of the house. This means that Sam, by giving up his claim as head of the Tarly house, has also given his rights to Heartsbane. This doesn't mean that Randyll could not give it to him if he still wanted to, just that Sam has given up his entitlement to it.



There's no custom I'm aware of that requires a Valyrian sword to be held by the lord of the house. It might be common, but it isn't a custom. It would be a foolish custom. Can you imagine Lord Martell wielding a sword?

The wiki says that custom requires that the first born inherits everything, with the caveat that this is a non-binding custom. In other words, Randyl didn't really have to send Sam to the wall in the first place. He could have simply named Dickon heir and thrown Sam out or let him stay or whatever. That Randyl felt it necessary to send Sam to the wall tells me he doesn't believe the custom can be violated. So then Sam would inherit everything, whether he liked it or not. He sent Sam to the wall where he would be forced to take a vow that strips him of lands and titles. Unfortunately for Randyl, that doesn't include swords. So by Randyl's own view of the custom, Sam is still the heir to Heartsbane. Thus he couldn't have stolen it.

And if you still want to be obstinate to all of the above, there is the simple fact that Randyll is still alive. Just for arguments sake, let's say your are right and Sam is still entitled to Heartsbane, it is still Randyll's property until he either gives it to Sam or until he is dead. Sam stole Heartsbane, this is a fact, not an opinion. 



Except it was obvious Randyl intended to deny Sam his rightful birthright, by Randyl's own views of the custom as I established above. Thus Sam HAD to take it in order to claim his birthright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Vastet said:

Unfortunately for Randyl, that doesn't include swords. So by Randyl's own view of the custom, Sam is still the heir to Heartsbane. Thus he couldn't have stolen it.

You can't inherit people's stuff as long as they are still alive. He stole it, even if you view him as the rightful heir to Randylls personal belongings.

We could have this argument, if Randyll had died and Sam took the sword from Dickon. But at this moment, Heartsbane belongs to Randyll by any right, custom or rule. Taking it from him without his consent is theft.

 

Edited by Rhollo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Randyl had every intention to deny Sam his birthright, which is theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neds Secret said:

I agree, Sam stole heartsbane, I do not think it brave, because he did it slyly, when nobody was watching, literally a thief in the night. Watching Sam at dinner was terrible, I was disgusted by his lack of courage, with his character regression. Sam was at the fist when the WWs struck and despite this he is still terrified of his father??! I call bullshit!! Man up Sam, stand up for youself and tell your father and the rest that WWs are real and are coming for Westeros, or F--k off! Watching that scene was horrible, Sam was supposed to have changed, to have seen the hiorror and to have found courage, but he acted like a scared little boy, I was so disappointed in him and the scene!

His father in all seriousness threatened to murder him and "have it look like an accident".

It's quite reasonable to not speak up to such a person and rather suffer his insults in quiet. Especially while being a guest in this persons house without any means to protect oneself. Sometimes fear is a good thing.

But this makes it even stupider to steal Heartsbane imho. It gives Randyll a reason to come after Sam, even some justification to kill him eventually. If he just f---ed off during the night with Gilly and the baby, Randyll would most likely leave them alone, being glad that he doesn't have to deal with them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vastet said:

There's no custom I'm aware of that requires a Valyrian sword to be held by the lord of the house. It might be common, but it isn't a custom. It would be a foolish custom. Can you imagine Lord Martell wielding a sword?

A custom doesn't mean it is required, it just means it is the normal thing to do. Lord Martell would still be, according to custom, the rightful heir of an item as this. That doesn't mean he has to use it, but it would still be his sword, which would be as much a symbol of house Doran, as it would be used as a weapon. It would also be his choice to either pass it down to his son earlier than is normal custom, or give it to someone such as his brother the Red Viper, if he so chose. Just as Lord Tarly has the right to do. It's ridiculous that you think that the owner of a sword (essentially a piece of equipment, an object that a member of that house just happened to acquire at some point) doesn't have the right to do with it as he pleases.

1 hour ago, Vastet said:

The wiki says that custom requires that the first born inherits everything, with the caveat that this is a non-binding custom. In other words, Randyl didn't really have to send Sam to the wall in the first place. He could have simply named Dickon heir and thrown Sam out or let him stay or whatever. That Randyl felt it necessary to send Sam to the wall tells me he doesn't believe the custom can be violated. So then Sam would inherit everything, whether he liked it or not. He sent Sam to the wall where he would be forced to take a vow that strips him of lands and titles. Unfortunately for Randyl, that doesn't include swords. So by Randyl's own view of the custom, Sam is still the heir to Heartsbane. Thus he couldn't have stolen it.

The first line specifically states that this is non binding, that means Randyll is not required to leave anything to Sam. This point alone renders your argument that Heartsbane is Sam's property to be false. You are correct, he did not have to send Sam to the wall. You agree he has the power to name Dickon heir of his lands and his title, so don't you think he can do the same for a sword? It is preposterous that he has the power to do the former, but not the latter.

The bolded is pure speculation on your part, there is nothing to suggest that this is true. I would surmise that the reason Randyll sent Sam to the wall was because one, he did not want Sam to be around in case he tried to challenge his decision, and two, it is very clear that he despised Sam, saw him as an embarrassment, and was ashamed for anyone to see or meet him. Sending him to the wall was a means of getting rid of this stain on his house.

1 hour ago, Vastet said:

Except it was obvious Randyl intended to deny Sam his rightful birthright, by Randyl's own views of the custom as I established above. Thus Sam HAD to take it in order to claim his birthright.

Again, just for arguments sake, as it is not Sam's undeniable birthright. Randyll's intentions have absolutely no bearing on who the owner is at this time. Birthright or not, the undeniable fact is that when Sam takes Heartsbane, it is the property of Randyll Tarly, or if you prefer, House Tarly. This means he stole it. Fact.

ETA: This however is off topic, If you wish to continue arguing against a fact, you can tag me in another thread.

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the wiki entry for Dawn says the following

Quote

Unlike other houses who have ancestral swords, House Dayne does not pass its sword from lord to lord.  Only a knight of House Dayne who is worthy can wield it.(ref.)

So, two things:
1.) The usual custom is for the new lord of the house to inherit the family sword
2.) Houses must not strictly follow this custom

So Sam has absolutely no right to Heartsbane. By default it would pass to Dickon and even if Sam hadn't taken the black and was still the heir to Horn Hill, Randyll could choose to give it to Dickon instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The first line specifically states that this is non binding, that means Randyll is not required to leave anything to Sam. This point alone renders your argument that Heartsbane is Sam's property to be false.





No it doesn't, because I showed that Randyl doesn't see it that way. Quote mining will never win you any argument. Use the context, or don't bother quoting at all.




The bolded is pure speculation on your part, there is nothing to suggest that this is true.





Ridiculous. EVERYTHING suggests this is true.




I would surmise that the reason Randyll sent Sam to the wall was because one, he did not want Sam to be around in case he tried to challenge his decision, and two, it is very clear that he despised Sam, saw him as an embarrassment, and was ashamed for anyone to see or meet him. Sending him to the wall was a means of getting rid of this stain on his house.





All he had to do was kick him out, forbid him to return, and name Dickon heir if he didn't believe the custom was immutable. He didn't do that, so he didn't believe the custom was immutable. That's a logical fact. Your argument has 0 logic.




Again, just for arguments sake, as it is not Sam's undeniable birthright. Randyll's intentions have absolutely no bearing on who the owner is at this time. Birthright or not, the undeniable fact is that when Sam takes Heartsbane, it is the property of Randyll Tarly, or if you prefer, House Tarly. This means he stole it. Fact.





Randyl intended on ignoring Sam's birthright, which is theft. Fact. He already stole Sam's land and title because Sam took his vows. But Sam didn't let him steal the sword too. Fact.

Edited by Vastet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rhollo said:

His father in all seriousness threatened to murder him and "have it look like an accident".

It's quite reasonable to not speak up to such a person and rather suffer his insults in quiet. Especially while being a guest in this persons house without any means to protect oneself. Sometimes fear is a good thing.

But this makes it even stupider to steal Heartsbane imho. It gives Randyll a reason to come after Sam, even some justification to kill him eventually. If he just f---ed off during the night with Gilly and the baby, Randyll would most likely leave them alone, being glad that he doesn't have to deal with them anymore.

I actually believe that Randyll Tarly would love it if Sam stood up to him, like the Greatjon with Robb Stark in the show. Sam left for the nights watch and he's returning home with a wife and kids (of a style), Randyll most likely knows that the nights watchmen are not supposed to do this and he still welcomed him home. My take on this is Randlyll was majorly surprised by this rebellious behaviour of Sams and that he wanted to take a measure of what was going on.  Randyll might have thought "My cowardly boy has achieved the near impossible and seems to be still held in high esteem by the watch" and imo Randyll would love it if when he talked down to Sam the metamorphosis was complete and Sam stood up and told his dad to back up and pull his head in and watch his mouth about and around  Gilly. I believe that if Sam had done this Randyll would have been proud of him and impressed but Sam still failed to man up when he had the chance! Instead he snuck around like a mouse and stole the sword that he could maybe have earned by demonstrating the courage and strength Sam had shown us over the  seasons 2-5, but yet again that scene was a waste, it could have been so much better! D$D could have wrote an awesome scene depicting Sam's new spirit and bravery that he has learnt in his journey but yet again characters act like they did 4 years ago. Gilly had to step in which is even more embarrassing because Gillys father makes Sams dad look like father of the century , and yet she has to defend Sam. It's absurd and add to this that he even let his father demean and insult Gilly, who Sam says he would die for, it just gets worse and worse the more I think of it, the Scene had so much potential and it could not have been portrayed worse than it was!

Edited by Neds Secret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neds Secret said:

I actually believe that Randyll Tarly would love it if Sam stood up to him, like the Greatjon with Robb Stark in the show. Sam left for the nights watch and he's returning home with a wife and kids (of a style), Randyll most likely knows that the nights watchmen are not supposed to do this and he still welcomed him home. My take on this is Randlyll was majorly surprised by this rebellious behaviour of Sams and that he wanted to take a measure of what was going on.  Randyll might have thought "My cowardly boy has achieved the near impossible and seems to be still held in high esteem by the watch" and imo Randyll would love it if when he talked down to Sam the metamorphosis was complete and Sam stood up and told his dad to back up and pull his head in and watch his mouth about and around  Gilly. I believe that if Sam had done this Randyll would have been proud of him and impressed but Sam still failed to man up when he had the chance! Instead he snuck around like a mouse and stole the sword that he could maybe have earned by demonstrating the courage and strength Sam had shown us over the  seasons 2-5, but yet again that scene was a waste, it could have been so much better! D$D could have wrote an awesome scene depicting Sam's new spirit and bravery that he has learnt in his journey but yet again characters act like they did 4 years ago. Gilly had to step in which is even more embarrassing because Gillys father makes Sams dad look like father of the century , and yet she has to defend Sam. It's absurd and add to this that he even let his father demean and insult Gilly, who Sam says he would die for, it just gets worse and worse the more I think of it, the Scene had so much potential and it could not have been portrayed worse than it was!

Lot of good stuff in here. However the approach they took of having Sam regress, but then ultimately find the cojones to give a  big parting FU to his father also rang true to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rhollo said:

His father in all seriousness threatened to murder him and "have it look like an accident".

It's quite reasonable to not speak up to such a person and rather suffer his insults in quiet. Especially while being a guest in this persons house without any means to protect oneself. Sometimes fear is a good thing.

But this makes it even stupider to steal Heartsbane imho. It gives Randyll a reason to come after Sam, even some justification to kill him eventually. If he just f---ed off during the night with Gilly and the baby, Randyll would most likely leave them alone, being glad that he doesn't have to deal with them anymore.

Does it? Does Randyll Tarly  desire the reputation as someone who had to go chasing after his eldest son to get his sword back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from Arya and Bran, the episode was pretty meh.

Badass Benjen would earn the episode some bonus points, but I gotta give it double minus points 'cause of that lame ass Dany shit.

Therefore, 6/10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, God-Emperor of Yi Ti said:

Does it? Does Randyll Tarly  desire the reputation as someone who had to go chasing after his eldest son to get his sword back?

Does he desire the reputation as someone who you can steal family heirlooms from with impunity ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rhollo said:

Does he desire the reputation as someone who you can steal family heirlooms from with impunity ?

well the only people who know Sam stole  [as opposed to being given) it are his immediate family. 

How many will know the other thing if RT has to go off galloping with a bunch of his men to oldtown on a sword hunt?

Edited by God-Emperor of Yi Ti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, God-Emperor of Yi Ti said:

well the only people who know Sam stole  [as opposed to being given) it are his immediate family. 

How many will know the other thing if RT has to go off galloping with a bunch of his men to oldtown on a sword hunt?

The Lord of Horn Hill going off to Oldtown wouldn't raise much suspicion, I imagine. So only the people he tells would know the exact purpose of the trip, for everyone else it's just some lordly business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×