Please, please can't we all just get along!

[velo-knight]

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

How does dying on the toilet wipe out the previous 60 years of his life? Is he no longer the youngest Hand in the History of Westeros? One of the longest serving Hands in the history of Westeros? Is he no longer the victor of the Battle of Blackwater?

His core objective was consistently and always Lannister dignity, power, and honor. His extremely undignified death is the opposite (complete with the seeming appearance of laughter on his corpse's face) of all the motives that drove him to such heights in the first place.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He made his daughter Queen and two Grandson's kings. Whatever happens in the future, that still happened. Henry I's reputation did not take a nosedive because his daughter lost the Crown.

If Tyrion, his universally acknowledged murderer, becomes Lord of Casterly Rock in the end - which I think is likely - the analogy doesn't really hold. Also, while Henry I's daughter lost the crown, she recovered it for his grandson. Tyrion inheriting and passing on the Rock would mean his most despised child won despite Tywin' wishes.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Tywin outlived both his father and (likely) his grandfather. He seems to have been the most influential person from the Westerlands in the last three hundred years. All of this is not simply erased due to how he died. 

Well first of all that does not seem to be true. We have Pycelle, Kevan, Genna and the solemn looking Lords of the Westerlands who lead his funeral pyre back home to show this is not true. 

Fair enough - but the people who control the family's future, the all-important family name, are Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion. Cersei and Tyrion's abuse from Tywin is no small part of what would lead to the Lannister undoing; and the Lannister name and reputation, Tywin's name and reputation, may suffer as a result. I don't think, if Tywin Lannister could see what happened after his death, he'd be all that happy with how it's turned out - and it only looks to get worse from here.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

His twenty year Handship to Aerys was a time of peace and prosperity, he brought peace and stability to the Westerlands. To say he only inspired fear seems to be ignoring a lot and only taking the viewpoint from his enemies. Robert in the first book states what an honour it is for Ned's nephew to be warded with Tywin Lannister.

It's actually worse: he inspired a sort of feudal love from servants by being an effective politician; while turning almost everyone close to him into an enemy (Aerys, Tyrion); a stranger (Jaime), or a failure (Cersei).

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Secondly I don't really see what this has to do with his reputation. Is Ghengis Khan's reputation damaged because of the fear he inspired?

It objectively is. Despite the many, many, many laudable accomplishments of the Mongol Empire; and despite the day-to-day reality of the Mongol empire as a pluralistic society, the image of Genghis Khan and the entire Mongol empire in many parts of the world is still tainted because of atrocities and terror.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

How can he be complicit? He was neither the host or the guest. You are trying to stretch. 

If someone says, "I'm going to invite your enemy over and stab him and switch to your side, will you reward me?" and I saw "Yes", I'm absolutely complicit in what happens, and on the off chance that Tywin was more involved than that; or that betrayals were earlier than we've seen conclusively, it would be fun to see Tywin's reputation as an honorable lord take yet another blow in the public eye.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Besides, the people of Westeros already think he knew about it. Unless the Frey's claim that Tywin forced them to do it what new information can any of the Frey's give. And how exactly do you think this 'new' information will be relayed to the general populace of Westeros?

Does it matter if a hundred people witness the trial or a hundred thousand? It's not like the people of Westeros get CNN, but more "Tywin Lannister was a dick" reports coming out of a trial eventually reach the ears of lords, maesters, and singers - who collectively write most of history.

[Roswell]

On 5/10/2017 at 7:29 PM, Lame Lothar Frey said:

His Lordship, the Lord of the Crossing instructed me to make the following offer to heal the rift between us.

• Toll free access for 5 years for all goods from the North.
• We will return Robb's overcoat after mending the holes.
• We will return Greywind's pelt and the fleas.
• Pay 10% of the cost to repair Winterfell even if we didn't do the damage.
• Sign a peace treaty with the Frogeaters.  We promise not to feed them to our pigs if they promise to leave our farms alone.

 

Very truly yours,

Lothar Frey

Steward of The Twins

pc Lord Walder Frey

What a waste of time.  The Starks are dispossessed, homeless, and destitute.  They have nothing to offer and nothing you want.  They were not wealthy to begin with.  Jon Snow is the only Stark with power right now and he can't speak nor represent them.  His oaths forbids him to take sides if you will recall.  Finish off Catelyn Stoneheart and do it right this time.  Set a bounty on the direwolf's head and make it generous.  Peace with the Starks is not good idea.  Robb betrayed his words and you can't trust them and they can't trust you.  I would finish them off if I were you.

The Trasporter

 

[HoodedCrow]

This series appears to be designed to explore oaths, mostly how you can be a bad person for keeping oaths that are inadequate for the complex ethics of the situation, and how difficult it is to do the right thing, when given moral dilemmas.

Examples: Barristan Selmy keeping quiet over rape and the despicable actions of a loathsome king. Jaime kingslaying to save a city full of people. The kingsguard obeying Joffrey and beating up Sansa.

[kissdbyfire]

15 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

This series appears to be designed to explore oaths, mostly how you can be a bad person for keeping oaths that are inadequate for the complex ethics of the situation, and how difficult it is to do the right thing, when given moral dilemmas.

Examples: Barristan Selmy keeping quiet over rape and the despicable actions of a loathsome king. Jaime kingslaying to save a city full of people. The kingsguard obeying Joffrey and beating up Sansa.

And it's not just how one can be a bad person by keeping an oath - Selmy is an excellent example imo - but even how blind obedience is downright stupid and dangerous. 

“Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. “Are you telling us not to obey the king?”
“The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me.”

 

[Big P]

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

This series appears to be designed to explore oaths, mostly how you can be a bad person for keeping oaths that are inadequate for the complex ethics of the situation, and how difficult it is to do the right thing, when given moral dilemmas.

Examples: Barristan Selmy keeping quiet over rape and the despicable actions of a loathsome king. Jaime kingslaying to save a city full of people. The kingsguard obeying Joffrey and beating up Sansa.

Oaths and vows serve very important functions.  It's not just a matter of breaking a promise.  I recommend you read the article below from a respected site:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/03/economics_of_ice_and_fire_part_five_breach_of_trust_in_dynastic_marriage.html

Robb became untrustworthy the second he broke his oath to an ally who bled for his cause.   

[velo-knight]

2 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

This series appears to be designed to explore oaths, mostly how you can be a bad person for keeping oaths that are inadequate for the complex ethics of the situation, and how difficult it is to do the right thing, when given moral dilemmas.

Examples: Barristan Selmy keeping quiet over rape and the despicable actions of a loathsome king. Jaime kingslaying to save a city full of people. The kingsguard obeying Joffrey and beating up Sansa.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

And it's not just how one can be a bad person by keeping an oath - Selmy is an excellent example imo - but even how blind obedience is downright stupid and dangerous. 

“Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. “Are you telling us not to obey the king?”
“The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me.”

 

The two of you just said everything I wanted to in my bits on oaths and love, only much, much better.

Also, regarding realism and medieval politics: it's worth noting that ASoIaF is a work of fiction, and like many works of fiction, concerned not just with the real world (or realistic medieval themes), but also with tropes and themes common in the genre. Martin's famous comment about wanting to know Aragorn's tax policy is a good example, but not the only one. The role of vows in fantasy and legends of heroes is complex and Martin continually plays with the themes of oaths being interlaced with, divorced from, and in conflict to various types of love and honor at different points, through multiple character arcs.

 

[Bernie Mac]

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

His core objective was consistently and always Lannister dignity, power, and honor. His extremely undignified death is the opposite (complete with the seeming appearance of laughter on his corpse's face) of all the motives that drove him to such heights in the first place.

Sure. You have answered why Tywin would be unhappy with his death and the events that will likely transpire in the years after it. I did not ask about that, I asked about his reputation which you claimed the 'book was closed on it'. 

 

He was one of the five or so most powerful and influential people in the last 40 years of a continent. That is 40 years of Maesters documenting his actions. His place in history is confirmed, as we have seen in the World book.

 

Pycelle as one of the longest running Grand Maesters is going to be one of the primary sources of how people remember this era and his reports are going to show Tywin in a very positive light. We even hear from Maester Ballabar how "Lord Tywin saved us all. The smallfolk say it was King Renly's ghost, but wiser men know better."

If Cersei or her children lose the Throne in the years after Tywin's death then that will be on them. Historically dead parents and grand parents have not been blamed for the failing of their successors. 

 

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

If Tyrion, his universally acknowledged murderer, becomes Lord of Casterly Rock in the end - which I think is likely - the analogy doesn't really hold.

Sure it does. Kinslaying and Kingslaying are just as sacred to the people of Westeros as Guest rights are. Tyrion's reputation is done for even if he eventually becomes Lord of the Westerlands. Tyrion is going to end up a villainous character for the history books. 

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

 

Also, while Henry I's daughter lost the crown, she recovered it for his grandson. Tyrion inheriting and passing on the Rock would mean his most despised child won despite Tywin' wishes.

Are these wishes public? He never disinherited Tyrion (while he was an innocent man). You are confusing our intimate knowledge of a private conversation with what is known and Tyrion was never disinherited, Tywin never named a new heir. 

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

Fair enough - but the people who control the family's future, the all-important family name, are Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion. Cersei and Tyrion's abuse from Tywin is no small part of what would lead to the Lannister undoing; and the Lannister name and reputation, Tywin's name and reputation, may suffer as a result. I don't think, if Tywin Lannister could see what happened after his death, he'd be all that happy with how it's turned out - and it only looks to get worse from here.

Sure. He is dead. I imagine most of the prominent leaders, Robert, Ned, Jon Arryn, Hoster and Tywin, would be disappointed with what has happened after their demise. 

I'm not challenging on whether Tywin would be happy with what happened after his death, I was challenging your claim that the book was closed on his reputation. 

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

It's actually worse: he inspired a sort of feudal love from servants by being an effective politician; while turning almost everyone close to him into an enemy (Aerys, Tyrion); a stranger (Jaime), or a failure (Cersei).

Again, not really sure what this has to do with what you claimed. 

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

It objectively is. Despite the many, many, many laudable accomplishments of the Mongol Empire; and despite the day-to-day reality of the Mongol empire as a pluralistic society, the image of Genghis Khan and the entire Mongol empire in many parts of the world is still tainted because of atrocities and terror.

It objectively is not. Your personal opinions aside, Ghengis is recognised as one of the greatest and most influential figures in history. As is Julius Caeser and his (even more bloodthirsty) successor Octavius. 

You are confusing goodness with greatness. History, especially history going back more than a century, remembers and actually celebrates some of the worst people to have ever lived glorifying in their achievements. I'd agree that this is unfortunate, but it remains a fact. 

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

If someone says, "I'm going to invite your enemy over and stab him and switch to your side, will you reward me?" and I saw "Yes", I'm absolutely complicit in what happens, and on the off chance that Tywin was more involved than that; or that betrayals were earlier than we've seen conclusively, it would be fun to see Tywin's reputation as an honorable lord take yet another blow in the public eye.

Guest rights is to do with the host and the guest. Tywin was neither. 

On 13/05/2017 at 6:13 PM, velo-knight said:

Does it matter if a hundred people witness the trial or a hundred thousand? It's not like the people of Westeros get CNN, but more "Tywin Lannister was a dick" reports coming out of a trial eventually reach the ears of lords, maesters, and singers - who collectively write most of history.

We know who writes the most of history, the Maesters. The most famous and influential Maester of the last 50 years was in awe of Tywin, Whether that is deserved or not is immaterial. 

And the type of trial you are talking about is pretty much unheard of, for one Guest Rights is a custom. It is not a legal law. If the Northerners are going to want revenge then they will take it, they are not going to put on some pointless trial in the hopes that it will incriminate a long dead lord.  

[velo-knight]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure. You have answered why Tywin would be unhappy with his death and the events that will likely transpire in the years after it. I did not ask about that, I asked about his reputation which you claimed the 'book was closed on it'. 

Among readers, it should be. I don't know why you are insisting on an in-universe examination only. We as readers can see how Tywin's relationship with his children sowed the seeds of the Lannister downfall; and we as readers can see how even after the Starks are totally beaten, men are fighting and dying for Ned Stark's family. Don't you think that should close the book on what Tywin's legacy is to us as readers? I think that's the author's point here.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

He was one of the five or so most powerful and influential people in the last 40 years of a continent. That is 40 years of Maesters documenting his actions. His place in history is confirmed, as we have seen in the World book.

Plenty of IRL propaganda has been written based on the belief that a transitory but once powerful figure was about to forge a new era of greatness. I fail to see how the World Book is different.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

If Cersei or her children lose the Throne in the years after Tywin's death then that will be on them. Historically dead parents and grand parents have not been blamed for the failing of their successors. 

But we the readers know that his abuse of his children helped form those exact character traits that will cause them to fail.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure it does. Kinslaying and Kingslaying are just as sacred to the people of Westeros as Guest rights are. Tyrion's reputation is done for even if he eventually becomes Lord of the Westerlands. Tyrion is going to end up a villainous character for the history books. 

Are these wishes public? He never disinherited Tyrion (while he was an innocent man). You are confusing our intimate knowledge of a private conversation with what is known and Tyrion was never disinherited, Tywin never named a new heir. 

Sure. He is dead. I imagine most of the prominent leaders, Robert, Ned, Jon Arryn, Hoster and Tywin, would be disappointed with what has happened after their demise. 

I'm not challenging on whether Tywin would be happy with what happened after his death, I was challenging your claim that the book was closed on his reputation. 

I do not remember arguing that his reputation was closed in-universe (else no need for him to be further condemned in a trial!) but that his accomplishments are unraveling before us, and in an incredibly short period of time.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

It objectively is not. Your personal opinions aside, Ghengis is recognised as one of the greatest and most influential figures in history. As is Julius Caeser and his (even more bloodthirsty) successor Octavius. 

You are confusing goodness with greatness. History, especially history going back more than a century, remembers and actually celebrates some of the worst people to have ever lived glorifying in their achievements. I'd agree that this is unfortunate, but it remains a fact. 

I generally admire the Mongol empire, but I don't pretend that the massacres, especially in Persia, didn't happen; and while greatness and goodness are not the same, I do believe that massacres are bad PR and probably made his empire a little less great in extent (and certainly in population).

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Guest rights is to do with the host and the guest. Tywin was neither. 

And? If I plan to commit a crime that will benefit you and you are party to the planning, you're a co-conspirator. Modern legal thinking has no problem condemning people for such, and given the importance of the guest right custom, I think Westeros will as well.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

We know who writes the most of history, the Maesters. The most famous and influential Maester of the last 50 years was in awe of Tywin, Whether that is deserved or not is immaterial. 

I doubt they'll love Tywin once a new winner is in town. It's a good in-universe reason to try and villify him, though.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

And the type of trial you are talking about is pretty much unheard of, for one Guest Rights is a custom. It is not a legal law. If the Northerners are going to want revenge then they will take it, they are not going to put on some pointless trial in the hopes that it will incriminate a long dead lord.  

A lord who's been dead for a few years, and a character assassination of whom lays a legal foundation for punitive action against his heirs, supporters, and co-conspirators.

[Bernie Mac]

6 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

Among readers, it should be.

Well I was talking amongst in world. For the readers Tywin has been a villain from the first book. His reputation has barely changed amongst the readers. We the readers know he is a fictional character whose actions are determined by the author. It is rather pointless discussing his reputation in this regard. 

6 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

 

 

I don't know why you are insisting on an in-universe examination only.

I was responding to your post where you stated that Tywin's reputationn was going to be hit when/if a Frey reveals the full extent of his treachery to the rest of Westeros. Forgive me, but your previous two replies make it appear you are discussing his in universe reputation. 

Of course if you were not talking about his in - universe reputation being destroyed then fair enough, no need to reply. 

6 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

 

We as readers can see how Tywin's relationship with his children sowed the seeds of the Lannister downfall; and we as readers can see how even after the Starks are totally beaten, men are fighting and dying for Ned Stark's family. Don't you think that should close the book on what Tywin's legacy is to us as readers? I think that's the author's point here.

He is a fictional character. To readers he does not exist only as a part of GRRM's wonderful writing. 

6 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

Plenty of IRL propaganda has been written based on the belief that a transitory but once powerful figure was about to forge a new era of greatness. I fail to see how the World Book is different.

I'm not sure your point. His reputation in Westeros does not hinge on how he died, the forty years he was a hugely powerful and influential figure will be documented by many Maesters, that is one of the biggest factors in how historians of Westeros will remember him. 

6 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

I generally admire the Mongol empire, but I don't pretend that the massacres, especially in Persia, didn't happen; and while greatness and goodness are not the same, I do believe that massacres are bad PR and probably made his empire a little less great in extent (and certainly in population).

Again, you are certainly allowed your opinion and maybe if more people and historians in the future share your opinion then Ghengis' reputation will change but currently and in the past he has been regarded as one of the greatest figures in history. That is just a basic truth. 

6 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

And? If I plan to commit a crime that will benefit you and you are party to the planning, you're a co-conspirator. Modern legal thinking has no problem condemning people for such, and given the importance of the guest right custom, I think Westeros will as well.

Guest Rights is not a crime in Westeros. It is a custom. Important difference.

6 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

I doubt they'll love Tywin once a new winner is in town. It's a good in-universe reason to try and villify him, though.

A lord who's been dead for a few years, and a character assassination of whom lays a legal foundation for punitive action against his heirs, supporters, and co-conspirators.

eh? You make it sound like they are offering Frey's a plea deal to incriminate someone who is already long dead. We have seen nothing like that kind of action in Westeros and it seems a huge departure for GRRM to do that. 

[Wolf's Bane]

A Stark can be useful to Roose Bolton to help smooth the transition of power.  But you only need one.  Kill all of the boys and leave one of the girls for Roose to use as he sees fit.  That's the smart move.  Peace with the House of Stark is not needed because they are no longer a house.  Roose already has winterfell.  The Starks have nothing to offer and somebody like Arya is not going to let a peace treaty get in the way of revenge.  She has to die before any peace can take place and the sooner the better.

[HoodedCrow]

Nixon. Watergate.

This series appears to be designed to explore oaths, mostly how you can be a bad person for keeping oaths that are inadequate for the complex ethics of the situation, and how difficult it is to do the right thing, when given moral dilemmas.

Examples: Barristan Selmy keeping quiet over rape and the despicable actions of a loathsome king. Jaime kingslaying to save a city full of people. The kingsguard obeying Joffrey and beating up Sansa.

[Darkstream]

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Guest Rights is not a crime in Westeros. It is a custom. Important difference.

I've never given much consideration to whether or not Guests Rights was actually a crime, until you mentioned it, however I'm not so sure your claim is accurate. 

A Storm of Swords - Jon I

Quote

"Your father would have had my head off." The king gave a shrug. "Though once I had eaten at his board I was protected by guest right. The laws of hospitality are as old as the First Men, and sacred as a heart tree." He gestured at the board between them, the broken bread and chicken bones. "Here you are the guest, and safe from harm at my hands . . . this night, at least. So tell me truly, Jon Snow. Are you a craven who turned your cloak from fear, or is there another reason that brings you to my tent?"

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn VI

Quote

 

"I'm more wet than hungry . . ."

"Robb, listen to me. Once you have eaten of his bread and salt, you have the guest right, and the laws of hospitality protect you beneath his roof."

 

The World of Ice and Fire - The North

Quote

One notable custom that the Northmen hold dearer than any other is guest right, the tradition of hospitality by which a man may offer no harm to a guest beneath his roof, nor a guest to his host. The Andals held to something like it as well, but it looms less large in southron minds. In his text Justice and Injustice in the North: Judgments of Three Stark Lords, Maester Egbert notes that crimes in the North in which guest right was violated were rare but were invariably treated as harshly as the direst of treasons. Only kinslaying is deemed as sinful as the violations of these laws of hospitality.

 

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

I've never given much consideration to whether or not Guests Rights was actually a crime, until you mentioned it, however I'm not so sure your claim is accurate. 

A Storm of Swords - Jon I

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn VI

The World of Ice and Fire - The North

 

It is right there in the the World of Ice and Fire quote. It refers to it as a custom, an ancient one. Not a legal one. If it was a legal law it would be held in the same regard throughout all of Westeros (sans Dorne as they were given some extra leeway with their laws) but instead we are told that the custom is seen as a bigger sin in the North than it is the South. 

 

 

[Darkstream]

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is right there in the the World of Ice and Fire quote. It refers to it as a custom, an ancient one. Not a legal one. If it was a legal law it would be held in the same regard throughout all of Westeros (sans Dorne as they were given some extra leeway with their laws) but instead we are told that the custom is seen as a bigger sin in the North than it is the South. 

I don't see how the referencing of guests rights as an ancient custom excludes it from being a law, or nullifies the actual referencing of it as a law. 

And the fact that the severity of this as a sin "looms less large in southron minds" is hardly an indication that it isn't a law either.

Besides, how would you justify the treatment of these "crimes" with the same harsh consequences as the direst of treasons, if it were merely a custom? I'm not sure why something considered to be as sinful and appalling of an act as kinslaying and treason, would be legal.

As I've shown, it is referred to as a law, and the breaking of this law was referred to as a crime; I don't believe you have brought up any points, or provided any evidence that would suggest otherwise.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 5/11/2017 at 9:32 AM, Wm Portnoy said:

Dear Mr. Frey,

On behalf of the Starks, we agree in principle to accept your most generous terms.  We would agree to waive any claims to the last two items on your list if you agree to waive any claims to the damages caused by Nymeria and Stoneheart to the people of the Riverlands.  Further, you agree to dispose of them at your own expense.  We in turn agree to forfeit any rights to collect any further relief other than that specified in items 1-3 on your offer.

 

At your service,

William Portnoy, Esq

Legal Adviser to the Starks

 

Waive the last two items? You are either a poor legal advisor (really poor) or you are only posing as one. This wolf and Stoneheart are not Stark's problems. Lady Stoneheart was born not once, but twice in the Riverlands, and this wolf has never been confirmed as to been belonging to the Starks.

On 5/12/2017 at 2:39 AM, Tygett Blackwood said:

To the infamous House Frey;

We, the Blackwoods, swear we'll never make peace with you. You must pay for killing His Majesty, Robb of House Stark, and my cousin Lucas.

We have been talking with Lady Stoneheart, Ser Blackfish and Nymeria the she-direwolf, and you can expect something bloody!!!

 

Cousin! How fairs your brood?

As to you Freys, 

I concur with my cousin. Once we have the strenths, we will destroy you, piece by piece, until the name Frey is erased from the Riverlands for good.

Hope you die, 

Lord of Raventree Hall

[Tyg Doggett]

5 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Cousin! How fairs your brood?

Very well, thanks. And my brother has finished his chain at the Citadel. Also, we recived your invitation to Granny's Name Day.

Hugs to the children!

[Wm Portnoy]

On 5/11/2017 at 0:36 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

I wonder if the Starks will be made to answer for the damages being caused by Nymeria. 

Nymeria is a wild animal.  I don't think anyone can build a connection to the Starks.  She's just a freak of nature to those unlucky enough to be her prey.

On 5/10/2017 at 7:29 PM, Lame Lothar Frey said:

Dear Starks,

-

-

Can't we all just get along.

Symond, Jared, Rhaegar, Jinglebells, Merrett, Petyr are dead.  There are enough wrongs to go around.  So let's be friends, shall we. 

His Lordship, the Lord of the Crossing instructed me to make the following offer to heal the rift between us.

• Toll free access for 5 years for all goods from the North.
• We will return Robb's overcoat after mending the holes.
• We will return Greywind's pelt and the fleas.
• Pay 10% of the cost to repair Winterfell even if we didn't do the damage.
• Sign a peace treaty with the Frogeaters.  We promise not to feed them to our pigs if they promise to leave our farms alone.

 

Very truly yours,

Lothar Frey

Steward of The Twins

pc Lord Walder Frey

Please, please can we all get along?

IMO, the Freys and the Starks have a much better chance of getting along than we do here in the forums. 

I support my favorite person (Daenerys Targaryen) just as passionately as the opposition (Jon's fan) support his/her.  The fans are very much divided between these two characters, IMO.  That generates a lot of discussion and debates, which is good business for George.  To answer the question in the main header, probably not. 

[BalerionTheCat]

On 12/05/2017 at 5:17 AM, velo-knight said:

Disagree. The entire character arc and saga of Ser Jaime Lannister and his many oaths is an examination of the oathbreaker as a concept - and if, as many suspect he will, Jon Snow survives and is the final hero or even King at the end, he will have been rewarded despite being a pretty serious oathbreaker.

As many people are understanding the NW vows, Jon broke them. But we don't know what the gods were expecting. Was Jon to let men like Roose and Tywin lead the realm to chaos when the Others are coming? To let men like March keep the Free Folk as food for the Others? If the vows mean this, then Jon was right to break them. And the gods would be just to reward him. One can vow evil as easily as good. The NW, the KG are both corrupted organizations in the service of wrong men. They deserve to be disbanded. And you don't need vows to do what is just and good. Vows are just to discharge yourself of your responsibilities.

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, BalerionTheCat said:

As many people are understanding the NW vows, Jon broke them. But we don't know what the gods were expecting. Was Jon to let men like Roose and Tywin lead the realm to chaos when the Others are coming? To let men like March keep the Free Folk as food for the Others? If the vows mean this, then Jon was right to break them. And the gods would be just to reward him. One can vow evil as easily as good. The NW, the KG are both corrupted organizations in the service of wrong men. They deserve to be disbanded. And you don't need vows to do what is just and good. Vows are just to discharge yourself of your responsibilities.

"But I was just fulfilling my oath/obeying orders!"