Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

If an artist gives permission to use their work on the site, it's cool to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2021 at 8:55 AM, Ran said:

ETA: On further consideration, it may actually be better to just stick to "Struggle" or, alternatively, "Conflict" for these cases, including the Arryn war. This would allow us to group all such conflicts, regardless of the scale, together. I mean, the Greyjoy succession was a bloody mess that was clearly something of a civil war, but the term isn't directly used. OTOH, there are definitely conflicts that don't necessarily rise to the level of war that could fit under this. 

I have changed it to Conflict on this basis because i think it is a more catch all term then struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran

The Citadel page of the Flints of Flint's Finger mentions Robin, indicating he is a member of the house, although the appendix says he is the son of Lady Lyessa Flint of Widow's Watch. The wiki uses this source to make Robin a Flint of Flint's Finger, but I am not sure that this is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

@Ran

The Citadel page of the Flints of Flint's Finger mentions Robin, indicating he is a member of the house, although the appendix says he is the son of Lady Lyessa Flint of Widow's Watch. The wiki uses this source to make Robin a Flint of Flint's Finger, but I am not sure that this is right.

Yeah, our heraldry pages shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than the arms -- the descriptive texts are our own works. I'm going to have to double check on why we have this issue, but I believe it relates to GRRM himself having equivocated at some point on where Robin belongs.

ETA: Per GRRM in 1999, after the publication of ACoK, he indicated that he didn't think he had indicated which house he belonged to. Which is not correct, as you say, but it may indicate that GRRM had second thoughts about it. Notably, the ASoS appendix no longer states that Lyessa is Robin Flint's mother. So... I think the way the page is currently written is okay, indicating that there's uncertainty on the matter. In ACoK, yes, he was the son of the Lady of Widow's Watch. By the time of ASoS, it's no longer clear if GRRM stuck to that or changed his mind.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ran said:

Yeah, our heraldry pages shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than the arms -- the descriptive texts are our own works. I'm going to have to double check on why we have this issue, but I believe it relates to GRRM himself having equivocated at some point on where Robin belongs.

ETA: Per GRRM in 1999, after the publication of ACoK, he indicated that he didn't think he had indicated which house he belonged to. Which is not correct, as you say, but it may indicate that GRRM had second thoughts about it. Notably, the ASoS appendix no longer states that Lyessa is Robin Flint's mother. So... I think the way the page is currently written is okay, indicating that there's uncertainty on the matter. In ACoK, yes, he was the son of the Lady of Widow's Watch. By the time of ASoS, it's no longer clear if GRRM stuck to that or changed his mind.

The wiki also states that based on the semi-canon Campaign Guide Robin is the Lord of Flint's Finger, but I seem to remember you said that the book isn't really semi-canon, so do you think that part should be removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The wiki also states that based on the semi-canon Campaign Guide Robin is the Lord of Flint's Finger, but I seem to remember you said that the book isn't really semi-canon, so do you think that part should be removed?

I think I'd remove that particular piece, yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The wiki also states that based on the semi-canon Campaign Guide Robin is the Lord of Flint's Finger, but I seem to remember you said that the book isn't really semi-canon, so do you think that part should be removed?

 

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think I'd remove that particular piece, yes. 

Would the same apply to results of tournaments? Because right now Yohn Royce is listed as the winner of the melee in the tournament off Harrenhal based on the campaign guide saying so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, direpupy said:

Would the same apply to results of tournaments? Because right now Yohn Royce is listed as the winner of the melee in the tournament off Harrenhal based on the campaign guide saying so.

I once made a list of things based on the Campaign Guide. It seems to me the book is mostly as canon as the TV series, which is none, so I guess most of these parts should be removed or backed up by canon sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I understood it according to Referencing and Canon, the Campaign Guide is semi-canon and is thus authoritative unless contradicted by the books or a more recent source.

Specifically on the List of tourneys in Westeros page I put Yohn Royce as the champion of the melee and as a participant in the melee. Originally the champion slot was left blank, and only Robert Baratheon and Jon Arryn were listed as participants with no source for why Jon Arryn was listed.

The Tourney at Harrenhal page already had Yohn Royce listed as the champion of the melee and as a participant in the melee, and noticeably does not have Jon Arryn listed as a participant.

Edited by Corvus Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

As I understood it according to Referencing and Canon, the Campaign Guide is semi-canon and is thus authoritative unless contradicted by the books or a more recent source.

Semi-canon means it is a source that can be traced back to GRRM himself, but the information has not appeared in the books so far, so it could still be changed. Now Elio indicated the Campaign Guide makes up a lot of stuff on its own and thus is not semi-canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, campaign guide = SIFRP from Green Ronin. Yeah, I cannot speak to any of the content in that being from GRRM. There's some material in the GoO A Game of Thrones RPG I can vouch for as having been from George or seen and approved by him, but I've no idea what amount of involvement he had in SIFRP. We weren't involved, for our own part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so the Campaign Guide remains semi-canon per the Referencing and Canon guide.

This brings up another matter I want to discuss: Bella being Robert's bastard. Now the Campaign Guide says she is but I believe this is simply a matter of the author(s) taking Bella's "story" in ASOS at face value, rather than it being a fact. There is no evidence in the books that the "story" is true. Jon Connington's memories of the Battle of the Bells contradict the "story". The book appendices do not state that she is Robert's bastard, which they do for Robert's other bastards.

On this basis, would it not be the correct process to change the appropriate pages to indicate that Bella is only supposedly Robert's bastard instead of treating it like it is a fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

Jon Connington's memories of the Battle of the Bells contradict the "story".

In what way ? Because both agree that Robert spent time in a Stoney Sept’s brothel.

Quote

The whole town was a nest of traitors. At the end they had the usurper hidden in a brothel. What sort of king was that, who would hide behind the skirts of women? Yet whilst the search dragged on, Eddard Stark and Hoster Tully came down upon the town with a rebel army. Bells and battle followed, and Robert emerged from his brothel with a blade in hand, and almost slew Jon on the steps of the old sept that gave the town its name.

ADWD, The Griffin Reborn

 

Edited by Thomaerys Velaryon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

In what way ? Because both agree that Robert spent time in a Stoney Sept’s brothel.

Oh wow. That is selective quoting at its finest. You've cut off the part about Robert being moved from place to place so that Jon's men could not find him. Here's the full passage:

Quote

And so he swept down on Stoney Sept, closed off the town, and began a search. His knights went house to house, smashed in every door, peered into every cellar. He had even sent men crawling through the sewers, yet somehow Robert still eluded him. The townsfolk were hiding him. They moved him from one secret bolt-hole to the next, always one step ahead of the king's men. The whole town was a nest of traitors. At the end they had the usurper hidden in a brothel. What sort of king was that, who would hide behind the skirts of women? Yet whilst the search dragged on, Eddard Stark and Hoster Tully came down upon the town with a rebel army. Bells and battle followed, and Robert emerged from his brothel with a blade in hand, and almost slew Jon on the steps of the old sept that gave the town its name.

ADWD, The Griffin Reborn

 

Edited by Corvus Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Corvus Black said:

Okay, so the Campaign Guide remains semi-canon per the Referencing and Canon guide.

Since the Canon guide says "Please note the "verified" qualifier -- origin with Martin must be an established fact, not simply assumed" and we can't be sure that the information in the Campaign Guide is from GRRM, I would propose to remove the book from the semi-canon section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Since the Canon guide says "Please note the "verified" qualifier -- origin with Martin must be an established fact, not simply assumed" and we can't be sure that the information in the Campaign Guide is from GRRM, I would propose to remove the book from the semi-canon section.

Have you followed the source for the Campaign Guide? It links to GRRM's Not A Blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What in that quote suggests that Robert was not hidden in the brothel for some length of time? Or in some other brothel for some length of time prior to that? 

In any case, I believe GRRM confirmed the point for the WoIaF app. That may be the source of that information for the campaign guide.

I agree that the Campaign Guide's connection to any input from GRRM is completely unclear to me at this point, because we never got confirmation that GRRM did in fact provided them information -- it was just an assumption (by me, I'll note, I see I'm the person cited as a source) based on the fact that he had given Guardians of Order some details for their own RPG.

I think it should be removed from the semi-canon list unless someone can get a hold of the Campaign Guide writer(s) and find out if they had any direct input from GRRM on some of the details they lay out.

 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


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

What in that quote suggests that Robert was not hidden in the brothel for some length of time? Or in some other brothel for some length of time prior to that? 

His knights went house to house, smashed in every door, peered into every cellar. He had even sent men crawling through the sewers, yet somehow Robert still eluded him. The townsfolk were hiding him. They moved him from one secret bolt-hole to the next, always one step ahead of the king's men. The whole town was a nest of traitors. At the end they had the usurper hidden in a brothel. 

This part. It's quite clear he didn't spend a significant amount of time anywhere, and that the brothel was the final hiding spot. It's also quite clear that Jon's men were searching the town thoroughly. Note how they "went house to house, smashed in every door, peered into every cellar. He had even sent men crawling through the sewers".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Corvus Black said:

This part. It's quite clear he didn't spend a significant amount of time anywhere, and that the brothel was the final hiding spot. It's also quite clear that Jon's men were searching the town thoroughly. Note how they "went house to house, smashed in every door, peered into every cellar. He had even sent men crawling through the sewers".

It's "as the search dragged on", and Robert may well have been in there for hours -- he was there when Ned's and Hoster's hosts  were first spotted coming down, and the bells rang when battle was joined, which couldn't have been immediately.

I mean, it's worth noting that they note they went "house to house", not "brothel to brothel" -- for whatever reason, the initial focus of the search appears to have been private homes, perhaps for the reason Connington's remark implies (a disbelief that Robert would "hide behind the skirts of women").

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Ran said:

It's "as the search dragged on", and Robert may well have been in there for hours -- he was there when Ned's and Hoster's hosts  were first spotted coming down, and the bells rang when battle was joined, which couldn't have been immediately.

I mean, it's worth noting that they note they went "house to house", not "brothel to brothel" -- for whatever reason, the initial focus of the search appears to have been private homes, perhaps for the reason Connington's remark implies (a disbelief that Robert would "hide behind the skirts of women").

This is the first I'm hearing of Stoney Sept having multiple brothels. Have you got a source for that? Otherwise it sounds like a reach when the rest of the quote is straightforward.

Jon is shocked that an enemy commander would hide in a brothel. There's absolutely no reason to think that implies anything other than what it is. 

Edited by Corvus Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...