ASoIAF/Game of Thrones general Discussion Thread

[Anywhere Else But Here]

No spoilers here.
Not only is Cersei morally bad she's just bad in general.
She has no idea how to rule other than terror (which makes her no different than the Mad King) is a complete psychopath, extremely paranoid.
And only creates more enemies instead of dealing with them.

She has all of Tywin's worst qualities with no redeeming qualities at all.

I am sorry but you seemed to have missed the entire point of the story if you still judge characters that way

I think I must have missed the point of the story too, then.

[The Valyria Empire]

Tywin had bad qualities? Tywin was the king we needed, not the king we deserved.

Are you forgetting what he did to Tyrion's first wife?
Oh and the Red Wedding of course.

He was conditioning him to be a good Lannister. You have to remember what Tuwin had to go through as a kid. House Lannister was a joke when "The Toothless Lion" ruled, and their lord was pathetic. Nobody respected the Lannisters, and Tywin's father would just laugh and get pressured into a lot of shit.

Imagine after to restore your house to its rightful glory, to regain the respect you lost. It took the destruction of House Reyne and Tarbeck to get there. So when Tyrion acts similar to his father every now and again, Tywin hates it.

Plus the Red Wedding was justified, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner." Who knows how many more lives would of been lost if Robb's cause continued.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Are you forgetting what he did to Tyrion's first wife?
Oh and the Red Wedding of course.

He was conditioning him to be a good Lannister. You have to remember what Tuwin had to go through as a kid. House Lannister was a joke when "The Toothless Lion" ruled, and their lord was pathetic. Nobody respected the Lannisters, and Tywin's father would just laugh and get pressured into a lot of shit.

Imagine after to restore your house to its rightful glory, to regain the respect you lost. It took the destruction of House Reyne and Tarbeck to get there. So when Tyrion acts similar to his father every now and again, Tywin hates it.

Plus the Red Wedding was justified, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner." Who knows how many more lives would of been lost if Robb's cause continued.

It wasn't justified either under Westerosi or modern Earth conventions. Long term, such actions destroy trust and lead to future wars that last longer, because if you lose those conventions people won't trust one another to make and honour treaties, and will instead fight until their opponents are battered into unconditional surrender. Trying to make a pseudo-utilitarian consequentialist argument with such things doesn't work if you look at the actual long-term.

Also note that it didn't end the fighting in-universe for any real length of time. The North's still at war with the Lannisters.

[Genivaria]

Are you forgetting what he did to Tyrion's first wife?
Oh and the Red Wedding of course.

He was conditioning him to be a good Lannister. You have to remember what Tuwin had to go through as a kid. House Lannister was a joke when "The Toothless Lion" ruled, and their lord was pathetic. Nobody respected the Lannisters, and Tywin's father would just laugh and get pressured into a lot of shit.

Imagine after to restore your house to its rightful glory, to regain the respect you lost. It took the destruction of House Reyne and Tarbeck to get there. So when Tyrion acts similar to his father every now and again, Tywin hates it.

Plus the Red Wedding was justified, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner." Who knows how many more lives would of been lost if Robb's cause continued.

1 question.
Did it actually bring peace?

[Infected Mushroom]

He was conditioning him to be a good Lannister. You have to remember what Tuwin had to go through as a kid. House Lannister was a joke when "The Toothless Lion" ruled, and their lord was pathetic. Nobody respected the Lannisters, and Tywin's father would just laugh and get pressured into a lot of shit.

Imagine after to restore your house to its rightful glory, to regain the respect you lost. It took the destruction of House Reyne and Tarbeck to get there. So when Tyrion acts similar to his father every now and again, Tywin hates it.

Plus the Red Wedding was justified, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner." Who knows how many more lives would of been lost if Robb's cause continued.

It wasn't justified either under Westerosi or modern Earth conventions. Long term, such actions destroy trust and lead to future wars that last longer, because if you lose those conventions people won't trust one another to make and honour treaties, and will instead fight until their opponents are battered into unconditional surrender. Trying to make a pseudo-utilitarian consequentialist argument with such things doesn't work if you look at the actual long-term.

Also note that it didn't end the fighting in-universe for any real length of time. The North's still at war with the Lannisters.

Its justified in the sense that it was an effective way to remove Robb Stark and his bannermen from the game; so it was a good play by Team Lannister.

The North is back but at least they don't have Robb and his army anymore so in the long term, it was a sound play.

There was a reasonable chance that Roose could have maintained the North indefinitely for the Lannister side; it didn't play out that way but it could have and nearly did. So from a planning board point of view it was a reasonable play.

Whether you bloody the waters or not with the Red Wedding, the North already wanted to destroy you.

[Infected Mushroom]

He was conditioning him to be a good Lannister. You have to remember what Tuwin had to go through as a kid. House Lannister was a joke when "The Toothless Lion" ruled, and their lord was pathetic. Nobody respected the Lannisters, and Tywin's father would just laugh and get pressured into a lot of shit.

Imagine after to restore your house to its rightful glory, to regain the respect you lost. It took the destruction of House Reyne and Tarbeck to get there. So when Tyrion acts similar to his father every now and again, Tywin hates it.

Plus the Red Wedding was justified, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner." Who knows how many more lives would of been lost if Robb's cause continued.

1 question.
Did it actually bring peace?

In the show? It seems to have brought a considerable peace. There has been no fighting between Starks and Lannisters for several seasons now.

Its not everlasting peace but that's a rare thing.

[Genivaria]

1 question.
Did it actually bring peace?

In the show? It seems to have brought a considerable peace. There has been no fighting between Starks and Lannisters for several seasons now.

Its not everlasting peace but that's a rare thing.

The correct answer is no, no it did not.
It in fact made the Lannister name hated throughout all Seven Kingdom.
Same as the Frey's.

He broke Machiavelli's most important rule.
When you make yourself hated by the majority nobles and commoners alike, than your assassination becomes inevitable.
Especially from those who no longer have anything left expect their hatred of you.

[Infected Mushroom]

In the show? It seems to have brought a considerable peace. There has been no fighting between Starks and Lannisters for several seasons now.

Its not everlasting peace but that's a rare thing.

The correct answer is no, no it did not.
It in fact made the Lannister name hated throughout all Seven Kingdom.
Same as the Frey's.

He broke Machiavelli's most important rule.
When you make yourself hated by the majority nobles and commoners alike, than your assassination becomes inevitable.
Especially from those who no longer have anything left expect their hatred of you.

It made their name so hated that they retained control of the Throne, formed a powerful alliance with the popular House Tyrell, and installed functional friendly governments in the Riverlands and the North.

I'd say the "hate" is worth is if you gain that much additional power. It is honestly better to be feared and hated than to be neither and have a lot less power.

Machievelli could give less of a nickel about commoners and having watched this show, neither do I. They are a bunch of ignorant, hateful, cowardly and pathetic crowds. They absolutely should be kept under an Iron Fist (or a Golden one). The common people in GOT as portrayed are for the most part absolute scum of the earth; the medieval equivalent of cowardly tattle-tell office gossipers.

It brought no peace? There has been no fighting between Lannisters and Starks for several seasons since the Red Wedding so to say that it brought no measure of peace... come on now...

Maybe what you're saying is that it brought no lasting peace but to say that it brought no peace at all?

[Ethel mermania]

He was conditioning him to be a good Lannister. You have to remember what Tuwin had to go through as a kid. House Lannister was a joke when "The Toothless Lion" ruled, and their lord was pathetic. Nobody respected the Lannisters, and Tywin's father would just laugh and get pressured into a lot of shit.

Imagine after to restore your house to its rightful glory, to regain the respect you lost. It took the destruction of House Reyne and Tarbeck to get there. So when Tyrion acts similar to his father every now and again, Tywin hates it.

Plus the Red Wedding was justified, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner." Who knows how many more lives would of been lost if Robb's cause continued.

1 question.
Did it actually bring peace?

If tyrion didn't kill tywin, it probably would have.

[Genivaria]

The correct answer is no, no it did not.
It in fact made the Lannister name hated throughout all Seven Kingdom.
Same as the Frey's.

He broke Machiavelli's most important rule.
When you make yourself hated by the majority nobles and commoners alike, than your assassination becomes inevitable.
Especially from those who no longer have anything left expect their hatred of you.

It made their name so hated that they retained control of the Throne, formed a powerful alliance with the popular House Tyrell, and installed functional friendly governments in the Riverlands and the North.

I'd say the "hate" is worth is if you gain that much additional power. It is honestly better to be feared and hated than to be neither and have a lot less power.

Machievelli could give less of a nickel about commoners and having watched this show, neither do I. They are a bunch of ignorant, hateful, cowardly and pathetic crowds. They absolutely should be kept under an Iron Fist (or a Golden one). The common people in GOT as portrayed are for the most part absolute scum of the earth; the medieval equivalent of cowardly tattle-tell office gossipers.

It brought no peace? There has been no fighting between Lannisters and Starks for several seasons since the Red Wedding so to say that it brought no measure of peace... come on now...

Maybe what you're saying is that it brought no lasting peace but to say that it brought no peace at all?

The Starks are busy at the Wall so are not a valid argument.

[Infected Mushroom]

It made their name so hated that they retained control of the Throne, formed a powerful alliance with the popular House Tyrell, and installed functional friendly governments in the Riverlands and the North.

I'd say the "hate" is worth is if you gain that much additional power. It is honestly better to be feared and hated than to be neither and have a lot less power.

Machievelli could give less of a nickel about commoners and having watched this show, neither do I. They are a bunch of ignorant, hateful, cowardly and pathetic crowds. They absolutely should be kept under an Iron Fist (or a Golden one). The common people in GOT as portrayed are for the most part absolute scum of the earth; the medieval equivalent of cowardly tattle-tell office gossipers.

It brought no peace? There has been no fighting between Lannisters and Starks for several seasons since the Red Wedding so to say that it brought no measure of peace... come on now...

Maybe what you're saying is that it brought no lasting peace but to say that it brought no peace at all?

The Starks are busy at the Wall so are not a valid argument.

And this concerns the Lannisters how?

Immediately after the Red Wedding, the Stark forces were decimated and are in no position to challenge the Lion. Hence it was a good play. It brought effective peace for several seasons.

Wall or no wall, the Red Wedding got rid of Stark and his bannermen. If they later rebuild, that's something else entirely.

[Ifreann]

The Starks are busy at the Wall so are not a valid argument.

And this concerns the Lannisters how?

Immediately after the Red Wedding, the Stark forces were decimated and are in no position to challenge the Lion. Hence it was a good play. It brought effective peace for several seasons.

Wall or no wall, the Red Wedding got rid of Stark and his bannermen. If they later rebuild, that's something else entirely.

It cost them the Riverlands and only briefly restored the North to the fold.

[Genivaria]

The Starks are busy at the Wall so are not a valid argument.

And this concerns the Lannisters how?

Immediately after the Red Wedding, the Stark forces were decimated and are in no position to challenge the Lion. Hence it was a good play. It brought effective peace for several seasons.

Wall or no wall, the Red Wedding got rid of Stark and his bannermen. If they later rebuild, that's something else entirely.

If they later rebuild

which they have, oh look and an alliance with the Mother of Dragons is in the works

then the Red Wedding FAILED.
Even if you want to ignore it.

[Infected Mushroom]

And this concerns the Lannisters how?

Immediately after the Red Wedding, the Stark forces were decimated and are in no position to challenge the Lion. Hence it was a good play. It brought effective peace for several seasons.

Wall or no wall, the Red Wedding got rid of Stark and his bannermen. If they later rebuild, that's something else entirely.

If they later rebuild

which they have, oh look and an alliance with the Mother of Dragons is in the works

then the Red Wedding FAILED.
Even if you want to ignore it.

With respect, that's like saying the Battle of France was a failure for Nazi Germany because ULTIMATELY the Allies recovered, re-mobilized, and won the war against Germany. Yet from any point of view, the Battle of France was a spectacular success for the Axis.

The Red Wedding immediately got rid of all Lannister enemies and strengthened their empire. The fact that people later mobilise or a few unrelated events later happen has little do with the Wedding itself.

Now the Lannisters have to fight the North MINUS Robb Stark and his massive army... without the Wedding? Its Robb Stark, his massive army, and more.

The Red Wedding was a political, military and diplomatic success in every sense of the word for as far as you can reasonably stretch a chain of causation. Before the Wedding the Lannisters had a LONG WAR to fight against the Starks and the Riverlanders. After the Wedding, the Lannisters are in complete control of Riverlands and the North (or have at least installed friendly governments).

[The Valyria Empire]

And this concerns the Lannisters how?

Immediately after the Red Wedding, the Stark forces were decimated and are in no position to challenge the Lion. Hence it was a good play. It brought effective peace for several seasons.

Wall or no wall, the Red Wedding got rid of Stark and his bannermen. If they later rebuild, that's something else entirely.

If they later rebuild

which they have, oh look and an alliance with the Mother of Dragons is in the works

then the Red Wedding FAILED.
Even if you want to ignore it.

I'm mostly talking about the books. In both the show and books Robb's cause was lost, there was no way he was going win. The Tyrell alliance doomed them.

How many Northmen would have died fighting for a fractured Kingdom? I like Robb, a lot... but like his father made some dumb decisions both show and book.

The Red Wedding did bring peace. All of the southern kingdoms pretty much hated the Northmen by this point, it's really only a few Riverlords and the North who hate the Lannisters for what they did. Did it end fighting? No, as long as more than one King is alive in Westeros there will always be death.

When you look at the show, it doesn't seem like Jon does not care about the Red Wedding. He cares more about the Others than the Lannisters.

The North becoming independent last season was so dumb. The North has little to no fighting forces and right now they're scrapping the barrel for the coming war with the Others.

Also does anyone know why the Vale lords declared for Jon being King? I feel bad for Sweet Robin, he (Littlefinger) holds all the power and the army, so why isn't there a King of The Mountain and Vale.

RIP Stormlands, and RIP Vale. Tis' a shame that D&D forgot about you

[Ethel mermania]

If they later rebuild

which they have, oh look and an alliance with the Mother of Dragons is in the works

then the Red Wedding FAILED.
Even if you want to ignore it.

I'm mostly talking about the books. In both the show and books Robb's cause was lost, there was no way he was going win. The Tyrell alliance doomed them.

How many Northmen would have died fighting for a fractured Kingdom? I like Robb, a lot... but like his father made some dumb decisions both show and book.

The Red Wedding did bring peace. All of the southern kingdoms pretty much hated the Northmen by this point, it's really only a few Riverlords and the North who hate the Lannisters for what they did. Did it end fighting? No, as long as more than one King is alive in Westeros there will always be death.

When you look at the show, it doesn't seem like Jon does not care about the Red Wedding. He cares more about the Others than the Lannisters.

The North becoming independent last season was so dumb. The North has little to no fighting forces and right now they're scrapping the barrel for the coming war with the Others.

Also does anyone know why the Vale lords declared for Jon being King? I feel bad for Sweet Robin, he (Littlefinger) holds all the power and the army, so why isn't there a King of The Mountain and Vale.

RIP Stormlands, and RIP Vale. Tis' a shame that D&D forgot about you

because littlefinger wants to hump sansa and be a king

[The Valyria Empire]

I'm mostly talking about the books. In both the show and books Robb's cause was lost, there was no way he was going win. The Tyrell alliance doomed them.

How many Northmen would have died fighting for a fractured Kingdom? I like Robb, a lot... but like his father made some dumb decisions both show and book.

The Red Wedding did bring peace. All of the southern kingdoms pretty much hated the Northmen by this point, it's really only a few Riverlords and the North who hate the Lannisters for what they did. Did it end fighting? No, as long as more than one King is alive in Westeros there will always be death.

When you look at the show, it doesn't seem like Jon does not care about the Red Wedding. He cares more about the Others than the Lannisters.

The North becoming independent last season was so dumb. The North has little to no fighting forces and right now they're scrapping the barrel for the coming war with the Others.

Also does anyone know why the Vale lords declared for Jon being King? I feel bad for Sweet Robin, he (Littlefinger) holds all the power and the army, so why isn't there a King of The Mountain and Vale.

RIP Stormlands, and RIP Vale. Tis' a shame that D&D forgot about you

because littlefinger wants to hump sansa and be a king

Man, Littlefinger's goal in the show is so disappointing. In the books it's unknown what's his goal, there are so many theories it's insane.

Having his final goal be the just the Iron Throne is so stupid. The show does not know what to do with the schemers anymore.

[Ethel mermania]

mrs mermania asks.


will we ever see the second sons again?

[Genivaria]

because littlefinger wants to hump sansa and be a king

Man, Littlefinger's goal in the show is so disappointing. In the books it's unknown what's his goal, there are so many theories it's insane.

Having his final goal be the just the Iron Throne is so stupid. The show does not know what to do with the schemers anymore.

I've seen at least one fanfic where Baelish was an agent of The Other. Shit did I just ruin the ending?

[Infected Mushroom]

Anyone else amused at how Jaime realised using the Race Card was the best way to convince Tarly to fight for them?

"You have to make a choice. Do you fight with us... or with foreign savages and eunuchs?"

Tarly: (thinks) hmmm... he's beginning to speak sense....

It was hilarious...

[Genivaria]

Anyone else amused at how Jaime realised using the Race Card was the best way to convince Tarly to fight for them?

"You have to make a choice. Do you fight with us... or with foreign savages and eunuchs?"

Tarly: (thinks) hmmm... he's beginning to speak sense....

It was hilarious...

That's not a race card, that's an appeal to patriotism.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

It wasn't justified either under Westerosi or modern Earth conventions. Long term, such actions destroy trust and lead to future wars that last longer, because if you lose those conventions people won't trust one another to make and honour treaties, and will instead fight until their opponents are battered into unconditional surrender. Trying to make a pseudo-utilitarian consequentialist argument with such things doesn't work if you look at the actual long-term.

Also note that it didn't end the fighting in-universe for any real length of time. The North's still at war with the Lannisters.

Its justified in the sense that it was an effective way to remove Robb Stark and his bannermen from the game; so it was a good play by Team Lannister.

The North is back but at least they don't have Robb and his army anymore so in the long term, it was a sound play.

There was a reasonable chance that Roose could have maintained the North indefinitely for the Lannister side; it didn't play out that way but it could have and nearly did. So from a planning board point of view it was a reasonable play.

Whether you bloody the waters or not with the Red Wedding, the North already wanted to destroy you.

The goalposts appear to have shifted. We've gone from moral justification to (shaky) pragmatism.

[Infected Mushroom]

Its justified in the sense that it was an effective way to remove Robb Stark and his bannermen from the game; so it was a good play by Team Lannister.

The North is back but at least they don't have Robb and his army anymore so in the long term, it was a sound play.

There was a reasonable chance that Roose could have maintained the North indefinitely for the Lannister side; it didn't play out that way but it could have and nearly did. So from a planning board point of view it was a reasonable play.

Whether you bloody the waters or not with the Red Wedding, the North already wanted to destroy you.

The goalposts appear to have shifted. We've gone from moral justification to (shaky) pragmatism.

Pragmatism is all the moral justification you need when it comes to politics and war.

Wars are inherently immoral if sometimes a necessary immorality so to justify actions in war based on morals just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Infected Mushroom]

Anyone else amused at how Jaime realised using the Race Card was the best way to convince Tarly to fight for them?

"You have to make a choice. Do you fight with us... or with foreign savages and eunuchs?"

Tarly: (thinks) hmmm... he's beginning to speak sense....

It was hilarious...

That's not a race card, that's an appeal to patriotism.

The two are pretty well intwined in this case.

"She brought the Dothraki to our shores... THE DOTHRAKI. ... Do you fight with us... or with foreign savages and eunuchs?"

[Anywhere Else But Here]

The goalposts appear to have shifted. We've gone from moral justification to (shaky) pragmatism.

Pragmatism is all the moral justification you need when it comes to politics and war.

Wars are inherently immoral if sometimes a necessary immorality so to justify actions in war based on morals just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

*sigh*

Grimdark is wasted on some people.