S07.E07: The Dragon And The Wolf

[SimoneS]

21 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

No, it's not a change of subject at all. It's about how Dany is written. She makes great pronouncements and the show fails to deliver to show the consequences of those pronouncements. We still don't know how exactly the situation in Slaver's Bay was resolved - how can it be in 'good shape'? The whole economic system was destroyed - how do people survive? Who is farming the land?  Who is in charge of redistributing the wealth the slaver's accumulated? Or are they allowed to keep it and pay wages? And what about the ruling system of these places? The legal system. There's a ton of admittedly boring stuff for a tv show that has never been addressed. We just have to assume that Daario has suddenly turned from mercenary to king Salomon.

The Dothraki and the Iron Born were told that they can no longer raid and pillage - but how are they going to survive? How will they be incorporated into Dany's new world? How is the complete restructuring of their cultures going to work?

As for the down-trodden of Flea Bottom etc. - Dany never made any explicit pronouncements that she intends to change their fate. And if she intends to free them from their Lords then she's once again faced with all the same dilemmas she just left behind. Plus a new one - she's also a Lord. 'Breaking the Wheel' is just  cool line but we have no idea what it's supposed to mean. The arrival of the NK and his army is actually a blessing for Dany's plot - because it allows the writers to present her as willing to fight for 'her' people, protect and save them without having to deal with pesky questions of political change, redistribution of property, legal reforms and what have you not.

This is a sci fantasy story, not a political drama, none of the characters in the game have or are going to provide a detailed political platform although you have chosen to attack Dany alone for this particular contrived sin. All we are going to get is overall intentions of the characters, who is good and who is bad and whose rule is most likely to be the most destructive. Regardless, as I pointed out we do know more about Dany's intentions to rule and "the people" who they are always banging on about would be much better off under her rule than Cersei or Jon's, IMO. I have nothing more to add on this tangential topic.

Edited August 31, 2017 by SimoneS

[GraceK]

2 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

It's not like she has a tough act to follow given that the last 5 rulers of Westeros have been the Mad King,  a drunk who didn't care about ruling and ran up a huge national debt, a psychopath, bastard of incest, who was a "vicious, idiot King", a weak boy who wasn't ready to rule and The Mother of Madness, Cersei Lannister.  

Lol I love this. :) couldn't agree more

[Allie56]

1 hour ago, AshleyN said:

On 8/30/2017 at 4:32 PM, stillshimpy said:

However, keeping Jon so close and claiming him as his own rather than figuring out where to send him, or coming up with anything else, "We had to put flame to a tavern to drive out Targaryen loyalist, this was the child of a cook who perished in that conflagration, totally innocent.  I'm having the blacksmith raise him."  Would have kept Jon close to hand and provided a cover story that wouldn't have infuriated Cat.  

...

A more skill liar would have figured out a story that involved one of his men who died, someone who did like to spread it around so it wouldn't have felled the honor of a dead man, and say simply that he owed it to Ser Got It Plenty to raise the boy in a noble house. 

Not sure those stories would have held up when (Book)Jon turned out to be the spitting image of Ned, looking more like him than any of his actual children save Arya. And that was the best case scenario, the worst was him taking after his father -- although I've seen it pointed out that that might be why Ned allowed the Ashara Dayne rumour to flourish.

I'd also say that in most scenarios, but especially in one's like Ned's where he's not a skilled liar, the simplest lie is generally going to be the best one. The more variables and outside factors you introduce the harder it is to maintain the lie. And it should be pointed out that his ruse was successful, he accomplished exactly what he intended and not only kept Jon safe and secret, but for the most part gave him a very good life.

I think it does make sense for Ned to keep Jon close, especially because he's the last living piece of Ned's sister. I have a nephew, and you bet your butt I would claim him as mine if my sibling were dead and my nephew needed protecting, even if it infuriated my husband. I would imagine Ned loved Jon from the moment he saw him, and he may have wanted far better for him than could have been afforded if he'd been raised by the blacksmith, for example. 

I also green with Ashleyn that Jon as a bastard was a simple story that accounted for Ned's interest in the baby and their physical resemblance. I think that Ned's honor is also why the ruse worked - if Ned Stark says he's fathered a bastard, pretty much everyone believed him. Ned's name has also opened many doors for Jon, even if he suffered at the hands of Catelyn (and, in comparison, lots of other people suffered far worse at the hands of their actual parents). Even in the finale, Cersei referred to Jon as Ned Stark's son. There's a social benefit in having a connection to the honorable Starks, and Jon was educated, trained in weaponry, well fed, kept warm, loved by at least one parent, adored by several of his siblings, and primed for a leadership role pretty much as soon as he reached the Wall.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned was a tiny moment when Sam was talking to Bran and Bran said that Jon "is not my father's son" or something like that, which means that at least in that moment he still saw himself as Ned Stark's son, as Brandon Stark, and not just the three-eyed raven. I was so happy to see a spark of humanity in him! 

30 minutes ago, herbz said:

Was Sansa's anger at Jon bending the knee to Daenerys having not consulted her genuine or played up for Littlefinger? I still have no idea how to read most of what went on in Winterfell this season.  

I thought she really was upset, because northern independence was supposed to safeguard the interests of the north. She told him not to go because he'd be expected to bend the knee, and then he's gone for potentially months and bends the knee just like she thought. The Starks had finally taken back their home, reunited, and reestablished themselves as the most powerful northern family. Now they're beholden to a queen none of them know anything about. I could understand her frustration, even if as a viewer I loves me some Jon and Daenerys. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Allie56

[Blonde Gator]

8 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

This is a sci fantasy story, not a political drama, none of the characters in the game have or are going to provide a detailed political platform although you have chosen to attack Dany alone for this particular contrived sin. All we are going to get is overall intentions of the characters, who is good and who is bad and whose rule is most likely to be the most destructive. Regardless, as I pointed out we do know more about Dany's intentions to rule. I have nothing more to add on this tangential topic.

Excellent observation.  That  ASOIAF aka GOT is "not a political drama" has been lost on most of the show-only fans of the series.  D&D have played up the political aspects of the series, and played down the magical aspects of the series so severely, that it's hard to keep that in mind at times, I think.   Add in our current climate in the US, with everything being made political by the media (Melania's shoes, really?), and here we are.  GOT has somehow become an allegory for the times in which we live.    It's sad.

[Nmissi]

3 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

 

I liked screen Robert before I read the books because Mark Addy is an awesome actor.  I read the books and was horrified.  

Reading between the lines, I think Robert and Ned grew up together as best friends, almost brothers, fostered by Jon Arryn. Until Robert's Rebellion, it's likely Ned didn't know the extent of his vicious character. He knew he liked to whore and fight and drink, but he probably had never really sat down and had a deep philosophical discussion with the guy. Then they go to war, and his best friend is a monster who thinks it's okay to kill babies. But now the monster is his King. They part company, and he heads out to find his sister- notably, without Robert her fiance. Then as Lyanna lays dying, she tells him to take care of her son. And she gives him his surname; so Ned KNOWS this child is a Targ, he is legit, he's the heir to the throne Ned's fomer goodbuddy just usurped. No wonder he hightailed it back to Winterfell with a "bastard" baby story. He knew that child was toast if Robert ever found out the truth, and so he kept him well away from him, and had to be dragged to Kings Landing by the king himself.  I think  after experiencing Robert's true nature, the king was not his friend,but someone Ned feared and abhorred. 

[YaddaYadda]

Super shallow note, because why not. The new Dothraki they had this season, the one who seems to be the head of Dany's guards, is very very handsome and he also looks 100% done with the Westeros bullshit.

[GraceK]

3 minutes ago, YaddaYadda said:

Super shallow note, because why not. The new Dothraki they had this season, the one who seems to be the head of Dany's guards, is very very handsome and he also looks 100% done with the Westeros bullshit.

The one that looked at Tyrion in spoils of war and said his people couldn't fight? I love him!!' Very shallow indeed but he's sexy as hell IMO :) I love his guy liner

Edited August 31, 2017 by GraceK

[Happy Harpy]

30 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

First of all I think the Northern Lords will be too busy about the army of whitewalkers that just broke through the wall! Also if they do protest, they might have legit concerns over Jon's decision-making skills wonder they wonder "How did the Night King get a dragon?!" Second, It depends on if and how Sansa reacts to the news that Jon is not only not her brother, but her cousin and the rightful heir to the Iron throne. It's a no-win scenario. If she supports him now, people will say she suddenly likes and agrees with him because he's not really a bastard and is ambitious to get close to the true heir. If she doesn't, they'll say she's jealous of his new position and higher status. "He's no longer the bastard she looked down on all these years and now it's killing her!" She could bring the things people here have brought up about how Dany is an unfit ruler and Jon would be the better king, and she'd still get shit for it because they will never not question her motives.

Ever since the incident with the butcher's boy she has been pilloried for doing dumb things because they were based on weakness and fear.  Jon(and before him Ned) get a pass by most people for their dumb actions that have terrible consequences because they were based on honor. "They may have been idiots but they were doing the honorable thing"! She can't even be excused because of her young age because you have Arya in comparison and later Lyanna Mormont who are little badasses that fans cheer.

[Channeling the great Tina Turner] Whaaat's Jon (or Ned)'s got to do, got to do with it?

Seriously.

This is the problem I have very often when trying to discuss Sansa. I talk about her, her behavior, her motivations, just her in absolute, and some people deflect by calling out and blaming other characters. And then they complain about Sansa being compared to other characters.

In this particular case. The "incident with the butcher boy" was Sansa lying for self-serving reasons with no regards for the truth or the life of others. Some of  Ned and Jon's decisions might have been dumb, but they weren't self-serving and and they took responsibility. I don't think it requires a huge mental effort to understand why, although  judging everyone equally dumb maybe, people tend to sympathize more with selfless motivations.

I never cheered for Sansa more than when she picked up a cup from the floor at a wedding. This is my favorite moment of her, and if she had paid for it with her life people would have called her dumb, I guess. Not me, because she did what she thought was the decent/right thing to do, knowing that it could cost her, and it was admirable in my book. So no, I don't expect every woman to be a badass warrior. Far, far, far from it. I also can understand acting out of weakness or fear (Theon, for one) but don't ask me to cheer for people when they act out of weakness and fear. I do admire people who conquer their weakness and fears.

That's why in my opinion, the WF storyline was good for Sansa and Sansa's character development because if I interpreted the scenes in this finale correctly, this is what she did there. She drove me bonkers at times (with Brienne, ugh!) and yes, she was a slow learner, but the important in the end is that she learned. I couldn't have stated more clearly that I hope she'll support Jon fully. It would be a logical consequence of her rupture with LF and KL's political ways and proof that she gave up on the idea of becoming QOTN to be content with being lady of Winterfell.

[madam magpie]

1 hour ago, Blonde Gator said:

Excellent observation.  That  ASOIAF aka GOT is "not a political drama" has been lost on most of the show-only fans of the series.  D&D have played up the political aspects of the series, and played down the magical aspects of the series so severely, that it's hard to keep that in mind at times, I think.   Add in our current climate in the US, with everything being made political by the media (Melania's shoes, really?), and here we are.  GOT has somehow become an allegory for the times in which we live.    It's sad.

I get what you're saying, but in addition to being a magical fantasy, this also a story about power: who has it, who wants it, and who's trying to get it. There's no way to separate this story from politics, especially not its own.

Edited August 31, 2017 by madam magpie

[SimoneS]

1 hour ago, GraceK said:

I have to admit Ive wondered this myself. I am a staunch Dany supporter but honestly, how are the Dothraki going to fit in with this  new world of Westeros? As much as I despise Randall Tarly, his view of the "savages" and foreign invaders is probably a view that many of the people of Westeros share. I think Dany is a little idealistic about this idea that Westeros is going to welcome her with open arms. I also agree with the  last  part of your post that this Great War with the NK is actually pretty fortunate. If she and Jon win, they are the saviors of mankind.

Daenerys should not accept xenophobia because some of Westeros are xenophobic. Tarly was an ass who should be ignored and dealt with not indulged. She didn't accept slavery because it was practiced in Astophor and Mereen. She refused to let the Iron Born and Dothraki continue to raid and rape because most of them think that is acceptable. There are lot of things that she needs to fix in Westeros as well. It isn't a paradise.

The Dothraki and the Unsullied who survive this war might want to return to their lands or maybe they want to stay and make a new life for themselves. The Dothraki women who are not with the Khaleesar for some inexplicable reason can join them in Westeros. There will be tons of empty lands when these wars are over so there should be lots of room for them. I think that Dany should follow the example of William the Conqueror and marry Dothraki leaders into Westeros noble families so ensure their loyalty and rebuild their society, but she is unlikely to do that. Regardless, Westeros will have to get accustom to their new society. It isn't like we are going to know any of this until the end of the story anyway.

48 minutes ago, YaddaYadda said:

Super shallow note, because why not. The new Dothraki they had this season, the one who seems to be the head of Dany's guards, is very very handsome and he also looks 100% done with the Westeros bullshit.

He is freaking hot, yummy, and delish. I have had my eye on him for a while. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by SimoneS

[GraceK]

6 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

enerys should not accept xenophobia because some of Westeros are xenophobic. Tarly was an ass who should be ignored and dealt with not indulged. She didn't accept slavery because it was practiced in Astophor and Mereen. She refused to let the Iron Born and Dothraki continue to raid and rape because most of them think that is acceptable. There are lot of things that she needs to fix in Westeros as well? It isn't a paradise

I agree. I wasn't saying she should accept or go along with Westeros social norms. I was just saying that it's not going to be easy. There will probably be a lot of push back at first. :)

[screamin]

I don't know that we can call any public execution 'terrorism' or the equivalent, especially when we're talking about the medieval-ish times that Westeros resembles. For most of human history, public executions were considered salutary deterrants to discourage the public from crime, and most executions are more or less terrifying to look at - hell, even in our day, I gather, an electric chair execution or a botched lethal injection (what with bumblers unable to catheterize a vein but trying painfully over and over again, seizures and other nasty things) would be considered terrifying to watch. So would hanging (especially a botched one), firing squad, beheading, etc. But public executions continued in our world till the 19th century in what we'd call civilized countries, and persisted in the US till 1936. So calling a public execution 'terrorism' is an anachronism; in the Westeros universe it's business as usual for crime and punishment.

And Dany's chosen method, though spectacular, is less prolonged than a botched hanging (which, as someone mentioned, Jon inflicted on a 10 year old). So if she's a tyrant, I'd say pretty much anyone who uses public execution as a punishment in this world is as well...which makes the use of 'tyrant' as a distinguisher kind of meaningless, since it seems NO ruler absolutely eschews it.

[Macbeth]

5 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

One of the things that startled me was Sansa's familiarity with the Faceless Men because what would have occurred to me, didn't seem to occur to her, or perhaps it did:  What if that isn't Arya but simply someone wearing her face?  

We know it's Arya because we watched her journey.  It was a missed opportunity to help clarify that muddy plot if the reason Sansa was spooked was she realized there was a possibility that wasn't Arya at all.  Arya flat out told her all she'd need to be Sansa was her face, it then follows all that someone would need to pretend to be Arya would be her face. 

That's brilliant!  StillShrimpy, why aren't you one of the writers?

[skiracing12]

3 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I don't think she has to have all the details of how she will reign worked out.   As many characters in GOT have stated in different ways, the world in Westeros and Essos pretty much sucks for most people.  If she can make it suck 20% less, that would be a great accomplishment.  She can probably do better than that.   

The way the show works, Dany's greatest plans are usually a mystery to the audience and often to those around her until she pulls them off. For example: Hatching the dragon eggs in Drogo's funeral pyre. "Stealing" the Unsullied, having them kill the Master and then freeing them.   Getting the slaves in Yunkai and Meereen to turn on the Masters.  Killing all the Khals by burning the temple and becoming the undisputed leader of the Dothraki.  

Just because we don't know Dany's plans, it doesn't mean she doesn't have any.  Even if she hasn't figure most of the details out, a strong, just ruler, with wise advisers, strong armies and dragons, would stand an excellent chance of making a great deal of positive change.   In the Bay of Dragons cities, she tried different things.  Some worked, some didn't, but eventually she freed the slaves and apparently left the region fairly stable and better off than it was.  

It's not like she has a tough act to follow given that the last 5 rulers of Westeros have been the Mad King,  a drunk who didn't care about ruling and ran up a huge national debt, a psychopath, bastard of incest, who was a "vicious, idiot King", a weak boy who wasn't ready to rule and The Mother of Madness, Cersei Lannister.  

Exactly. Great post. I see Dany's talk of breaking the wheel to mean stopping the power struggle that causes so much war and poverty in Westeros. This can be as simple as just being a wise ruler and establishing some stability in a kingdom that has been pretty much a power vacuum for 20-50 years. However, i also think that Dany has demonstrated many times that she truly cares for the lowly and downtrodden and personally believe that she will work to help them in Westeros as well (I'm thinking reforms like Aegon V that curtailed lords rights over subjects and granted them more protections as well as better food distribution, but who knows!)

[Pogojoco]

"Game of Thrones is not a political drama." 

 

I think that sums up the issue some (many?) fans have with the overall direction of this show. It used to be a political drama, with dragons and magic as background noise. It was about diplomacy, people in charge making good and terrible decisions, it was about negotiations and peace treaties. People learning to lead, different types of leaders. What is considered good leadership in this world?  

Tywin and Tyrion used to have epic conversations and it was all about politics.

Tyrion Lannister: You just sent the most powerful man in Westeros to bed without his supper. 
Tywin Lannister: You're a fool if you believe he's the most powerful man in Westeros. 
Tyrion Lannister: A treasonous statement. Joffrey is king. 
Tywin Lannister: You really think a crown gives you power? 
Tyrion Lannister: No. I think armies give you power. 

 

Now, it's dragons and BEND THE KNEE. Maybe it was always going to be that eventually, but it is a different show. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Pogojoco

[ulkis]

On 8/31/2017 at 4:33 PM, Bryce Lynch said:

I don't think the show has done a great job showing the mother/child relationship between Dany and her dragons.  She is largely shown ignoring Viserion and Rhaegal  and while she is clearly shown to love Drogon, she often seems to treat him like a pet and a tool.  She seemed to get over Viserion's death very quickly.    A lot of lip service is given to them being her children, but I wish they would show more evidence of it.  

I think they've shown a deep affection. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by ulkis

[Pogojoco]

3 minutes ago, ulkis said:

I don't think she got over it quickly. She has no time to overtly mourn. I think they've shown a deep affection. That said, Joffrey was Cersei's child and had a deep affection too, but he was dangerous, as are the dragons (not as bad as Joffrey, but still). If they survive the battle, I think Dany will eventually tell them to fly away.

The only power Dany has is the dragons. All of her armies are hers because she has them. I don't think they are flying away. They might all die, but then again, so might she. 

[madam magpie]

43 minutes ago, ulkis said:

I don't think she got over it quickly. She has no time to overtly mourn. I think they've shown a deep affection. That said, Joffrey was Cersei's child and had a deep affection too, but he was dangerous, as are the dragons (not as bad as Joffrey, but still). If they survive the battle, I think Dany will eventually tell them to fly away.

Great point. What did she say? "Dragons can't be chained"...or something similar. If she's really going to set everyone free and she's going to live up to "breaker of chains," she'll eventually have to let the dragons go. She'll also eventually have to be faced with actually allowing someone committed to her the choice to leave. Maybe it'll just be the dragons, but I'm starting to think it might be Jon too. What Missendei said about how if she wanted to go, Dany would wish her well, is that true? I believe it is, actually. I don't think Dany wants loyalty out of fear, and she doesn't want to rule with a fist. She wants respect and for people to choose her freely. But I don't know if we've ever actually seen that tested, have we?

ETA: I do think she'll die. I don't think the dragons will, though I'm not sure why. Maybe just because it would be hard to top the drama of Viserion. But I'm fairly convinced Dany won't ever sit on the Iron Throne.

Edited September 1, 2017 by madam magpie

[ParadoxLost]

1 hour ago, ulkis said:

I don't think she got over it quickly. She has no time to overtly mourn. I think they've shown a deep affection. That said, Joffrey was Cersei's child and had a deep affection too, but he was dangerous, as are the dragons (not as bad as Joffrey, but still). If they survive the battle, I think Dany will eventually tell them to fly away.

But the problem comes in with how Jorah described the Dragon Pits coming into existence.  Dragons don't know the difference between the enemy and the loyal subjects.

Has Dany done something to change that since that kid was burned to a crisp and she chained the dragons up?   Or did they just reach a point where they decided to go with cool dragon CGI and battles and ignored it..

If Dany lets them go, how long is it before they forget whatever conditioning they have to kill only on command and instead kill to eat. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by ParadoxLost

[Blonde Gator]

Here's a very timely article from WOTW, which touches upon several points in the conversations we were having earlier in this thread.  It is about Lyanna Stark, but also includes the Robert/Ned relationship early in their lives at the Vale, as well as cites the tale of the Knight of the Laughing Tree, in Bran's chapter, as told by Meera Reed, which is where Lyanna and Rhaegar likely met, and also likely fell in love.  The article also includes a glimpse of one of Dany's visions in the House of the Undying that wasn't on the television show, Rhager, his wife and child.

The article covers the importance of a few of the things I'd either like to see answered on the show or in one of the prequel HBO series:  The tourney at Harrenhall, including the Knight of the Laughing Tree, the beginnings (so-called kidnapping) and main events of what became known as Robert's Rebellion, and perhaps the real story of Lyanna & Rhaegar's short-lived but kingdom-changing life together.

Enjoy.

http://watchersonthewall.com/wild-blue-rose-lyanna-stark/#more-152567

5 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

But the problem comes in with how Joraj described the Dragon Pits coming into existence.  Dragons don't know the difference between the enemy and the loyal subjects.

Has Dany done something to change that since that kid was burned to a crisp and she chained the dragons up?   Or did they just reach a point where they decided to go with cool dragon CGI and battles and ignored it..

If Dany let them go, how long is it before they forget whatever conditioning they have to kill only on command and instead kill to eat. 

Nymeria hasn't forgotten her bond with Arya, and they've been apart for almost the entire series.  Perhaps Arya & Dany might have that conversation at some point, while Ghost is sitting at their feet.  That's something these two women have in common, dangerous wild animals that they love, but that probably should never co-exist with humans, because humans are naturally these animals' prey.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Blonde Gator

[Pogojoco]

I would probably go with "cool dragon CGI" and whatever dragon relationship explored will be Jon and Rhaegal and Dany coming to terms with having to kill/re-kill Viseron, possibly using Drogon to do it. Or that her child is the destructive weapon that empowered the enemy. But I'm not holding my breath. 

 

(that decision to make it a direct cause and effect- dragons fly North, dragon dies, Night King raises dragon, dragon destroys Wall- is a little problematic for me, mostly because it makes the wight expedition that much more stupid. Like, was the Night King just going to hang out until he got a dragon? Thousands of years?  It looked cool, though. That may be this show now- hey that looks cool, but don't think about it too long or the sense dissolves.)

In the books, though this isn't explored in the show other than Bran, the three POV Starks that still have their wolves are wargs. The wolves are often described as being a part of Stark kids or they are the Stark kids.  We don't know about Rickon or Robb (as they aren't POV), but the show at least mentions rumours of Robb turning into Grey Wind in battle-which doesn't make it fact, but it does call to this idea.) And possibly, Sansa didn't have enough time with Lady to find out or GRRM wants to set her aside as an "other" Stark. 

Anyway, while the direwolves are almost always described as being part of the Stark children, an extension of them it's in contrast to Dany who is not the dragons themselves, but their mother. They are her children. She doesn't have dragon dreams*. I've always found the Stark wolf relationship more interesting than Dany's with her dragons. But that's just preference. 

It's one of the things that's frustrating about the show abandoning the direwolves in favour of the dragons. Now that the major mystery of Jon's parentage is settled for sure, I'd like to know some solutions to more minor mysteries- who or what sent that pregnant direwolf south of the Wall? What does it mean other than a general indication of magic returning to the world? 

 

* sorry, Dany does have "dragon dreams" which is what GRRM calls those premonition dreams. She doesn't have "dreams as a dragon" like the Starks and their "wolf" dreams 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Pogojoco
Dany has dragon dreams.

[screamin]

12 minutes ago, doram said:

 

This is a show-only thing because the books never explain why the dragon pits were built. They were built on Maegor the Cruel's order and I somehow don't think that he particularly cared about protecting people from dragons. 

Logistically speaking, it doesn't even make sense. The dragonpit isn't a cage or a cell. The dragons could still fly off whenever they wanted to. All it did was confine the dragons to a spot because they slept there and food was brought to them so they didn't "roam" as widely. Also, Aegon and his sisters lived in Dragonstone with their own three "cage-free" dragons and somehow managed not to leave a trail of bodies behind. 

AWoIaF mentions that the dragonpit used to have a giant closed dome over it, to keep its dragons in. Not that you can deduce that from looking at the ruins on the show, so I didn't really get how you could 'enslave' a dragon by keeping it in a place with no roof.

Maybe Dragonstone was safer for dragons to live, being mostly stone, sparsely populated and with their riders living right there and thus keeping them less likely to go roaming to places where more victims abound.  But once the royal family moved to KL permanently, keeping them nearby began to be a problem.

[skiracing12]

I dont remember where but I remember reading a letter George RR wrote in the early '90's that explicitly said Jon, Dany, Arya, Bran, and Tyrion would survive the series. He also said something similar to the crew of Season 1. Does anyone have any reason that this might have changed? Or do we have to think of another way the ending will be bittersweet.

[Blonde Gator]

17 minutes ago, Pogojoco said:

Now that the major mystery of Jon's parentage is settled for sure, I'd like to know some solutions to more minor mysteries- who or what sent that pregnant direwolf south of the Wall? What does it mean other than a general indication of magic returning to the world? 

I believe BloodRaven sent the pregnant direwolf south of the Wall for the Stark children, particularly Bran.  I have no recall of where I picked that fact up, whether it was the show or the book.  Perhaps someone else can weigh in on that one.  I'm not so sure direwolves are magical creatures, like the dragons.  There were lions in Westeros in the past.  Another inkling I can't put my finger on, but I believe the First Men/Northerners hunted the direwolves into extinction.

[Pogojoco]

5 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

I believe BloodRaven sent the pregnant direwolf south of the Wall for the Stark children, particularly Bran.  I have no recall of where I picked that fact up, whether it was the show or the book.  Perhaps someone else can weigh in on that one.  I'm not so sure direwolves are magical creatures, like the dragons.  There were lions in Westeros in the past.  Another inkling I can't put my finger on, but I believe the First Men/Northerners hunted the direwolves into extinction.

Yeah, direwolves themselves are perhaps not magic but aren't found South of the Wall- therefore someone (Bloodraven works) or something sent them through the Wall somehow. So the magic is them being there for the Starks to find. One of my most favourite scenes in the entire series is the direwolf finding scene- and the grown ups in that scene are freaked right out- it seems the older you are, the more freaked out. Bran is basically "puppies!"  

The warging is what's magic. 

I think in this world there are regions that are more magical than others. And north of the Wall is one of them. Asshai and the Shadow Lands (where the dragons are from) is another. 

 

Back to the episode- I want to shout out the music- there was a good mix of the different themes. I think Cersei's cello is the most distinctive, but that may be because I associate it with the amazing S6 finale scenes, which felt like Michael Corleone renouncing Satan and all his works while the dons of the Five Families are being murdered on his order. It's also interesting that all the queens (Cersei, Dany, and even Sansa, a stand in queen) all wore black most of the season. Everyone wore black, actually. That whole Dragon pit meeting- it was a sea of black, except the Hound. 

[rmontro]

I tend to think that the reasons Sansa sent Brienne to King's Landing are:

1)  She wanted Littlefinger to think she was still being manipulated by him, still doing his bidding

2)  She legitimately needed to send someone to represent her, and thought that Brienne would be good for the job.

[VCRTracking]

7 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

This is the problem I have very often when trying to discuss Sansa. I talk about her, her behavior, her motivations, just her in absolute, and some people deflect by calling out and blaming other characters. And then they complain about Sansa being compared to other characters.

In this particular case. The "incident with the butcher boy" was Sansa lying for self-serving reasons with no regards for the truth or the life of others. Some of  Ned and Jon's decisions might have been dumb, but they weren't self-serving and and they took responsibility. I don't think it requires a huge mental effort to understand why, although  judging everyone equally dumb maybe, people tend to sympathize more with selfless motivations.

I never cheered for Sansa more than when she picked up a cup from the floor at a wedding. This is my favorite moment of her, and if she had paid for it with her life people would have called her dumb, I guess. Not me, because she did what she thought was the decent/right thing to do, knowing that it could cost her, and it was admirable in my book. So no, I don't expect every woman to be a badass warrior. Far, far, far from it. I also can understand acting out of weakness or fear (Theon, for one) but don't ask me to cheer for people when they act out of weakness and fear. I do admire people who conquer their weakness and fears.

I'm not asking people to cheer for that I didn't like her then either, but I was able to see she did move past that with acts like you one mentioned. I don't blame Arya for still thinking she was the same because she wasn't there to see her develop and growth but there are viewers who have and still can't let it go.

I also care less in the long run about the intentions of stupid actions. I care about the consequences and it drives me crazy that nobler intentions can make people overlook horrific consequences.

Edited September 1, 2017 by VCRTracking

[spaceghostess]

28 minutes ago, Pogojoco said:

Back to the episode- I want to shout out the music- there was a good mix of the different themes. I think Cersei's cello is the most distinctive, but that may be because I associate it with the amazing S6 finale scenes, which felt like Michael Corleone renouncing Satan and all his works while the dons of the Five Families are being murdered on his order. It's also interesting that all the queens (Cersei, Dany, and even Sansa, a stand in queen) all wore black most of the season. Everyone wore black, actually. That whole Dragon pit meeting- it was a sea of black, except the Hound. 

Yes, thank you! I forgot to mention how much I loved the music throughout, from the warrior theme they used over the Unsullied in the opener to that really gorgeous piece ("Truth", I think it's called) that was played over the revelation of Jon's not being a bastard and Boat!Sex.

[GrailKing]

On 8/28/2017 at 1:53 PM, Hana Chan said:

Is it my imagination, or did Lyanna look pregnant during her wedding ceremony? The gown that she's wearing is pretty flowy, but it did look like she had a little bit of a belly. If that's the case, it could possibly explain why Rhaeger was insistent on marrying her. It wouldn't matter if Jon wasn't conceived out of wedlock, but being born to a married couple would ensure legitimacy.

I thought the same thing.

[GrailKing]

On 8/28/2017 at 3:42 PM, Bryce Lynch said:

So are you suggesting a Jaime/Sansa marriage?

I wouldn't disregard it.

In a way Sansa helped remove Joffery, Cersei still sees her as a threat, Jamie leaving for the North to fight along side the Starks.

And she may think that Sansa moves into YMBQ.

[patchwork]

I half expect the prophecy to be fulfilled by Cersei's own children, on the show at least. After a difficult labour, she gives birth to a daughter (the younger more beautiful queen) and she could have survived it if there wasn't another child (the little brother). Cersei never regains her health, she knows she's dying and it drives her wild fire nuts. If she can't reign then no one will sort of thing.

[MarySNJ]

18 hours ago, Francie said:

That's exactly when I think it would have kicked in for Littlefinger to try to find a reason why they'd feel like they'd need him. My entire point still stands, as the Littlefinger I know would have been trying to find an angle -- any angle -- to have them recognize, "Oh wait, we do need him, after all."

I do see your point. But I think that Littlefinger's involvement in betraying their father was unforgivable for Lady Stark and her siblings, and he was smart enough to know that nothing he would say would change what was going to happen after that, so groveling on his knees for mercy was his last option. 

I love the fact that the man who manipulated so many in Kings Landing and the Vale got completely blindsided in the North at the hands of the protégée that he had under his thumb. 

[Bryce Lynch]

14 hours ago, SimoneS said:

Daenerys should not accept xenophobia because some of Westeros are xenophobic. Tarly was an ass who should be ignored and dealt with not indulged. She didn't accept slavery because it was practiced in Astophor and Mereen. She refused to let the Iron Born and Dothraki continue to raid and rape because most of them think that is acceptable. There are lot of things that she needs to fix in Westeros as well. It isn't a paradise.

The Dothraki and the Unsullied who survive this war might want to return to their lands or maybe they want to stay and make a new life for themselves. The Dothraki women who are not with the Khaleesar for some inexplicable reason can join them in Westeros. There will be tons of empty lands when these wars are over so there should be lots of room for them. I think that Dany should follow the example of William the Conqueror and marry Dothraki leaders into Westeros noble families so ensure their loyalty and rebuild their society, but she is unlikely to do that. Regardless, Westeros will have to get accustom to their new society. It isn't like we are going to know any of this until the end of the story anyway.

He is freaking hot, yummy, and delish. I have had my eye on him for a while. 

While, I am sure Dany would figure out how to integrate the Dothraki into Westeros, I don't think concerns about them from Westerosies would be limited to xenophobia.  It is not just their food, music, customs, religious beliefs, skin color, etc. that are different.  Their way of life has been to go from village to village demanding tribute or sacking the towns, raping an enslaving the women, killing the men, etc.  Their way of life will need to radically change if they are going to fit in and not be a menace.

As you mentioned, most might go back to their homeland after the war is over.  Others could stay and adopt a new lifestyle.  I would imagine many of the warriors would fit in as Dany's army and Queensguard.  That would allow them to use their warrior skills in a more controlled and positive way. 

The Unsullied would have less trouble fitting in, as they are very disciplined and don't spill blood unless ordered to, and obviously don't rape.  

[mac123x]

8 hours ago, doram said:

Oh, good point about the dome. I just don't believe that Maegor the Cruel gave a fig about protecting the populace from the dragons.

I think it's more likely that paranoid Maegor wanted the dragons, the Targs's greatest power (what made them extraordinary) within reach of them without the threat of being stolen or killed when they were young and vulnerable.

Basically, I think it makes more sense that the dragon pit was built to keep the dragons safe and at hand, and not the other way around. 

I always thought the Dragon Pit was just a ginormous stable, with dragons instead of horses.

 

In the Princess and the Queen novella, when Rhaenyra briefly occupied Kings Landing, she kept her own dragon chained at the Red Keep, but the other dragons (both her supporters' and her opponents that weren't out in the field) locked in the Dragon Pit, with one of her dragon riders on duty at the Pit to protect the rest of them since they were vulnerable while young / chained up.

[GrailKing]

On 8/27/2017 at 11:03 PM, Katsullivan said:

Add to the list of things that made Littlefinger's execution & the entire Winterfell Stark Sister plot this season so unsatisfyingly fan-ficcy:

Whatever happened to Stark way:

Seeing that the rules for woman are totally different from men, the man chooses who the daughters marry, they decide on their education, woman in the North ( Bear Island excluded ) don't take part in executions.

I like to see Arya try and swing ICE or any normal long sword, she doesn't have the leverage or the strength, Sansa may have leverage, but no strength or training in handling any sword, beyond a butter or steak knife.

So they improvised as a team of 1; passed the sentence and swung the blade. It followed the old way.

Remember old woman in Brans's vision didn't swing a sword, she used a sickle. 

People are really putting too much effort into wording on punishment, Ned's words are more a metaphor than actual rules.

[GrailKing]

On 8/28/2017 at 4:06 PM, Bryce Lynch said:

Sansa actually implicitly offered her consent to Tyrion on their wedding night by starting to undress.  She didn't want to do it, but I think she felt it was her duty.  You can consent to things you don't want to do.  You could argue that Tywin was, in a sense, trying to "rape" Tyrion.  He put tremendous pressure on Tyrion to have sex with Sansa, and Tyrion put no pressure on Sansa.  

In most of those arranged, political, marriages, it probably wouldn't be "rape" as much as the women either being fine with it, trying to make the best of it,  or reluctantly doing their "duty".  

Lyanna seemed to be a very free spirited, strong willed woman, so Robert might have actually had to rape her, as she might never have consented.  

If you consider fear in her eyes, and taking as much time as she could to forestall it as consent, this was a forced act, and Tyrion knew she wasn't consenting. 

Her action clearly showed she was not clearly and without question submitting to this bedding, and when she tells Tyrion, ( paraphrased )"and if I never want you in my bed my lord" shut the door on her willingly giving consent.

[madam magpie]

25 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

If you consider fear in her eyes, and taking as much time as she could to forestall it as consent, this was a forced act, and Tyrion knew she wasn't consenting. 

Her action clearly showed she was not clearly and without question submitting to this bedding, and when she tells Tyrion, ( paraphrased )"and if I never want you in my bed my lord" shut the door on her willingly giving consent.

Agreed. Consent under duress isn't actually consent, and duress can take many forms. 

[Blonde Gator]

1 hour ago, GrailKing said:

Remember old woman in Brans's vision didn't swing a sword, she used a sickle. 

People are really putting too much effort into wording on punishment, Ned's words are more a metaphor than actual rules.

There was a bit of a corollary to Ned's axiom about death sentences and execution (he who passes the sentence should swing the blade):

A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is. ~ Bran[1] Game of Thrones

The second part of "Ned's Rules of Execution" may be even more important than the first part.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Blonde Gator

[Oscirus]

21 hours ago, Tikichick said:

If I get to pick, I'll go down by dragonfire over beheading.  So maybe you need to leave more room for personal preferences regarding what consists as terrorism.  I'll keep to myself my thoughts about the irony of not labeling beheading a form of terrorism since I really dislike the dragging of modern mores into the discussion.

 

I'm not talking about humane wise. I'm talking about having customized executions meant to instill fear due to the method which is what dragon fire is. 

13 hours ago, doram said:

Lysa got shit for the Moon Door. Dany gets shit for Dracarys. Arya gets shit for Frey massacre.

Meanwhile Stannis isn't riled for bonfiring peeps. Tyrion isn't riled for wild-firing peeps. Jon isn't riled for executing kids.

Is it just  me or is there a  pattern here...?

Who's not giving Stannis shit for setting people on fire?   Who's calling out Arya on the Frey massacre? Why is the misogyny card being forced into a conversation where there is none?

[GrailKing]

12 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

There was a bit of a corollary to Ned's axiom about death sentences and execution (he who passes the sentence should swing the blade):

A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is. ~ Bran[1] Game of Thrones

The second part of "Ned's Rules of Execution" may be even more important than the first part.

Who got paid?

Sansa, no she as Lady of Winterfell passed the sentence as by old and new law.

Bran? No, he's crippled he provided evidence.

Arya? , No ,as a Stark and trained in death and weapons she as a Stark and her siblings as one cohesive group, provided a trial, judgement was cast and though Arya physically did the dead the pack looked into the man's eyes, listened to his words and he died according to the ways of the North

No paid executioner was used, and it was a better death than he deserved, quick and cold, no emotions.

[GrailKing]

On 8/28/2017 at 8:18 PM, Francie said:

I wouldn't go so far as that. 

Here's where I come from when I watch this show.  I see it based on the York/Lancaster war. Martin has said as much.  And I know how that ends -- with a marriage of a male Lancaster, who identifies as a Tudor, and a pretty, young red head named Elizabeth.  So, from the start, I've had my eye on Sansa.  I'm not pulling the trigger, but I keep that in the back of my mind wherever she's concerned. 

I've had my eye on Tyrion as well.  He's a Lancaster, errr Lannister. It's an oddball, non-obvious fit.  He's also modeled after Richard III, but I know not to be too wedded to anything fitting on all four corners. George RR Martin doesn't have to hamper himself by modeling a character on only one historical figure. 

But that odd matching of both identifying themselves as "slow learners." Like I said,that perked my ears. It's a symmetry that the writers are starting to play with the audience. Who else said that? Oh, that's right! Is it with design that the showrunners want the audience to start connecting the two?  It's too early to say. 

But I wondered what others thought -- if they noted that echo as well. 

That's the long answer to your question. 

In that case, if that's your definition of "forge an alliance,  I'd love to have you forge an alliance of $10 with me.  I'll PM you my address, and I'll expect your complete surrender of your money to me at any time. 

More or less have agreement on the top part.

Bold part, I'm getting popcorn and watching from the sidelines.

On 8/28/2017 at 8:45 PM, taurusrose said:

So, because Jaime and Cersei know their relationship is an abomination as far as most of Westeros is concerned you find sex between them less creepy than two people who have never met until recently, and have no idea they have a blood relationship?  We have information that they do not.  So while you may find it creepy, Jon and Dany are not committing any wrong based on the information they have. If you look at the situation in that light, there'd be less "creepy" pearl clutching comments, and more empathy for the people involved and how this will impact them going forward.

Can't find a disagreement on this at all.

[Oscirus]

20 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I don't think she has to have all the details of how she will reign worked out.   As many characters in GOT have stated in different ways, the world in Westeros and Essos pretty much sucks for most people.  If she can make it suck 20% less, that would be a great accomplishment.  She can probably do better than that.   

The way the show works, Dany's greatest plans are usually a mystery to the audience and often to those around her until she pulls them off. For example: Hatching the dragon eggs in Drogo's funeral pyre. "Stealing" the Unsullied, having them kill the Master and then freeing them.   Getting the slaves in Yunkai and Meereen to turn on the Masters.  Killing all the Khals by burning the temple and becoming the undisputed leader of the Dothraki.  

Just because we don't know Dany's plans, it doesn't mean she doesn't have any.  Even if she hasn't figure most of the details out, a strong, just ruler, with wise advisers, strong armies and dragons, would stand an excellent chance of making a great deal of positive change.   In the Bay of Dragons cities, she tried different things.  Some worked, some didn't, but eventually she freed the slaves and apparently left the region fairly stable and better off than it was.  

It's not like she has a tough act to follow given that the last 5 rulers of Westeros have been the Mad King,  a drunk who didn't care about ruling and ran up a huge national debt, a psychopath, bastard of incest, who was a "vicious, idiot King", a weak boy who wasn't ready to rule and The Mother of Madness, Cersei Lannister.  

Admittedly, Dany has made some great moves, problem is the stuff she did in between with this seat of her pants method. Hell, let's just look at Mereen. She took over freed the slaves and destabilized the economy so bad that their were people actually requesting to go back into slavery.  A terrorist organization rose on her watch and she damn there caused a riot. If anything, Mereen should prove that method doesn't work over the long haul.  So when I hear Dany talking about breaking the wheel and Tyrion seems to be working more on her  plan than she is, I start to worry. Is her rule just more of the same with her just being a gentler leader than the previous administrations?

No idea why people are hung up on Ned's method for executing people. Not every leader has to follow Ned's example to be effective. If anything, I tend to think that Sansa not doing that is more hints at her destiny not being in the North, so I was fine with that scene.

[GrailKing]

On 8/28/2017 at 9:01 PM, Pogojoco said:

It's an informed consent thing.  It's dramatic irony, which is often designed to make the audience feel powerless and uncomfortable. And Bran confirming the parentage immediately before that scene tells me they want us to find it creepy and uncomfortable.

If that's how they wanted me to feel, I failed.

I kept my knowledge out of it and concentrated on only what the characters knew at that time, it will be what they do after they find out ( or if they find out ) that will concern me.

[Blonde Gator]

26 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

Who got paid?

Sansa, no she as Lady of Winterfell passed the sentence as by old and new law.

Bran? No, he's crippled he provided evidence.

Arya? , No ,as a Stark and trained in death and weapons she as a Stark and her siblings as one cohesive group, provided a trial, judgement was cast and though Arya physically did the dead the pack looked into the man's eyes, listened to his words and he died according to the ways of the North

No paid executioner was used, and it was a better death than he deserved, quick and cold, no emotions.

Not literally, and not in the specific, sheesh!  Where did you interpret specific people's deaths in my post in any way?  I'm stunned, truly.

Read Ned's words again.  It's his philosophy about ruling as well.  When a ruler passes off the act of execution in an impersonal way, ordering someone killed becomes less and less important over time.  So having an Ilyn Payne, or someone else to do one's killing, desensitizes the ruler passing sentence to what it means.  That's why I had exactly ZERO problem with Dany using the dragon to execute the Tarly's.  That is the only weapon of death she has that she, and she alone, can personally yield, as I've said repeatedly on this thread.  I never mentioned Sansa passing sentence, but right now, Arya is her only personal weapon, and I have exactly zero problem with that, either.  Sansa probably couldn't kill a dog that was attacking her, it makes no sense for her to try to Theon old Littlefinger.

Now, if we compare the opposite end of the spectrum.....instead of doing your own killing as a ruler, having someone else do it for you.  Cersei Lannister.  She's a big fan of Trial By Combat, so she never fears bearing the brunt of her own actions (remember her freakout when Tommen removed that option).  She ordered the deaths of a dozen plus of Robert's bastard children, to protect Joffrey's reign.  She has no compunction about blowing up thousands of innocents to rid herself of a few pesky enemies (High Sparrow, Maergary, and some minor annoyances in Lancel, Loras, Uncle Kevan, etc.).  But when she came face to face with her own doom, in the wight reaching for her throne, she saw her own death and panicked.  She has NO conception of life and death until that point, because she was so far removed from the deaths caused on her direct orders or indirect actions.

Ned's "rule" is really about ruling.  A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.  Take good care in your treatment of those whom you rule.

[screamin]

22 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

You know, I think @Blonde Gator raised a good point:   The vision of Robert that Ned had prior to the war could be one thing, you can convince yourself of a lot as a young person and it doesn't need to be true. 

That it didn't remain his vision of Robert is actually covered in the books.  Robert and Ned parted company on killing the Targaryen children and there was a chance that they'd never speak again over it.  So, I guess the book did try to render it sensical.  

By the time we meet up with them again in the first book and in the series, Ned's affection for Robert is only partially intact and he knows him well enough to warn Cersei that she needs to get her kids out of town (dumb move, Ned) or Robert will kill them. 

Ned was anti-child death, so it always kind of intrigues me that people say Ned would have killed Theon if his father had joined an uprising.  I always wondered if Ned fostered him to protect Theon from precisely that fate since he and Robert disagreed to the point of acrimony on the issue of killing your foe's kids. 

Ned wasn't anti-child death enough not to take Theon with the proviso that he would kill him if his father staged an uprising. I think even GRRM said once that Ned would have. It's a bannerman's duty, and it's the by-the-book thing to do to a hostage in case of uprising. And Ned is nothing if not bound to duty by the book. Of course, if actually FACED with the prospect of killing Theon, he might have blanched at it.  He wasn't anti-child death enough to refuse to continue as Robert's hand when he ordered the assassination of pregnant Dany (who was, what, fourteen?) It was only when actually faced with precipitating the killing of children he knew himself (Tommen, Myrcella, and Joffrey) that he realized he could not face the responsibility of doing things he was duty bound to do by the book...and because he was so conflicted about it, he mismanaged it completely.

As for Robert? There's a scene in GoT where he and Robert are drinking together in KL. Robert has already ordered the killing of Lady to appease Cersei even though it was pretty clear that Joffrey was at fault. He has refused to let Ned do a thing to cut the spending on tourneys he enjoys because the crown is bankrupt, or accomodate him in anything else important. Yet despite all his sordid history, including the condoning of child murder, in the glow of drinking and fellowship with Robert Ned optimistically thinks that he and his BFF can still turn things around, when even a blind man can see by then that Ned can't do a thing to change Robert for the better. He's shocked all over again when Robert orders Dany's death, even though Robert hasn't given a sign he's changed one bit from the man who approved the murdered children in front of his throne. IMO, Ned and Olenna don't have much in common, but I do think Ned's greatest failure was his failure of imagination...he couldn't imagine that Robert wasn't the man he wanted him to be, and deliberately shut his eyes to the evidence of the man he really was.

[GrailKing]

Just now, Blonde Gator said:

Not literally, and not in the specific, sheesh!  Where did you interpret specific people's deaths in my post in any way?  I'm stunned, truly.

Read Ned's words again.  It's his philosophy about ruling as well.  When a ruler passes off the act of execution in an impersonal way, ordering someone killed becomes less and less important over time.  So having an Ilyn Payne, or someone else to do one's killing, desensitizes the ruler passing sentence to what it means.  That's why I had exactly ZERO problem with Dany using the dragon to execute the Tarly's.  That is the only weapon of death she has that she, and she alone, can personally yield, as I've said repeatedly on this thread.  I never mentioned Sansa passing sentence, but right now, Arya is her only personal weapon, and I have exactly zero problem with that, either.  Sansa probably couldn't kill a dog that was attacking her, it makes no sense for her to try to Theon old Littlefinger.

Now, if we compare the opposite end of the spectrum.....instead of doing your own killing as a ruler, having someone else do it for you.  Cersei Lannister.  She's a big fan of Trial By Combat, so she never fears bearing the brunt of her own actions (remember her freakout when Tommen removed that option).  She ordered the deaths of a dozen plus of Robert's bastard children, to protect Joffrey's reign.  She has no compunction about blowing up thousands of innocents to rid herself of a few pesky enemies (High Sparrow, Maergary, and some minor annoyances in Lancel, Loras, Uncle Kevan, etc.).  But when she came face to face with her own doom, in the wight reaching for her throne, she saw her own death and panicked.  She has NO conception of life and death until that point, because she was so far removed from the deaths caused on her direct orders or indirect actions.

Ned's "rule" is really about ruling.  A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.  Take good care in your treatment of those whom you rule.

Sansa didn't hide behind anything, so your saying since she can't swing a sword, LF should go free!, he screwed the WHOLE FAMILY, anyone could do it, Arya did it, and the group did it as a team.

You brought up paid, you made Ned's words an absolute, yet it's shown through Bran's vision, that isn't always the case.

[Blonde Gator]

10 minutes ago, screamin said:

Ned wasn't anti-child death enough not to take Theon with the proviso that he would kill him if his father staged an uprising. I think even GRRM said once that Ned would have. It's a bannerman's duty, and it's the by-the-book thing to do to a hostage in case of uprising. And Ned is nothing if not bound to duty by the book. Of course, if actually FACED with the prospect of killing Theon, he might have blanched at it.  He wasn't anti-child death enough to refuse to continue as Robert's hand when he ordered the assassination of pregnant Dany (who was, what, fourteen?) It was only when actually faced with precipitating the killing of children he knew himself (Tommen, Myrcella, and Joffrey) that he realized he could not face the responsibility of doing things he was duty bound to do by the book...and because he was so conflicted about it, he mismanaged it completely.

 

Actually, Ned did resign when Robert ordered a pregnant Daenerys' assassination.

6 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

Sansa didn't hide behind anything, so your saying since she can't swing a sword, LF should go free!, he screwed the WHOLE FAMILY, anyone could do it, Arya did it, and the group did it as a team.

You brought up paid, you made Ned's words an absolute, yet it's shown through Bran's vision, that isn't always the case.

Excuse me, maybe you need more coffee.  Here is EXACTLY what I said: 

I never mentioned Sansa passing sentence, but right now, Arya is her only personal weapon, and I have exactly zero problem with that, either.  Sansa probably couldn't kill a dog that was attacking her, it makes no sense for her to try to Theon old Littlefinger.

BTW, I didn't "bring up paid", either.  That was Ned Stark's word.  

Edited September 1, 2017 by Blonde Gator
Ned Stark's quote, not mine

[stillshimpy]

21 hours ago, AshleyN said:

Not sure those stories would have held up when (Book)Jon turned out to be the spitting image of Ned, looking more like him than any of his actual children save Arya. And that was the best case scenario, the worst was him taking after his father -- although I've seen it pointed out that that might be why Ned allowed the Ashara Dayne rumour to flourish.

That's true, but Ned couldn't have known that Jon would grow up to look like a Stark when he was a baby and the most obvious thing to do from there (I did say someone known for spreading it around, after all) would be Brandon who would have had it coming.  

But mostly, I don't think anyone would have paid all that much attention to who the butcher's kid was looking like if the cover story was that it was the child of a fallen soldier because all Ned would have to say is, "He favors his father's side" so it's a pretty plausible cover story.  Ned stuck as close to the truth as possible, "He's a family member" and chose the rather odd route of preserving Catelyn's view of Brandon in death rather than his own intact honor in life.  

[stillshimpy]

17 minutes ago, screamin said:

Theon, he might have blanched at it.  He wasn't anti-child death enough to refuse to continue as Robert's hand when he ordered the assassination of pregnant Dany (who was, what, fourteen?) It was only when actually faced with precipitating the killing of children he knew himself (Tommen, Myrcella, and Joffrey) that he realized he could not face the responsibility of doing things he was duty bound to do by the book...and because he was so conflicted about it, he mismanaged it completely.

Isn't ordering the assassination of Dany what caused Ned to take off the Hand pin and get set to leave King's Landing?  

[screamin]

14 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Isn't ordering the assassination of Dany what caused Ned to take off the Hand pin and get set to leave King's Landing?  

What I remember from the book is that Robert refused to accept his resignation, told him if Ned gave the pin back to him again, he'd pin it on Jaime Lannister, I think - or Tywin? Can't quite recall. Either way, Robert's threat was enough to make him stay put in KL. If only he'd had the fortitude to go through with his resignation and leave - but he was too faithful to Robert.

Re: the execution of LF - did Sansa actually pronounce the sentence? Since Ned's edict is that the man who passes sentence should swing the sword - and Sansa is a woman who'd swing a sword badly and make an execution a lot more painful and prolonged for the victim if she tried, I don't have a problem with the siblings collaborating here.

Edited September 1, 2017 by screamin