On May 31 2012 23:09 frontliner2 wrote: Also, the Archer sees trajectory maybe? And so can adjust his next shot? perhaps that too..
No, for a trained archer that wouldn't be the case. Only reason they'd fire flaming arrows is for the visual effects. There was nothing to burn there.
A trained archer at defense would have trained and known the ranges and how high/low aim to hit different parts of the beach. The bow isn't a sniping weapon, you aren't gonna eyeshoot someone at 300 meters no matter if you see the target clear as day or not.
Who said they were trained archers? As is often the case in fantasy sieges, it is highly probable that most of those archers were a subset of city guard/citizens who know how to use a bow. Saying that they would know the ranges and how to adjust their trajectory to hit different parts of the beach seems like high expectations to me. Being able to see approximately where your arrow went would help the layman a lot more I think.
On May 31 2012 23:09 frontliner2 wrote: Also, the Archer sees trajectory maybe? And so can adjust his next shot? perhaps that too..
No, for a trained archer that wouldn't be the case. Only reason they'd fire flaming arrows is for the visual effects. There was nothing to burn there.
A trained archer at defense would have trained and known the ranges and how high/low aim to hit different parts of the beach. The bow isn't a sniping weapon, you aren't gonna eyeshoot someone at 300 meters no matter if you see the target clear as day or not.
Who said they were trained archers? As is often the case in fantasy sieges, it is highly probable that most of those archers were a subset of city guard/citizens who know how to use a bow. Saying that they would know the ranges and how to adjust their trajectory to hit different parts of the beach seems like high expectations to me. Being able to see approximately where your arrow went would help the layman a lot more I think.
GUYS!! Seriously???? Its clearly to add 2-5 fire damage COME ON!!! xD<3
On May 31 2012 15:57 BlindKill wrote: The show feels so rushed. We saw like 10 minutes of direwolv & dragons in total.
I fail to see how this makes the show rushed >_>
Rather then hear the tale of how Robb Starks army of wolves shredding apart the Lannister soliders they definatly could have made that an episode too. They tell us of how great a warrior Robb is and we never see it. They tell us how fearsome and deadly Grey Wind is but all we see is him bite off a nobles hand.
Now they could probably stretch this show into 20 4 hour movies if they want to. Such a deep world with so much happening all at once
We don't get to see Robb's battles in books either. Everything that happens in his army is told through Cat's eyes, and she naturally does not partake in the battles. So it is how it's supposed to be.
edit: I sure hope "we don't see it in books either" doesn't break the NO BOOKS thing.
You have my Axe!
I don't mind your comment
I do mind. I don't care if he's talking about what we don't get to read in the books. I plan on reading them eventually and I don't want to know anything about them. Isn't there another thread for book discussion? What kind of motivantion do people who've read them have to come here? Is it so fucking hard not to mention the books at all?
stfu we're not here to cater to your every little whims and annoyances. I get annoyed with little spoilers people drop by here and then, but this was not a spoiler at all. People need to calm the fuck down.
Can you relax? I would be pretty annoyed as well had I not read the book.
Sure it was a spoiler, even though a really minor one. Nobody got warned or banned for it. Still, to prevent things like this in the future, just leave book stuff out of this thread. There is another one specifically for people who have read the books. Go there.
Unless you've only read some of the books and not all, in which case you will find discussing GOT on this forum incredibly difficult.
People are overreacting a lot in this thread, and a lot of the time its not a spoiler until someone points out that it is, in which case the original poster gets ridiculed for something that would have passed over everyone's head had it not been specifically pointed out. But I'm not going to add anything further to the discussion, I've stated my opinion about this before.
On May 31 2012 23:09 frontliner2 wrote: Also, the Archer sees trajectory maybe? And so can adjust his next shot? perhaps that too..
No, for a trained archer that wouldn't be the case. Only reason they'd fire flaming arrows is for the visual effects. There was nothing to burn there.
A trained archer at defense would have trained and known the ranges and how high/low aim to hit different parts of the beach. The bow isn't a sniping weapon, you aren't gonna eyeshoot someone at 300 meters no matter if you see the target clear as day or not.
Who said they were trained archers? As is often the case in fantasy sieges, it is highly probable that most of those archers were a subset of city guard/citizens who know how to use a bow. Saying that they would know the ranges and how to adjust their trajectory to hit different parts of the beach seems like high expectations to me. Being able to see approximately where your arrow went would help the layman a lot more I think.
GUYS!! Seriously???? Its clearly to add 2-5 fire damage COME ON!!! xD<3
but doesn't that make it less effective vs water types? imo they should've gone for something that adds aoe
Trajectory, inflicting moral damge and burning siege weapons all seem reasonable. There isn't really a drawback for using fire arrows. Also it looks better ^^
On June 01 2012 04:45 AntiGrav1ty wrote: Trajectory, inflicting moral damge and burning siege weapons all seem reasonable. There isn't really a drawback for using fire arrows. Also it looks better ^^
Well, I would imagine it takes longer to fire considering you actually need to lit the arrows as well. (+ the fact that you can see the arrows coming does give you a small window to actually dodge them. Altough admittedly seeing as this isn't the matrix, I'm not sure how viable that is)
On May 31 2012 23:09 frontliner2 wrote: Also, the Archer sees trajectory maybe? And so can adjust his next shot? perhaps that too..
No, for a trained archer that wouldn't be the case. Only reason they'd fire flaming arrows is for the visual effects. There was nothing to burn there.
A trained archer at defense would have trained and known the ranges and how high/low aim to hit different parts of the beach. The bow isn't a sniping weapon, you aren't gonna eyeshoot someone at 300 meters no matter if you see the target clear as day or not.
Who said they were trained archers? As is often the case in fantasy sieges, it is highly probable that most of those archers were a subset of city guard/citizens who know how to use a bow. Saying that they would know the ranges and how to adjust their trajectory to hit different parts of the beach seems like high expectations to me. Being able to see approximately where your arrow went would help the layman a lot more I think.
GUYS!! Seriously???? Its clearly to add 2-5 fire damage COME ON!!! xD<3
but doesn't that make it less effective vs water types? imo they should've gone for something that adds aoe
They had the AOE, was more a problem of timing imo
On June 01 2012 04:45 AntiGrav1ty wrote: Trajectory, inflicting moral damge and burning siege weapons all seem reasonable. There isn't really a drawback for using fire arrows. Also it looks better ^^
Well, I would imagine it takes longer to fire considering you actually need to lit the arrows as well. (+ the fact that you can see the arrows coming does give you a small window to actually dodge them. Altough admittedly seeing as this isn't the matrix, I'm not sure how viable that is)
While dodging a single arrow probably isnt to hard (there being shot in an arc most of the time which gives you a lot more time) they tended to rely more on volume. it becomes a lot harder to dodge 200 arrows flying into a group of 500 for example, people will end up getting hit.
On June 01 2012 04:45 AntiGrav1ty wrote: Trajectory, inflicting moral damge and burning siege weapons all seem reasonable. There isn't really a drawback for using fire arrows. Also it looks better ^^
Well, I would imagine it takes longer to fire considering you actually need to lit the arrows as well. (+ the fact that you can see the arrows coming does give you a small window to actually dodge them. Altough admittedly seeing as this isn't the matrix, I'm not sure how viable that is)
While dodging a single arrow probably isnt to hard (there being shot in an arc most of the time which gives you a lot more time) they tended to rely more on volume. it becomes a lot harder to dodge 200 arrows flying into a group of 500 for example, people will end up getting hit.
On May 31 2012 15:57 BlindKill wrote: The show feels so rushed. We saw like 10 minutes of direwolv & dragons in total.
I fail to see how this makes the show rushed >_>
Rather then hear the tale of how Robb Starks army of wolves shredding apart the Lannister soliders they definatly could have made that an episode too. They tell us of how great a warrior Robb is and we never see it. They tell us how fearsome and deadly Grey Wind is but all we see is him bite off a nobles hand.
Now they could probably stretch this show into 20 4 hour movies if they want to. Such a deep world with so much happening all at once
We don't get to see Robb's battles in books either. Everything that happens in his army is told through Cat's eyes, and she naturally does not partake in the battles. So it is how it's supposed to be.
edit: I sure hope "we don't see it in books either" doesn't break the NO BOOKS thing.
You have my Axe!
I don't mind your comment
I do mind. I don't care if he's talking about what we don't get to read in the books. I plan on reading them eventually and I don't want to know anything about them. Isn't there another thread for book discussion? What kind of motivantion do people who've read them have to come here? Is it so fucking hard not to mention the books at all?
stfu we're not here to cater to your every little whims and annoyances. I get annoyed with little spoilers people drop by here and then, but this was not a spoiler at all. People need to calm the fuck down.
Can you relax? I would be pretty annoyed as well had I not read the book.
Sure it was a spoiler, even though a really minor one. Nobody got warned or banned for it. Still, to prevent things like this in the future, just leave book stuff out of this thread. There is another one specifically for people who have read the books. Go there.
Unless you've only read some of the books and not all, in which case you will find discussing GOT on this forum incredibly difficult.
People are overreacting a lot in this thread, and a lot of the time its not a spoiler until someone points out that it is, in which case the original poster gets ridiculed for something that would have passed over everyone's head had it not been specifically pointed out. But I'm not going to add anything further to the discussion, I've stated my opinion about this before.
I have read all books as have others in this thread. We somehow don't have a problem discussing the show in this thread. I don't see what is difficult about that. Still there are enough who simply can't shut up about what happens in the books. Which is what I don't get.
Agreed that too many here are overreacting though, on both sides. It really doesn't help that after every spoiler posted we have 2 pages of people crying about spoilers and/or spoiler policy. I wish everyone could just stay on topic
I have to echo CursedRich. Tyrion and Tywin are the only characters I actually sympathise with and really enjoy watching. Some of the storylines not involving them are class, but the characters themselves do not appeal to me. They are either a) too stupid, b) too deviant, or c) not believable.
Honourable mention should I guess go to Bronn and the hound but they wouldn't be able to make the show 'good' in the absence of Tyrion or Tywin. If either of them dies then there better be a new character coming to take the reigns. Because I seriously can't stand half of the characters there. I enjoy the things that happen to them but can't stand them. Dany is the worst, only reason I don't fast forward through her is the dragons and the cool scenery/ change of pace in that area.
What?? How are Arya, Sansa, Rob, and Jon not believable? Or Theon? Or Littlefinger or Varys? There are plenty of cool characters in this show.
Various aspects of Arya's character scream 'artificial', she feels like the most 'forced' character, although having said that Danarys is definitely giving her a run for her money in that department. Littlefinger and Varys are unbelievable because they know too much information, and Martin gives an unrealistic and exaggerated amount of credit to the powers of spy networks to collect information.
I don't consider any of the other characters mentioned not believable but they fall into my other aspects. Stupid = Rob, Jon, Theon, Sansa. I should say that I don't really mean stupid as in half-wit, I just mean that they make irritatingly un-thought-out decisions. I know they are supposed to be young, but I don't want to watch young people make stupid choices on shows, it's just not the sort of thing I watch TV for. I dislike young people mostly, I don't usually watch shows where the majority of the characters are teenagers. Of course that's a personal preference so you are entitled to have whatever opinion you have.
By the way aside from reasons I have given there, I don't consider any of the characters you just mentioned to be 'cool'. Rob was the only one I was holding out for, but I just kind of lost interest when he started gawking at the medicine noblewoman. He might redeem himself though.
I should say that I do sympathise with Arya and I like her story more than most of the others, but I just don't like the forced aspects of her character.
On May 30 2012 04:18 FREEloss_ca wrote: But at the same time you have to understand his position. He was only 17 when he stabbed the Mad King; he was young and confused. He was most definitely torn, facing a horrible dilemma. After all, the man he was sworn to protect turned into a murderous maniac. The honourable thing to do would have been to have died defending the Mad King, or perhaps forsake his oath and flee King's Landing as soon as Aeries went Mad and joined the rebellion.
Haha, personally I would have done what Jaime did!
How is Rob or Jon or Theon or Sansa stupid?
Rob united the North and has won every battle he's fought against the Lannisters. Where is the stupidity?
Jon is a bastard and was pretty much forced to go to the Wall by Catelyn Stark. Since going there, he's proven himself to be one of the best fighters and Mormont singled him out as leadership potential. He couldn't bring himself to kill a wildling woman because he's never killed a woman before. So instead, he decided to take her prisoner while he went to meet back up with his ranger party. At worst, you could say he's too soft-hearted. But stupid? What part of that was stupid? The fact he got lost? Shit like that happens. People get lost IRL. And it's not always because they're dumb.
Theon decided to side with his blood and took Winterfell in a brilliant raid that nobody saw coming. That is the epitome of a bad ass strategist. Just because his sister philosophically disagrees with him on how the Ironborn should wage their war doesn't make him dumb.
Sansa was immature, but I don't think she's at all stupid. If she was stupid, she'd be making a fuss and saying she hates Joffrey and doing pretty much everything possible to get her head put on a chopping block. Instead, she's been very careful to conceal her feelings and play the perfect princess, while quietly learning the politics of everything and trying to find a way to survive.
You've offered a lot of opinion with very little substance to back them up. What parts of Arya are forced? LF and Varys know too much?!
Robb is stupid, Jon is stupid, Theon is stupid, and Sansa is arguably stupid.
Jon is stupid the same way Ned Stark was. He puts his vows way above common sense at times and makes a big deal about following them to a T while others clearly skirt around the vow.
Robb lost his entire Kingdom and had his home burnt to the ground. He sent a Greyjoy, sworn enemies, to the Greyjoys to ask them for help? Thanks for handing over Winterfell. He may have never lost a battle but he has already lost basically his entire Kingdom.
Theon is stupid... the show clearly spells this out for you and shows how immature and unsure of himself he is. Winterfell was a great success, but it was one they couldn't possibly hold. Greyjoy power rests on the sea.
Sansa is smart but not smart. She is so keen on being a queen that she doesn't realize what is going on. BUT, she is smart enough to know when to play the part that is expected of her to not make things worse. You could say Sansa was dumb but wisened up.
I'm sorry but you don't seem to be grasping the story quite right.
Ned Stark wasn't at all stupid. He had principles. And he would have lived through everything with his honor intact if not for Joffrey's insanity. Smart people cannot account for insanity. Not even Joffrey's own family knew he was going to do what he did. How do you expect Ned Stark to be smart enough to have guessed that would happen? You're not understanding the world when you say Ned was stupid. You're just armchair quarterbacking in hindsight. There was nothing stupid about the way Ned did things. Ned helped put the Baratheon's on the throne. He was tired of war. He wanted peace and his daughters were stuck in the city with him. He couldn't count on the Goldcloaks betraying him, nor Littlefinger lying to him either. He tried to cover his bases while doing the right thing. At no point do I find Ned's actions idiotic, other than perhaps letting Cersei know that he knew about the true heritage of her children. But even then, Ned wasn't 100% sure. Not until he confronted Cersei with it. That was the only way for him to know for sure.
So, no, I can't say I agree with you at all that Ned was stupid.
Jon Snow. Vows above common sense? Lol?? Do you realize that if a Blackcloak is caught breaking his vows, he gets executed? Did you miss that part at the VERY beginning of the entire series? So you think it would be smarter for him to break his vows? I don't know which ones you're talking about that others "clearly skirt around." Because I'm pretty sure anyone who was caught doing so would be executed.
Robb lost his entire kingdom... I hope you realize the North has a hell of a lot more castles than Winterfell and Torren's Square, seeing as that's all that's been taken by the Ironborn. When was his home burnt to the ground? I didn't see that part. Robb is King in the North. His entire Kingdom consists of dozens of castles, thousands of soldiers, hundreds of knights, and scores of lords. You are completely bonkers if you think the Greyjoys have taken over all of the North.
Greyjoys were their sworn enemies... You do realize, the Greyjoys swore fealty and peace after being defeated right? To be a sworn enemy, you can't really swear fealty... The two are mutually exclusive. Greyjoys wouldn't send their son to hostage at Winterfell if they were sworn enemies. Again, you don't seem to grasp the nuance of the world.
I also disagree about Theon holding Winterfell. Just because Asha doesn't think it can work, doesn't make that fact. Asha's just one person with one opinion. Theon probably knows Winterfell and its defenses a hell of a lot better than she does. She might be great on a ship and experienced with raiding villages, but that don't mean she knows jack about castle warfare.
I have nothing else to say about Sansa, because I think you see why it's irrational to call her a stupid character at this point. Put simply, she's not stupid anymore.
Ned lost his life because he was stupid. Littlefinger and Renly said as much to him. They handed him the keys to the throne. He refused them, and so Littlefinger turned on him and Renly fled.
Jon Snow is one of the poorer examples of stupidity of the bunch, but he was the reason a few of his own Sworn Brothers were killed and that he is captured. He doesn't know which honor he is following and that's why his vows make him stupid. Am I following that in which women should not be harmed? Am I following that in which we must do whatever is required of a man in Black? Am I do that in which I wish to do as a man? Jon Snow is a confused man. His confusion led to the death of his Brothers and he remains captured.
Robb lost the North. I know it was hard to understand somewhat, but the Ironmen also took Moat Caitlin. With Robb lacking ships, he has really no way of getting past this choke back into the North. Moat Cailtin is known to take 100-1000 men for each 1 you take. He is essentially stuck in the Riverlands, and his North has been rampaged, looted, and conquered. Not to mention that now he is messing with a girl while he is betrothed, who represents a House that controls the Twins and is very powerful. He is stupid.
Theon... his stupidity is spelled out in the show. There is no reason for me to repeat upon it. The dialogue around Theon is there to show you what he is doing is totally dumb.
Sansa was stupid. You forget how she lied for Joffrey and was so thrilled to be his queen despite her noticing he was very girlish and quite cruel. It wasn't until Ned's head rolled that Sansa finally understood what was going on. Then she wisened up and played her role perfectly. But, until that point, Sansa beleived in prince charming and being swept off her feet by the most gallant knight and that everything was perfect for she would be queen. She has finally learned now. Thus, she was stupid and wisened up.
Arya is probably the smartest Stark.
If Cercei and Joffrey, and their personal followers, werent so evil then it would be hard not to cheer for the Lanisters.
Joffrey isnt derp? He's so cocky and arrogant and knows nothing about everything. Every time i see him i hate him and facepalm whenever his mouth opens. Damn that actor is good, too good sadly gonna remember him as Joffrey forever
Only in the way that Hitler was a derp. Joffrey is just this evil weird sadist that doesnt even enjoy having sex. His only goal is to randomly go about murdering people and yelling. He is a one dimensional comic book character who the show tries to 'explain' as a product of madness brought about by inbreeding -- basically just like Vasarys 2.0 except he didnt even lose a kingdom or anything to drive him into stupid-madness.
The Starks are supposed to be the good guys and the way they are portrayed in the show you just eventually end up getting mad at them for all their repeatedly stupid mis-steps. Which then leads you to wonder how did a house so thoroughly incompetent actually survive for this long. Seems like that Roose Bolton guy would have overthrown the Starks at some point just based on their sheer stupidity and adherence to honor.
On May 31 2012 23:09 frontliner2 wrote: Also, the Archer sees trajectory maybe? And so can adjust his next shot? perhaps that too..
No, for a trained archer that wouldn't be the case. Only reason they'd fire flaming arrows is for the visual effects. There was nothing to burn there.
A trained archer at defense would have trained and known the ranges and how high/low aim to hit different parts of the beach. The bow isn't a sniping weapon, you aren't gonna eyeshoot someone at 300 meters no matter if you see the target clear as day or not.
really? some of the archers back in the day were totally gosu. there'll always be a few who excel at the craft. the mongol/plains armies a millenia ago could accurately shoot from moving horseback. i'm sure some could eyeshoot someone at 300 m. granted, most people would be in bronze league then and now. they'd probably just hit them in the knee
EDIT: the range of an english longbow is 180 m, so prob not. anywho, point being there are/were some snipers with a bow.
Pretty sure fire arrows are just one of those visual thing that movies do that doesn't make much practical sense. Film wise, fire arrows work because it's night and it would be hard to see the arrows as a viewer. But I don't think it would actually be of much use. You'd probably be better off firing more arrows faster than to bother setting each arrow on fire when it's really not going to add any extra damage. It's certainly not going to engulf them in flames unless they happen to be carrying gasoline in their pockets.
On May 31 2012 16:29 1ntrigue wrote: Ned and Catelyn adhere to higher "moral standards" than most other characters in the book. Whether it is stupid to have high moral standards or not depends on your own moral compass I suppose, but Ned and Catelyn are honest, fair and both have strong beliefs in justice. Mind you, everything had to go wrong for the Starks for their actions to come back and hurt them, but whether you use hindsight and call that stupid or you say "damn, GRRM gave the Lannisters some thickass plot armour" depends on your own view on morality. That is, while you can blame the Starks for being too proud to sink to the level of the Lannisters to fight deception with deception, plot with plot, but on the other hand, they were in a position to not need to change given their initial advantage.
Here's what fucked up for the Starks: 1. Robert getting killed by a boar 2. Littlefinger and the city watch betraying Ned 3. Sansa betraying her family 4. Joffrey's unpredictable execution of Ned 5. Lysa's stupidity leading to Tyrion's freedom 6. Lysa betraying the Starks' war effort 7. Theon betraying the Starks' war effort 8. Renly being killed by magic 9. Stannis being a stubborn fool 10. The Tyrells siding with the Lannisters
These are just what I can think up on the top of my head.
I know this was posted a couple pages back, but it's a pretty good list. I can't for the life of me remember #3 though... Could someone remind me? I don't remember seeing her betray her family at all... I can maybe see her lying out of her ass to not get hanged, but otherwise I'm drawing a blank.
I also disagree with #1. Yeah, it screwed the Starks over but I still think that was calculated and not just happenstance. I don't think it's ever explicitly shown but wasn't it strongly hinted at that it was an "accident", considering his entourage on that hunting trip was pretty much completely Lannister-aligned? It allows the Lannisters access to the throne before Joffrey's bastardness is revealed and gives them total power. Too good for them to just be a coincidence. At least, that's how I interpreted it...
On June 01 2012 06:09 Sub40APM wrote: Only in the way that Hitler was a derp. Joffrey is just this evil weird sadist that doesnt even enjoy having sex. His only goal is to randomly go about murdering people and yelling. He is a one dimensional comic book character who the show tries to 'explain' as a product of madness brought about by inbreeding -- basically just like Vasarys 2.0 except he didnt even lose a kingdom or anything to drive him into stupid-madness.
The Starks are supposed to be the good guys and the way they are portrayed in the show you just eventually end up getting mad at them for all their repeatedly stupid mis-steps. Which then leads you to wonder how did a house so thoroughly incompetent actually survive for this long. Seems like that Roose Bolton guy would have overthrown the Starks at some point just based on their sheer stupidity and adherence to honor.
I believe that the Starks are simply out of their natural element. It's not a matter of stupidity, not even a matter of honour, but a matter of customs and culture. Northerners live in a much more feudal world where local lords have a greater power due to the distance between settlements. Soldiers have a much bigger role in society as the central power would be unable to defend the whole region effectively enough to make local troops useless. In this sense, their mentality is to fight in the open and to dominate through brute force and loyalty (respect inspired by years and years of domination). They are not used to plots and politics at all.
In short, the North looks very much like west Europe in the 12th century, while the Lannisters seem to live in a world closer to the Renaissance where armies are much less important than alliances and influence. Tywin would have (and already has) a lot of trouble fighting the Starks the northern way : war and brute force. Robb has little to no trouble penetrating the southern territories, but Tywin's generals prove themselves to be incompetent and the soldiers themselves are not fit to endure the hardships that pave the way to Winterfell.
tl;dr : the Starks are losing because they're fishes out of the ocean.
On May 31 2012 16:29 1ntrigue wrote: Ned and Catelyn adhere to higher "moral standards" than most other characters in the book. Whether it is stupid to have high moral standards or not depends on your own moral compass I suppose, but Ned and Catelyn are honest, fair and both have strong beliefs in justice. Mind you, everything had to go wrong for the Starks for their actions to come back and hurt them, but whether you use hindsight and call that stupid or you say "damn, GRRM gave the Lannisters some thickass plot armour" depends on your own view on morality. That is, while you can blame the Starks for being too proud to sink to the level of the Lannisters to fight deception with deception, plot with plot, but on the other hand, they were in a position to not need to change given their initial advantage.
Here's what fucked up for the Starks: 1. Robert getting killed by a boar 2. Littlefinger and the city watch betraying Ned 3. Sansa betraying her family 4. Joffrey's unpredictable execution of Ned 5. Lysa's stupidity leading to Tyrion's freedom 6. Lysa betraying the Starks' war effort 7. Theon betraying the Starks' war effort 8. Renly being killed by magic 9. Stannis being a stubborn fool 10. The Tyrells siding with the Lannisters
These are just what I can think up on the top of my head.
I know this was posted a couple pages back, but it's a pretty good list. I can't for the life of me remember #3 though... Could someone remind me? I don't remember seeing her betray her family at all... I can maybe see her lying out of her ass to not get hanged, but otherwise I'm drawing a blank.
I also disagree with #1. Yeah, it screwed the Starks over but I still think that was calculated and not just happenstance. I don't think it's ever explicitly shown but wasn't it strongly hinted at that it was an "accident", considering his entourage on that hunting trip was pretty much completely Lannister-aligned? It allows the Lannisters access to the throne before Joffrey's bastardness is revealed and gives them total power. Too good for them to just be a coincidence. At least, that's how I interpreted it...
Didn't she tell Cersei what Ned was up to, so she could be with her beloved Joffrey?
Also, #1 was Cersei's doing. I honestly don't remember if it was explained in detail in the show or if that was the books. So I wont say anything else.
On May 31 2012 16:29 1ntrigue wrote: Ned and Catelyn adhere to higher "moral standards" than most other characters in the book. Whether it is stupid to have high moral standards or not depends on your own moral compass I suppose, but Ned and Catelyn are honest, fair and both have strong beliefs in justice. Mind you, everything had to go wrong for the Starks for their actions to come back and hurt them, but whether you use hindsight and call that stupid or you say "damn, GRRM gave the Lannisters some thickass plot armour" depends on your own view on morality. That is, while you can blame the Starks for being too proud to sink to the level of the Lannisters to fight deception with deception, plot with plot, but on the other hand, they were in a position to not need to change given their initial advantage.
Here's what fucked up for the Starks: 1. Robert getting killed by a boar 2. Littlefinger and the city watch betraying Ned 3. Sansa betraying her family 4. Joffrey's unpredictable execution of Ned 5. Lysa's stupidity leading to Tyrion's freedom 6. Lysa betraying the Starks' war effort 7. Theon betraying the Starks' war effort 8. Renly being killed by magic 9. Stannis being a stubborn fool 10. The Tyrells siding with the Lannisters
These are just what I can think up on the top of my head.
I know this was posted a couple pages back, but it's a pretty good list. I can't for the life of me remember #3 though... Could someone remind me? I don't remember seeing her betray her family at all... I can maybe see her lying out of her ass to not get hanged, but otherwise I'm drawing a blank.
I also disagree with #1. Yeah, it screwed the Starks over but I still think that was calculated and not just happenstance. I don't think it's ever explicitly shown but wasn't it strongly hinted at that it was an "accident", considering his entourage on that hunting trip was pretty much completely Lannister-aligned? It allows the Lannisters access to the throne before Joffrey's bastardness is revealed and gives them total power. Too good for them to just be a coincidence. At least, that's how I interpreted it...
Didn't she tell Cersei what Ned was up to, so she could be with her beloved Joffrey?
Also, #1 was Cersei's doing. I honestly don't remember if it was explained in detail in the show or if that was the books. So I wont say anything else.
#3 didn't happen in the show, however, Varys makes pretty explicit references to the fact that Lancel was helping Robert get drunk during the hunt (not that he needed much help).
EPT
