Anyone watching this? My best friend (and fellow gamer) let me borrow his copy of the first complete season. After some initial shock at the gratuitious violence and sex (I'm no prude, by any means, just wasn't expecting it...silly me! ), I will admit that I am hooked.
I'm watching it! I got hooked on the books a looong time ago - I worked in a bookstore then, and actually read the galley of the first book before it was published. We were all big fans at the store. Anyway, I think the show is a gorgeous adaptation, and so far is doing a great job at keeping all the plotlines in the air; there are many threads to manage, and while they had to cut some to film it, I think they hit a good balance. And a great cast...my favorite has to be Peter Dinklage as Tyrion, but I love Varys, Arya, Jaime, and both Mormonts.
Have read all the books twice, plus the Dunk and Egg stories that take place before Game of Thrones. Just finished watching season 2. Yeah, Dinklage is an awesome Tyrion, who is probably also my favorite character in the books. I also really loved the stuff they did in season 2 that depated from the books. The character development of Tywin was very nice, since in the books he's such a one-dimensional character. These books totally transformed the way I ran and envision GH.
I like what they've done with Tywin too - particularly replacing Bolton with Tywin at Harrenhal, thus putting Arya and Tywin together...those were some of my favorite scenes last season.
The first season had some noteworthy cast members, the most obvious (?) of which was Sean Bean, AKA Boromir of LotR. Following that, I noted Lena Headey, the manipulative Queen, who also starred in 300 as Leonidas' wife and another Queen. Finally, after minor prodding by my friend who lent me the series, I acknowledged that Khal Drogo was played by Jason Momoa (MAN is he huge!!!) who starred in the most recent rendition of Conan the Barbarian. Undoubtedly there are some others I've missed, but those three popped out first and foremost. I intend to borrow my friend's second series DVDs soon, so maybe more stars will come to note.
I've come to really like the 'realism', brutal and unjust as it clearly is, of the 'typical' medieval culture portrayed in this series. I have great empathy, perhaps even pity, for the vast majority of people living in that realm, particularly the peasant class and pretty much all women. These folks live a miserable, victimized lifestyle, never knowing who will oppress them, brutalize them, and the like. Most of the nobles are utterly contemptible, and the part of me that seeks justice (a la Trithereon) would have the lot of them dispatched by the means they employ against those whom they torture, butcher, pillage, etc. I especially found the blonde-haired prince-in-exile (name eludes me at the moment) specifically vile and thoroughly liked how Khal Drogo 'got even' with him with his on-the-spot form of poetic justice. Afterwards, the Queen (Lena Headey's character) and the youngling, blonde-haired Prince are equally repulsive for their hateful, vindictive actions. There are more, too many to list, who likewise deserve (my opinion) to have their heads on the end of a pike (or spear)...
As for 'good' folks, the late Lord Stark was on that list, though he strikes me more as a LN person than LG (undoubtedly the seeds of 'goodness' were in his heart). I especially like his children, particularly 'the Bastard' (probably my favorite character of the whole 1st season) and his fiesty little daughter (the one learning swordplay).
I haven't figured out 'the Dwarf' yet from House Lannister...methinks he's a 'better man' than his outright exterior and words would have one think. Pretty much the rest of House Lannister can burn in Hades...
sharpening my broadsword, reaching for the spear, ready to call forth animals,
I've come to really like the 'realism', brutal and unjust as it clearly is, of the 'typical' medieval culture portrayed in this series.
Your entire summation is "spot on." I think you'll like Season Two as well.
My only "dislike" with the series -- and books -- is how all the "good people" are painted as weak and naive, if not down right stupid. (Some of John Snow's decisions in Season Two smack of the naivety variety) Of course, this series of books isn't the only one to make such a portrayal.
Overall, I like the television series and am looking forward to seeing more.
Thanks, Mystic. I am very much looking forward to Season Two (borrowed it last night but obviously cannot watch it while my kids are around, which is most of the time).
Yeah, clerics of Trithereon would have LOTS to do in that campaign world.
So...with that in mind, what alignments are represented by the main characters?
For starters, I think Khal Drogo is likely True Neutral and Lord Stark (rest his soul) was Lawful Neutral (some good tendencies, no doubt).
I will have to give this some thought, as there are many characters to assign alignment to.
Off hand, I think that Tyrion Lannister (the "dwarf") is the most enigmatic. To me, he is Lawful Neutral, with Neutral Good tendencies. I say enigmatic because of the fact that most of his family are Evil, with one or two even being Chaotic Evil . . . Joffrey Baratheon being a prime example. His mother -- Cersei Baratheon -- runs a close second.
The head of the Lannisters -- Tywin Lannister -- is an example of Lawful Evil; doing anything he can to hold power, but always wanting to insure that everything done is "legal" and -- mostly -- "above board," so to speak. As an example, even he doesn't approve of Joffrey's public treatment of his "future" queen, Sansa Stark. Tywin even went so far as to send Tyrion to bring Joffrey "under control."
Khal Drogo is Chaotic Neutral. True Neutral rarely bothers itself with "conquest," whereas Drogo has no such problem.
Eddard Stark I peg as Neutral Good, with Lawful Good tendencies. This is based upon the description used in the computer game Baldur's Gate. This description states that a Neutral Good person obeys the laws of the king, but has no trouble overthrowing a tyrant Baron. Lawful Good, on the other hand, must recognize that the Baron, though a tyrant, is the legal authority and, as such, cannot be overthrown. Eddard Stark fits this description of Neutral Good. His "search" for the truth of Joffrey's "legitimacy" bares this out.
I readily and fully agree with you about Joffrey and Cersei with respect to Chaotic Evil. I also concur with your assessment about Tywin Lannister. Lawful Evil, through and through.
Tyrion still has me baffled, but thinking he is a Good character using the cloak of Neutrality as his shield against so much Evil...
Not sure I agree with you, however, about Drogo and Eddard. True Neutral doesn't mean Drogo doesn't have ambitions or motivations...it is about his philosophical and moral attitudes. If he were Chaotic Neutral, I'd think he'd be more capricious, erratic, and without any regard for society. He clearly has respect for rules (even if they are his own culture's), and he doesn't strike me as random. He does things because they are what his people do, without regard for Good or Evil, Law or Chaos. To me, at least, he is a true Neutral Flan-like tribal warrior.
Eddard, on the other hand, still strikes me as a Lawful sort. He followed nearly every edict given to him, even those that were of a questionable sort. He killed his wolf when ordered to even though it meant losing the love of his family. He dispatched a boy/soldier (first episode) when he left his post and 'deserted.' Eddard was very much a 'rules' type fellow, but I will say that there are indeed seeds of Goodness in his heart. He's one of those LG/LN types...not sure which.
Even a paladin (LG) won't suffer the laws, no matter how 'legal' they may be, if meted out by the hand of Evil 'justice.' Somewhere, in another thread (Paladin's Code, perhaps, written last summer?) we all had a great discussion about this.
Anyhow, maybe we agree to disagree on these two. I'm OK with that.
I think that Jon Snow is Neutral Good. Robb Stark...Lawful Good.
Who else, Mystic?
I started Season Two last night and watched 3 episodes. Very interesting, and bizarre...
Anyone starting to watch the new season? Aggravatingly, I don't have HBO (dammit!), so in my desperation to catch the new episodes, I have been relegated to scanning and seeking what glimpses I can find on YouTube! UGH!!!!
yes lanthorn i have been watching the new season. Two episodes so far and the word AWSOME comes to mind.
I have been thinking about the alignments and how they have been assigned in the series. I wonder about the chaotic evil for joffrey. Evil yes for sure(hes a bad little bastard) but i don't know about chaotic. Does he seem completely lawless? He seems pretty hung up on the rule of law that the king rules. Or is it his actions that cause the chaos? Did i just answer my own question?
Episode three in a couple days. My brother is pvr-ing them all. Why don't you all come up north for a visit and we can watch them. We will have a marathon session of Game of Thrones and AD&D. I have a nice setup in the basement...
I am pretty busy the next while but come november we can set it up. Bring your D&D buddy Lanthorn. Everyone is welcome. We can call it neil-con or saska-con. Just remember to bring warm clothes. It gets brisk up here.
I have been thinking about the alignments . . . I wonder about the chaotic evil for joffrey . . . He seems pretty hung up on the rule of law that the king rules.
Questioning my assignment of Chaotic Evil for the little "prince-ling," eh?
Joffrey is "hung up" on the fact that he is King and, therefore, makes all the rules. For example, "murder" is illegal for everyone but Joffrey, because the "King" may kill whom he pleases -- whether the victim is guilty of a crime, or not -- therefore it isn't "murder" for him to do it, because he's the "King."
Basically, Joffrey considers himself to be "above," or "outside," the rule of Law and since he commits these "murders" whenever the whim takes him, with no rational rhyme or reason, his actions are "chaotic." Remeber how he treated that "fat" knight that couldn't fight? Forcing the wine down his throat?
It is/was only his grandfather, Tywin, and his uncle, Tyrion -- backed by Tywin's authority -- who keep/kept Joffrey's behavior in any kind of "check" and that is only out of a justified fear of his grandfather, Tywin Lannister. Joffrey and Cersei but know that the army is loyal to Tywin and that Tywin would have no problem -- be it physical, or "moral dilemma" -- removing Joffrey from the throne . . . by whatever means necessary.
yes lanthorn i have been watching the new season. Two episodes so far and the word AWSOME comes to mind.
ENVIOUS!!!!
Quote:
Episode three in a couple days. My brother is pvr-ing them all. Why don't you all come up north for a visit and we can watch them. We will have a marathon session of Game of Thrones and AD&D. I have a nice setup in the basement...
I am pretty busy the next while but come november we can set it up. Bring your D&D buddy Lanthorn. Everyone is welcome. We can call it neil-con or saska-con. Just remember to bring warm clothes. It gets brisk up here.
Would LOVE to come on up North and visit you across the border, but my passport is out of date... Historically, my family and I (when I lived in Montana) visited Alberta at least once a year, typically around my birthday, usually to Lethbridge, once to Medicine Hat, and once or twice to Calgary. However, about a decade ago we toured up as far as Drumheller (MOST amazing dinosaur museum there!) and also Edmonton. You Canadians are a friendly lot.
In fact, my favorite rock band hails from Toronto...comprises three amazing musicians named Neil, Alex, and Geddy. I have dubbed them the "Holy Trinity."
I've been watching. I thought episode 3 was especially good. Loved the punk version of "The Bear and the Maiden Fair" over credits - perfect ending to a mood-whiplash episode.
Very much awaiting Episode 4, whenever I get my 'hands' on it!
In the meantime, I've started reading the first book. My friend/fellow gamer, and the person who got me hooked on this series (damn his hide!), loaned me the book. I've just started it, and have made some progress, but given it's length and my sporadic reading, it may take me a while to finish it. And I hear that there are something like SIX (?) books?! I salivate in anticipation with how the story will unfold, particularly 'on screen.'
Okay, is it just me, or is the Night Watch doomed?
And does anyone else think that Rob Stark's "henchmen" are stupid?
The idiots cut off Jamie's hand; What do they think Tywin Lannister will do to Sansa Stark in retaliation . . . when he finds out? These people simply cannot think.
I cannot see Rob Stark winning the war under these circumstances. I hope it's not another "Frodo" thing. I absolutely HATE "lucky" heroes.
I was outraged with the way the lead commander of the Night Watch (forget his name) has a seemingly laissez faire (sp?) attitude to the fat, old SOB despot who is incestuous with his daughter-wives, murdering/sacrificing his sons to the WhiteWalkers...glad some of the rangers FINALLY took up arms, called him out on it, killed the bastard. The commander got what came to him, in my mind, for defending that piece of filth.
Daenerys...smart...clever...cunning...and HOT. Like the flames from the dragons she has mothered. I am reallly beginning to like her for all these reasons. I cannot pin her alignment. Definitely Good, but not sure if Lawful or Neutral. She doesn't strike me as Chaotic.
Jaime got what he deserved. Pompous (Neutral Evil?) braggart, though I am impressed he cunningly convinced their brigand captors from raping Brynn. I like her. She's surely Lawful Good, and has lots of patience, mental fortitude, and great amounts of honor. Heironean for sure.
Both 'the Hound' and his 'Mountain' brother are vile, the latter FAR more evil than his disfigured brother. I hope they both get 'theirs' in the end.
I still hate Joffrey, and hope he gets justice a la Trithereon-style.
. . . commander of the Night Watch . . . has a seemingly laissez faire (sp?) attitude to the . . . despot who is incestuous with his daughter-wives, murdering/sacrificing his sons to the WhiteWalkers . . . The commander got what came to him . . .
The Commander certainly had some explaining to do, but at the end, Night Watch was fighting Night Watch. I do not see the Order surviving that sort of thing. Where once it was comprised of the "finest," the Order had devolved into a place for outcasts . . . and each of the "current" members knew it. They had known it for generations and were only being held together by "force of will." Their only loyalty was to each other, fellow outcasts.
But now . . . that's been broken. What was once "noble," is now "ignoble." Their "code" broken, their honor forever lost.
Lanthorn wrote:
Daenerys . . . smart . . . clever . . . cunning . . . I am reallly beginning to like her for all these reasons. I cannot pin her alignment . . .
Court is still "out" on Daenerys. I certainly don't see her as "evil," but anyone possessed of the notion of "divine right of kings" isn't exactly "all good." Remember that her ancestor took the crown by force, with the use of dragons. A popular uprising overthrew her father.
Now, she's going to use dragons to 'take back what is hers!' But who's to say it's really "hers?" We'll see.
Lanthorn wrote:
Jaime got what he deserved . . . Brynn . . . surely Lawful Good . . . Heironean for sure.
I'm not saying that Jamie Lannister didn't get what he deserves, I'm saying that it was not a smart political move. War is as much politics as it is fighting. Their actions placed the King's sister in danger. It was not their decision to make.
Rob Stark needs to get rid of the stupid people surrounding him . . . before he loses the war.
Brynn . . . a "Lawful Good" Heironean? Not hardly. Rob is the King, the lawful authority. His mother did not have the legal right to "free" Jamie, which is why she is charged with treason. Brynn knew this and assisted her in this matter anyway. Brynn may be Chaotic Good, but not Lawful.
Lanthorn wrote:
Both 'the Hound' and his 'Mountain' brother are vile, the latter FAR more evil than his disfigured brother. I hope they both get 'theirs' in the end.
The "Hound" serves the King -- Joffrey Baratheon/Lannister -- making him Lawful Evil. His brother, the "Mountain," is surely Chaotic Evil. I look forward to seeing both of them hanged . . . even though it won't happen anytime soon.
Lanthorn wrote:
I still hate Joffrey, and hope he gets justice a la Trithereon-style.
Brynn is Lawful Neutral (with strongly Good tendencies). Rob may be the King, but she is sworn to his mother, not to him (i.e. she owes Rob no allegiance). She follows her sworn leader's orders regardless if they are contrary to those of the King Rob. Brynn is therefore Lawful Neutral (with strongly Good tendencies), as she is willing to kill King Rob's men, but she does try to avoid doing so, and doesn't exactly feel good about it when all is said and done. Her exploitable flaw is extreme devotion to whoever she is sworn to.
Khal Drogo is arguably Lawful Neutral as well, seeing as the whole Dothraki society (which I think serves as a great visual for the Flan horse clans) is based on a code; a harsh code, but a code nonetheless. They don't have much, so sticking to their code is very important to them. Also, an established pecking order, which they have, is a lawful thing, not a chaotic thing.
The Wildlings are very much Chaotic Neutral- only the strong leadership of Mans Raider keeps them together.
Viserys Targaryen- Chaotic Evil (willing to do whatever is needed to put himself on top)
Daenerys Targaryen- Lawful Neutral (vengeful, but just; willing to be brutal, but not vilely so).
Tyrian Lannister- Chaotic Neutral with very strong Good tendencies. He has been forced to look out for himself above others, and is willing to do some slightly distasteful things if forced to do so, but has a sense of morality that is lacking in most of his family. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Brynn is Lawful Neutral . . . She follows her sworn leader's orders regardless if they are contrary to those of the King Rob. Brynn is therefore Lawful Neutral . . .
I appreciate you position, but I'm going to disagree with it.
A person is not "Lawful" because they adhere to their own "moral" code. They are "Lawful" because they act within the Law.
Rob's mother does not make the Law. You're basically saying that "Sir Rupert" need not follow King Belvor IV "laws" when visiting Furyondy because "Sir Rupert" is sworn to King Lynwerd I of Nyrond. Whatever "Sir Rupert" did in Furyondy is "legal" in Nyrond, so "Sir Rupert" is still "lawful."
B.S. The only thing anyone is going to remember about "Sir Rupert" is that King Belvor IV hung him as a criminal.
Sorry, but Brynn is by no means "Lawful." We're going to disagree on this.
Cebrion wrote:
Khal Drogo is arguably Lawful Neutral as well, seeing as the whole Dothraki society . . . is based on a code; a harsh code, but a code nonetheless.
This is an excellent point; Drogo acts within Dothraki tribal law. Still, I would assign him Lawful Neutral with Chaotic tendencies, because he does sometimes acts on a "whim."
To put it in modern parlance: He's a politician/king who occasionally "researches" an archaic law to have "so-and-so" killed, even though "so-and-so" hasn't really done anything. He simply perceives "so-and-so" to be a threat to his position . . . but he still acts within tribal law.
Brynn serves not for self enrichment (i.e. chaotic, or self-serving goals), but for a worthy "employer". She is a fanatic, but surely not a manic (i.e. chaotic) one. While she does care about the general law of the land, it would be fair to say that Rob's unwillingness to rescue his poor sisters by returning Jamie to his family tells her that, although he names himself "king", he is not a lord worthy of her service. Brynn is not all that concerned with kings (at least any longer), seeing as they are all liars, oath breakers, traffic with dark forces, let their sisters languish in enemy hands, etc. (i.e they are ALL proven jackholes).
The point there is that Brynn has yet to see Rob, or any of the others, as being worthy of her service. They are ALL willing to tweak their morals, and even break laws, to serve their own causes. Basically, Brynn has no respect for Rob because he has given her no reason to respect him. A king unworthy of respect is unworthy to be served in her very lawful mind. This isn't her own personal code, but the code that every knight and lord is supposed to live up to, which none of them do. Just because they don't doesn't mean that she need follow suit, but she doesn't exactly make a point of rubbing in their faces, does she.
Brynn is above them all, because she walks the walk, not just talks the talk as they do. If the person she is sworn to gives her an order to go against a "king" who is a traitor, an oath breaker (which will cost hundreds, if not thousands of his own subjects' lives), and who is willing let his own sisters remain in the hands of the enemy under who knows what circumstances, let's just say that such king is not who she is going to swear allegiance to. Now, somebody who is willing to do the right thing, that is who she will serve.
Chaotic people are defined by looking after their own interests, not those of others, and yet Brynn is only ever thinking of others, not herself. She is selfless. She loathes Jaime, but she holds even his safety as being of paramount importance. She doesn't flout the chivalric code which she is a paragon of. She is an idealist, which is not exactly the hallmark of a chaotic individual. You can predict what she will do in almost any given situation. She is also a bit naive in that she believes others will be lawful too, as in honoring agreements, not attempt to mistreat her because she is a captured combatant and knight, etc.
On second thought, Brynn is Lawful Good, with only slightly Lawful Neutral tendencies. Maybe. The woman is practically a Paladin. Do you think a Paladin would be all that keen on basically allowing a king's sisters to stay in enemy hands (enemies who had just chopped off their father's head by the way, and declared their entire family traitors), just because it was currently convenient for the king, even though a solution to get them released was at hand? Probably not, as a Paladin would need to atone for not having done the right thing, regardless of a king's wishes. Better be in trouble with a king than to be damned.
As to Rob Stark being Lawful Good, seriously? If anything it is he who is chaotic. Was the king within his rights to execute his father? Yes. Is Rob a traitor to the king? Yes. Is Rob an oathbreaker? Yes, just ask his betrothed, and his current wife who is not supposed to be his wife. Rob is like the Cartman of GoT- "I do what I want!"...except that he is generally good. The only reason his mother acts against him is because he is a colossal screw-up in that he puts his own desires before the good of not only himself, but others as well. But of what concern are the lives of a few thousand more northmen anyways if he can have a hawt new wife with him on campaign... It is easy to see why the very lawful Brynn swears her service to his mother and not him. No king is above basic decency, and even though his family has been wronged, Rob is a jackhole, just like the others (for now at at least). Perhaps he will grow up fast once he sees the consequences of his actions (namely his marriage). Perhaps he will verge into being Neutral Good. We'll have to wait and see. Joffrey is the full-on evil Cartman of the series of course.
We could discuss this forever, but, as to several of your points . . .
We viewers know that Joffrey LANNISTER is not the "Lawful" king . . . and Rob knows it too, now. As do others.
Rob was declared "King" by his followers, not out of his own mouth. In any of the computer games I play, it is quite clear that to be "lawful" is to respect the laws of the "legal authority," which Rob is, whether or nor Brynn likes him or agrees with his rulings.
The computer games put it like this: A Paladin is free to leave a territory, or "Baron's" service if he/she feels the Baron is "evil." However, given that the Baron is the "legal authority," the Paladin may not overthrown the Baron . . . unless he/she receives orders to that effect from a higher authority. In short, the Lawful Good Knight may not act against "Rob." Brynn did so.
In short, Brynn was within her rights to leave. She was not within her rights to take Jamie Lannister with her. She broke the law, whether she agreed with it of not. As you, yourself, pointed out, she is not sworn to Joffrey's service. So, she acted on her own, or at the urging of a traitor. She's not "Lawful." Her actions may fit with the computer game's description of Neutral Good, but she's not Lawful Good.
And Rob knows what you haven't figured out yet . . . Tywin Lannister is not going to free those girls, in spite of the fact that he doesn't even have one of them. When Brynn delivered Jamie, there would have been no reason for Tywin to keep the girls alive any longer. Rob knows this and therefore holds Jamie knowing that Tywin will not dare to harm the girls while he does so.
Neither Brynn, nor Rob's mother, are the sharpest tools in the shed. Not by any means. And neither of them is "Lawful."
Oh! And in exposing -- or attempting to expose -- the truth, Ned Stark was not breaking any laws, not in exposing an usurper. He was doing his sworn duty as the King's Hand.
I know everything that is going on, and why it is going on. Ned admitted his guilt publicly before being executed, so he's a dead traitor. Rob turned traitor *immediately* without any knowledge of what was really going on, so he's a traitor too.
And it doesn't matter that Tywin would have no intention of returning the girls. Jut because your enemy is a jackhole doesn't give one the moral authority to behave likewise, but then expect people to think that you are more worthy of respect.
And a paladin in a land where they don't serve the ruler will very much go against the ruler in the right circumstances, or would your paladin in the Great Kingdom lands tell peasants that, yes, because the rightful ruler Ivid commanded that they cough up a first born girl child for diabolic rituals to make an animus out of yet another "lucky" noble, that they must therefore cough one up? "He is the rightful and lawful king you know, so you gotta do it." I hardly think so.
Granted, that is an extreme example, but it makes the point succinctly- your argument about a paladin having no choice but to do something mandated by a legal authority when it is wrong, is flawed beyond all reason. A paladin will very much flout authority when the righteousness of that authority is in question, which is the case here. Knights don't let maidens languish in captivity when they have a clear and obvious means of freeing them, and neither should a king. Rob's cause might be righteous, but his behavior in most cases is anything but, and he is more than sort of being a douche by not making any effort whatsoever at getting his sisters back when he has about the best bargaining chip that he will ever get. He's also being stupid (i.e. his mother realizes this but is also obviously worried about her daughters), as those sisters are great assets for betrothal alliances, whereas Jaime is not (least of all because Circe would attempt to block such an agreement, but more importantly because nobody, anywhere at all, trusts the Kingslayer- they call him that for a reason). And Rob is an oath breaker. And Brynn is not sworn to him, because if she was a paladin and were sworn to him and did what he wanted, she would probably have ceased being a paladin. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
maybe i am up to early but the new episode has been aired. This argument should carry over to include the new information and plot twists. Is jamie still a bad guy? Can rob be more of a bonehead? Is it a master move by the eldest lannister forcing his children to marry?
As for Brynn. You bet she is a paladin in sworn service to rob stark's mother. She is taking jamie to kings landing to get the girls back. Her service is only to rob's mom not rob himself. Her single mindedness in serving her lady by getting the girls back is awsome. She has honor and defends it. (the tub scene: at first i thought shenanigans then maybe a fight. haha)
Labeling Brynn a paladin gets me wondering about character classes. Are they all fighters. It looked to me like someone used a raise dead in the last episode. The fact that the recipient of the spell "loses something of himself" each time he is raised is obviously a one point drop in constitution. At least he has been making his system shock rolls. LOL
There's something about being "Lawful" that gets missed here. Weird.
And returning Jamieis not going to get the girls back. It's just going to give Tywin a Huge advantage over Rob, should Rob be stupid enough to allow it too.
I think the only thing that anyone can seem to agree upon is that most of us disagree! We should join the U.S. Senate as politicians, yes?
And to think...this is just about the seemingly straightforward notion of Alignment! We aren't even talking about really cognitively-demanding scientific concepts, people, and yet there's a storm of debate. Good stuff to be sure, as I love a good, rational discussion (keep it civil, of course). After all, aren't general descriptions offered about EACH alignment? And still there's no concrete concensus (though I think we ALL agree that Joffrey is an Evil a$$hole).
I see Alignment philosophies as a continuum from one end of a spectrum to another, with black over there, white over there, and grey in the middle (or, if you like, a number system). Some folks are CLEARLY this and fit the description you'd read in a Player's Handbook or DMG perfectly. Others, not so, and perhaps that is where the waters get muddied. OR each of our own perceptions of what each Alignment represents is different, and therein lies the crux. Perception is reality. Yours may be different than mine, or the next person's, even though we read the same text.
Sorry to wax philosophic. Even a lanthorn can try to shed some light once in a while!
So, when Jamie Lannister and Brynn were in the bath and he explained to her his reason for killing the Targaryen King -- his wanting to burn everyone, etc. -- did anyone think Jamie was being sincere?
Jaime Lannister reminds me a lot of (pardon the obvious FG reference) Jarlaxle Baenre. Evil b/c he is ultimately self-serving at the cost of others...but with his own code and system of honor. Not all "good guys" are nice guys...and not all "bad guys" are rapists and murderers, assassins and brutes. Good people can do bad things, just as villains can have redeeming qualities, too.
So, when Jamie Lannister and Brynn were in the bath and he explained to her his reason for killing the Targaryen King -- his wanting to burn everyone, etc. -- did anyone think Jamie was being sincere?
If so, it could possibly alter the perception of his alignment.
Sure, he was sincere. At the time he served the Mad King, Jaime was probably probably Lawful Neutral, with mercurial tendencies towards good regarding the masses tempered by occasional cruelty towards his brother Tyrion. I say Lawful Neutral because he allowed some definitely non-good (i.e. morally questionable) things to happen during his service to the Mad King because of the oath he gave. However, even he could not abide the Mad King's final decree, which was to murder innocents en masse (i.e. morally evil), and so Jaime killed him.
Whatever good tendencies Jaime had were buried deep in the aftermath of his deed. Traitor. Oathbreaker. Kingslayer. Man without Honor. Untrustworthy. After enough time of that, he drifted into self-absorption, looking out only for himself, his sister, and his family interests. At the point of the stories, Jaime is Chaotic Neutral with slightly evil tendencies (i.e. the Bran incident). However, as of the latest episodes, being around Brynn has awoken the memory of something that once lived within him- the memory of honor and sense of right purpose. We'll see if this at all tempers his actions in the future. Jaime is surely an interesting character that has yet to be fully revealed.
If we go further from Jaime to Lawful Good alignment, a paladin in service will not abide by any questionable acts. If a lawful ruler flouts a law, or is even dishonorable, a paladin is not going to just say "Oh, you incorrigible rascal you!", shake his head, and smile it away. Paladins don't let lawful authorities "slide" just because said ruler happens to be lawfully in charge. If they do something morally questionable it is the paladin's duty to not only call them on it but to act in opposition to it, not just walk away from it. Paladins are champions of good, and Brynn is not the brave, brave Lady Brynn, who nearly fought the dread Chicken of Bristol, who almost nearly questioned the morally questionable acts of their ruler but walked away doing nothing, who almost considered doing something to gain the release of innocent girls, etc., etc.
As Brynn seas it, it is her duty to get Jamie to King's Landing in order to secure the release of the Stark girls because it is the right thing to do. It is the good thing to do. It is the honorable thing to do. But Tywin won't release the Stark Girls, and Rob wants to keep Janie as a hostage, you say. To that I say, when did something like that ever stop a paladin from doing the right, the good, the honorable thing, and find a way to get them released anyways? You see, paladins don't let others dictate what the meaning of "good" is for them. They know. As far as I know, there are no secular laws that have been made that are counter to the laws of chivalry in Westeross (not that chivalry completely has to do with law; it has as much to do with honor). The only thing that acts counter to these laws are the whims of rulers looking for an angle, and damn the innocent parties involved, if there are any (which in this case there are). Well, paladins can't and won't just stop doing what is right, what is good, wht is honorable simply because a legitimate ruler says so- paladins don't work that way. A paladin doesn't get to adopt the failings of others. Thsoe that do lose their special status and must atone. A paladin's honor is also not so flexible either. Paladins must follow universal laws of goodness, not all laws, which is what Brynn does. And so King Rob gets to sit and pout, and be mad at mommy. And be utterly inconsistent, thus undermining his credibility further (i.e. he is not his father's son; that would be Jon Snow). Not that this latter thing has anything to do with the other- I just like mentioning it. :D _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I tend to agree with you on this one, Ceb, and your overall assessment of this issue.
As I stated earlier, I consider Brynn Lawful Good. At most, she's Neutral Good, but I think that's a stretch.
Robb is a bit of a conundrum to me. Sometimes he is planned and structured, and at other times he is seemingly whimsical and ready to break oaths. He definitely has some type of code of honor, but it is not as structured as Brynn's, or perhaps his father's. Perhaps Neutral Good? I could also see Chaotic Good.
Jaime Lannister is evil. That 'death bed' repentance doesn't change that in my mind (this isn't Darth Vader telling Luke, "Tell your sister you were right about me..." upon which he 'ascends'). I don't think he's the vile evil of Joffrey, Viserys, the Hound, or the Mountain, although tossing young Brandon off the tower was clearly cold-blooded. I think of him as Neutral Evil.
The Imp is deceptively good. He cloaks himself with the mantle of apparent Neutrality, but he's actually a 'good guy.'
Stanis Baratheon. I think that witch has perverted his soul towards Evil, but I think he started as Lawful Neutral.
I am enjoying the series, and hoping everyone else is, too.
Conversations like this remind me of why I've never much cared for the concept of alignment. Keep in my that this is just my opinion, but to me most people are more complicated than that. Given that, and that I do use alignment in my games, I've also always hated the idea that one act outside your alignment changes your alignment. Jaime killed the rightful king; whoops, sorry! You're no longer lawful neutral. Jaime tosses Bran out a window; you're now neutral evil, dude. Those acts are unlawful and evil, but unless you're consistently betraying people you've sworn and oath to, or burning down orphanages, it doesn't change your alignment. There will be in-game consequences. People may think, you, Jaime Lannister are unlawful and evil because that's the story that gets told in all the taverns, but that doesn't really change the fact that you're a complicated human being, or elf, or dwarf, etc... If you're a paladin and you sleep with the Arch-duke's wife; the Arch-duke will probably outlaw you and never trust you again, people will gossip about you, farmers will probably hide their daughters, you may get kicked out of your order, you WILL have to atone for your sin to your god, but that one act doesn't make you chaotic good, or neutral good, or whatever. You're still lawful good; you just stumbled. Now if you start stumbling all the time...
Smillan, I think you and I are of like mind about alignment. I alluded to the fact that people are complicated and that alignment, to me, is a continuum.
"We" (humans) like to categorize things into black and white boxes, but, as you mentioned, it is not that simple and easy...
And I think that everyone misses the point that the alignment IS NOT . . . "GOOD Lawful," it is "LAWFUL Good."
The person is, first and foremost, "LAWFUL," only then is he "Good." He is "good" . . . in his spare time! First, he has to concentrate on being "lawful."
The point? The point is: What part of Absolute Monarchy is everyone Not understanding?
Knights and/or Paladins DO NOT make the Law.
In the 7 Kingdoms there is NO parliament and there is NO congress. None of you, or the Butcher, Baker, or Candle Stick Maker "make" the laws. The King does, he's an Absolute Monarch.
Whether you like it or not, in an Absolute Monarchy, the King cannot "break the law" . . . he IS the law. Where do you think "Revolution" comes from?
A "Lawful Good" person is first lawful -- he cannot "over-throw" the King. Because this person is secondly "good," this person must leave the kingdom of an "evil" King.
But a "Lawful Good" person cannot break the law by leading people in revolt.
I regret that this argument keeps coming up. I wish Cebrion would stop referencing me . . . because I will never agree with him on this, nor any of you.
A lawful good person may not overthrow the lawful King, no matter would the King may wish to do. In an Absolute Monarchy, the King IS . . . "the law."
I am not interested in swaying anyone to my position, but I do wish to be "not referenced" in this regard, as if to continue the conversation further . . . because my opinion in this matter will never change. _________________ Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
And I think that everyone misses the point that the alignment IS NOT . . . "GOOD Lawful," it is "LAWFUL Good."
That makes things clear. You seem to think that the AD&D alignment system is similar to the Basic D&D alignment system, and that the first term mentioned in the AD&D-based alignment system means emphasis/precedent. It doesn't. It just describes two things, such as "male dog". You wouldn't say, "That thing is so much more dog than it is male.", nor would you say, "That thing is so much more male than it is dog." It is both. Same with AD&D-based alignment system. This isn't Basic D&D's Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic alignment system, where good-neutral-evil is only a tendency, or hobby, as you seem to think it is in the AD&D-based system. Maybe Basic D&D is what you came up with as a gamer, what is formative in your mind regarding alignment, and you have always viewed the AD&D alignment system in the Basic D&D light. Well, that would be incorrect.
If an individual puts ethics above all else, then they may be morally questionable (i.e. they will do good, neutral, or evil things to achieve their ethical goal). For example, if they are willing to freely run the gamut of moral options to achieve an ethical goal, that is what we call Lawful Neutral, meaning they hold Law above all else, and are not so concerned with the morals (or lack thereof) in upholding Law.
If somebody puts morality above all else, then they may be ethically questionable (i.e. they will use law, neutrality, or chaos to achieve their moral goals). For example, if they are willing to freely run the gamut of ethical options to achieve a moral goal, that is what we call Neutral Good, meaning they hold Good above all else, and are not so concerned with what ethical means are used to achieve Good.
Paladins very much do have ethics (i.e. they are lawful), but they are not ever, nor ever will be, of questionable morals (i.e. they are good). When a law forces one to go against one's morality, it isn't a moral law in the first place. A paladin is never, ever allowed to go against their morals, and a paladin is very free to break an immoral law or act out against immoral authority.
For example, Keraptis is running out of victims for sacrifice/magical experimentation, so everyone must give up their first born child to the state. In response, a paladin is not only required to give Keraptis the finger and protect his own first born, but actively seek to protect the first born of others. Now, the ethical (lawful), yet immoral (evil), authorities (i.e. Kerpatis) will very much hold the paladin's decision against him, but the paladin's ethical (lawful) and moral (good) god very much will not.
If a law is moral, it is both lawful and good, which is what a paladin is required to stand up for. If a law is of questionable morality, then it is lawful and neutral, which a paladin cannot abide and will seek to correct. If a law is immoral then it is lawful and evil, which a paladin cannot abide and will actively combat.
All of the above is not an argument. It is an explanation of how the AD&D-based alignment system works. And now I am having deja vu, as I think I have explained this all before, somewhere. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Wow! The Real World "invented" Paladins and "invented" alignments. Stop giving "credit" to TSR, WotC, or Gary Gygax.
I am so NOT "talking" Game Editions, nor even using them as a "basis" for my descriptions of these people, or for my position on the matter in general.
Basic, OD&D, 2nd Edition . . . none of that even entered my thinking, not from the first moment of joining this "conversation." You're talking editions? Oh . . . my . . . god!
Wow! The Real World "invented" Paladins and "invented" alignments. Stop giving "credit" to TSR, WotC, or Gary Gygax.
What are you raving about? The above has nothing to do with anything that I have posted.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
I am so NOT "talking" Game Editions, nor even using them as a "basis" for my descriptions of these people, or for my position on the matter in general.
Basic, OD&D, 2nd Edition . . . none of that even entered my thinking, not from the first moment of joining this "conversation." You're talking editions? Oh . . . my . . . god!
The only reason I brought up editions was in regard to your incorrect explanation of what "lawful good" supposedly is, and trying to rationalize how you could possibly come to your incorrect conclusion.
The link is nice. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I'm curious about what they're doing with Gendry. It seems like his character is being combined with Edric Storm, which I understand for adaptation purposes, but it seems to hint that GRRM doesn't have any big things planned for that character down the line. Unless they are creating a whole new storyline for him, which is possible. I do like that we get Melisandre and Thoros together - can't remember if that actually happens in the books or not. This isn't how I imagined Thoros at all - it's better!
Best line and best understatement goes to Tyrion (surprise):
How to begin? This is awkward...
I haven't seen any of season 3 yet. I'll be interested to see how they're combining Gendry with Edrid Storm. I'm pretty sure Thoros and Melisandre never met in the books. Was just looking at A Wiki of Ice and Fire and realized from looking at a genealogy chart that Sam and Edric have the same great-grandfather. I love that website.
I'll have to check out those charts, Smillan. I've looked at some other fansites, but not that one yet. Amazing how these families are all intertwined - as noted in the "Black Ice and Fire" thread, interesting fodder for GH campaigns.
Season 3 is getting better and better as the story arcs develop, though at this point I still prefer season 2 overall (more Tyrion).
Oh, I know that's the likely intent; I was trying not to give it away for non-readers. What I'm curious about is whether they'll go on with the sacrifice, develop a new storyline that springs him from that fate, or something else entirely - given that Gendry is still around at the end of the last book.
From the early books, I felt that something big was in store for Gendry, but when he dropped off the page a bit, I started to think I was wrong. I wonder even more now that he appears to be consigned to a fiery death, apparently sanctioned by GRRM.
I bet Mystic is right as far as her intentions, although I don't see them changing the storyline that much, by letting her follow through. I imagine his fate is going to be the same as Edric's.
Olenna Redwyne, the matriarch of House Tyrell, is one "hard" old woman. She would stoop to some very low levels to get what she wants. I don't peg her as "good" either, despite her demeanor. I found her dialog with Tywin Lannister to be the most interesting segment of this latest episode Otherwise, the entire thing was just "filler."
Some people disagree with me when I call someone "Chaotic," but to me, Chaotic doesn't mean "unpredictable." A Chaotic person isn't always someone going berserk on a battle field. To me, it means that they will do anything to achieve their goals. The only "rules" they play by are the ever changing rules floating around inside their own brains . . . somewhere.
Jon Snow is still too naive a character for me to get interested in. "Lawful Good" . . . could never hold The Wall. So why did he expect the Lord Commander to be like that? The Lord Commander probably kept many "dark secrets." His job was to protect humanity from the deadly evil north of The Wall, not to "maintain law and order." The "world" is not that "simple" a place and "life" is even more complicated.
When you have a Dread Necromancer coming to destroy your city with hordes of undead and thousands of human followers, a few Clerics of Pelor will come in handy, but not Paladins. Paladins will not do "whatever is necessary." They have rules they must obey.
As an example: The Lord Commander of The Watch was not in a position to send someone back to King's Landing -- or where ever -- for "trial." Justice must be meted out then and there. A Paladin cannot do that, neither can anyone who is Lawful Good. Jon Snow has a lot to learn. Jon Snow basically betrayed his people for a girl, a girl who has no intention of betraying her people for him. What do you think is about to happen to Winterfell; Jon's home and the home of his father and brothers and sisters? And who's "leading the way?" Jon.
Rob's "wars" are not about to end anytime soon.
Baelish is Chaotic Evil. No doubt can remain, this fact is proven by his giving Ros to Joffrey, knowing what Joffrey intended on doing to her. Two right bastards.
I'm currently pegging Varys as True Neutral, for now, but that could change. I think he wants "what's best," per sae, but his constantly thinking he's the best person to decide what's best, keeps him from being "good."
In my mind, Rob is now leaning more towards "Neutral" than "Good." This last bit of political maneuvering proves that. He broke his promise and now his uncle has to pay the price? Rob wants to do whatever he wants and when something "bad" happens, others have to suffer to fix it. Rob's becoming a donkey's rear quarters. Will he become another Joffrey?
I totally agree about Olenna - it's been really fun to watch her. Diana Rigg is excellent in this role. And her scene with Tywin was a treat.
A lot of Jon Snow's arc is progression from naivete to something harder...he'll get there. I wouldn't say he betrayed the Watch - he's essentially in deep cover under Qhorin Halfhand's orders, though the teleplay glossed this a little too much for my liking. And Winterfell is already screwed anyway thanks to Theon.
Baelish is a master plotter, with a dozen schemes cooking at all times. I wouldn't be surprised to see him take a shot at the Iron Throne before it's all over.
Jon Snow's . . . essentially in deep cover under Qhorin Halfhand's orders, though the teleplay glossed this a little too much for my liking.
Anybody tell the Watch Commander that?
And I wouldn't so much say that he betrayed The Watch, though The Watch is pretty much finished thanks to that "minor" civil war they just had.
Chevalier wrote:
Winterfell is already screwed anyway thanks to Theon.
Rob has the "army" necessary to deal with what Theon did. Balon Greyjoy doesn't have the "power" to hold Winterfell. Mance Rayder is another matter.
No, the "army" of Mance Rayder isn't going to stop at The Wall and Jon will not even be able to slow them down. Jon has done a very foolish thing, even if Qhorin Halfhand told him to do it. They climbed The Wall to open the gates, of course, and given the fact that -- for all intents and purposes -- The Watch just lost 300 men, they're not in a position to do anything about it.
In spite of everything, Jon Snow remains my favorite character of the series, although I am intrigued by Danaerys' plotline and how she intends to win the Iron Throne, especially with her trio of growing dragons. Ser Jorah is also one of my favorite characters.
I very much anticipate the bloody and painful demise of the vile Princeling...nobody deserves it so much as he does! Of course, some others who come to mind: Baelish, the Hound, and the Mountain.
They need some avengers of Trithereon in this world to put the high and mighty back in their rightful place.
Curious to see how the 'chess match' between Tywin and Olenna plays out. I liked how that lady countered Old Man Lannister. It was nice to see someone stand up to him and give as good as they got against him.
Wondering how the hell Tyrion and Cersei plan to thwart 'daddy.' I imagine they may form an uneasy alliance to do so.
Well, I have to be honest, the things that they're doing to Theon Greyjoy are making me quickly lose interest in the show. It's all unnecessary to the story. And I'll argue that point with the friggin' author himself.
Daenerys Targaryen is turning out to be a "right bitch" after all. Now she's going to destroy another city, if they don't free their slaves just because she told them to. She has three dragons and so is now the "rightful ruler" of the whole damn world. I'm ready for her to die too.
Rob now feels that Edmure Tully's marriage to the Fey is the best match that the Frey have ever had, so, you see, he was right in breaking his word. The Frey are not worthy of a marriage alliance with the king. What an ****.
Jamie Lannister is turning out to be the best of them.
Daenerys - this is her figuring out how to rule. She's not perfect; she makes mistakes, learns from them.
Does this mean that it's okay for the U.S. to go to Saudi Arabia and kill all the men and priest, thus freeing the women there of their "slavery?"
I mean, perhaps the U.S. is simply "learning from it's mistakes?" Rome lasted a thousand years, the U.S. is only two hundred years old. We're "young" yet!
Don't you all think that Heironeans and Trithereonites would do the same as Danaerys, though for different religious reasons (yet a common ultimate goal)?
As a God of Honor, Chivalry, and Justice, I don't think any Heironean worth his Roman salt would condone it. As a God of Freedom and Individuality, neither would any Trithereonite. Both would do as Danaerys, in my opinion. Although I am sure not everyone will agree, I still see her as a "Good" aligned person.
I may be the only candle flickering in the wind on this, but I applaud her iron ovaries on this one.
I am very shocked, and equally impressed, with "Evil" Jaime Lannister's singular act of heroism and honor. Even 'bad guys' can behave themselves, from time to time. Good for him.
After what's happening to Theon, I am actually pitying the poor SOB. I must be getting a conscience, or something...
Just my thoughts,
Lanthorn
Last edited by Lanthorn on Thu May 16, 2013 7:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Don't you all think that Heironeans and Trithereonites would do the same as Danaerys, though for different religious reasons (yet a common ultimate goal)?
Trithereonites . . . yes.
Heironeoneans . . . no.
You forget that Heironeous and Trithereon are often at odds with one another and the reason for that is Heironeous' upholding of Law.
M-S - I'm not saying Daenerys is right, though opposing massive institutional slavery certainly isn't a bad idea. Should she just ignore it and take the gold instead? My point is we can't expect her to be perfect, and shouldn't. Remember she's fictional and enjoy the ride.
I'm reminded of Henry V's speech to the governor of Harfleur - saying they'll defile the town's daughters, dash their elders' heads against the wall, spit the infants on pikes, etc. - then after the governor's surrender, telling Exeter very clearly to "use mercy to them all." As Henry did (in the play anyway), she's performing the role of the Dread Sovereign. She also values the lives of her soldiers, and would rather not have to attack; while I don't think she seriously expects them to surrender, she's giving them the chance. She'll find out later what the true consequences of her actions are, here and in Astapor.
Oh, and the US already made some slavery-related mistakes, and continues to slowly learn from them. So yes, I think we should cut a little slack for a teen who has really just begun to rule anything.
In my mind, Lawful Neutrals would uphold slavery because it was legal. They don't care if it is moral/ethical or not. If the law of the land says it's OK, a LN person is less likely to worry about the ethical ramifications.
A Lawful GOOD person, however, will likely take issue with the enslavement of another sentient being. Just because it is legal doesn't make it moral or ethical. I have had the same debates with my own wife on this (I think of her as LG, and I am a self-proclaimed NG personality). Slavery was once legal in our own country. Did that make it moral or OK? No. I'd think a Lawful Good person, especially one of the Heironean faith, would take umbrage to such a law.
Is it just, honorable, and valorous to enslave people? I don't think so. And, in my opinion, I doubt the Archpaladin would endorse such a law, either. A priest of St Cuthbert, Pholtus, or Zilchus, on the other hand, would likely overlook such things (if said priest was LN instead of LG).
On this issue, I think that a priest/follower of Heironeous and Trithereon would just likely agree! <gasp!> However, HOW to free the slaves, and the methods and tactics they would use to accomplish such a feat, may differ.
Whatever. Tired of debating "Lawful" with you people. Everyone of you has a reason why the "law" can be broken in the name of "good."
You are not Lawful, you're a law-breaker, a criminal . . . get over it.
As for Daenerys, I despise all people who would force their will or morality on another. "Live and let live?" You people obviously have no intention of doing that and you support those who share you view, like Daenerys. _________________ Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
Me, I'm not debating "lawful," mostly because neither GRRM nor the show's writers have taken D&D alignments into account, and I have no plans to adapt the characters into D&D format. I like that the characters are mixed - that we can feel sorry for Theon even after his betrayals, that Jaime can grow as a person and become (almost?) likable, and that Robb and Daenerys have difficulty navigating the waters of leadership.
And since I consider slavery the ultimate imposition of one's will upon another, yes, I would take issue with it, even if it meant forcing my will upon the enslaver.
Looking forward to the last three episodes - well, all but one of them.
In the author's defense - what happens to Theon isn't told in the books until much later, and in flashback, and in much less vivid detail.
It's my understanding that the producers included the Theon stuff in this season so the viewers wouldn't spend an entire season or more wondering what happened to his character. I think one or two vignettes might have been enough; it is getting a little excessive.
Just wondering: will this series cover the most recent book?
I've been avoiding the series as I found the books pretty depressing, and a very pessimstic view of man. History has enough of that - I don't seek it out in my fiction.
Of course, I haven't read the last book, so perhaps a happy ending is in the offing???
Curiously, _________________ <div> Is THIS your card? How about THIS one? No?</div>
My gut feeling is that at least some characters will have a happy ending, despite all the crap they go through. It's possible he'll go full Hamlet and everyone dies, but to me that seems less likely than at least some of the good guys surviving and rebuilding Westeros. By the latest book, we've got a core handful of characters that seem like they'll survive at least _until_ the climax - though that's not the same as surviving the climax, or changing dramatically from the people they once were, maybe beyond redemption or restoration. Even Frodo, in the much less dark LotR, couldn't be fully healed in Middle-earth, and Martin's characters have no Tol Eressea to visit.
I might have to skip next episode, since it will be bringing to life one of the moments when I had to put the book down to keep from throwing it (GRRM told me he hears a lot of people literally throw the book across the room at that point; this made him laugh. A sign he's doing some good writing, if we care that much).
I've already got my happy ending for the series -- books and TV -- picked out, but it would contain massive spoilers to tell it, unless you're all caught up on the books, so all I'll say is it involves Tyrion. I'll have to wait and see if Martin delivers.
Bugsy, how far have you gotten in the books? While I think it does present much of the worst of humanity, to me the evolution of some of the characters shows the opposite, but then I'm about the only guy I've ever heard of who found the end of The Road to be kind of hopeful. Keep reading.
And I do agree with you about the ending of Da Road!
Glad I'm not the only one. Man, when I saw the film, at the end, everyone in the theater is crying about his dad. I was okay up to the moment when the boy looks down and locks eyes with the dog. Something about that moment; I busted out crying.
I thought Tyrion had the line of the night: "And now my watch begins." The whole wedding was well done, I thought. Overall, seems to be winding up for the big finish over the last two episodes, though it looks like they'll have to put a fair amount of SoS into early next season.
Tyrion is a scene stealer in the books, and in the show. I do appreciate that the program makes every effort to show how he is mistreated and disrespected by his own family. Really makes one want to root for him, especially considering he is the only close to decent Lannister of the bunch.
Lots of good visuals in the show, both in regard to scenery and costuming. Nicely flawed and complex characters too, and pretty good acting from all, from young to old. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I, too, have become a fan of the show. I'm actually a bit surprised with the decent computer animation for the dragons. They look pretty decent.
I agree the acting, costuming, and character development are well done.
There was no show on Sunday the 26th - they skipped Memorial Day weekend because of low ratings in previous seasons. Last night was #9, next week is the season finale.
Two storylines mostly wrapped up, but they can't finish all of the rest next week - I'm curious to see what gets resolved and what's put off until next year.
WOW. I finally caught the last episode. Tis true. Do NOT get attached to anyone in Game of Thrones. They are likely to get 'whacked' at any time! Talk about TPK. I wonder if SirXaris isn't actually behind this script...
Nah, you gotta do it. People don't expect it. Almost always makes for great drama, and it is always best when it is brutal. There are certain little details about the show that are exceptionally well executed which, when I see them at least, it just adds that much more to it. The prop and effects people working on the show are very good.
I am enjoying the show mainly for the visuals that it provides (I already like the story overall), but also because my Greyhawk campaign verges on being this gritty (though it certainly has its more lighthearted moments). And I like it that way. This is surely one reason why I liked the early Gord the Rogue storyline so much (i.e. the part leading up and including the Beggars' Union and its war with the Thieves' Guild), as it is fairly brutal too. I guess I just prefer more realistic drama, and portraying things in this way is realistic because people simply can be evil bastards. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:19 am; edited 1 time in total
I guess I can respect that, Ceb. I can tend towards the gritty and brutal style of DMing, too, and some of my former players chided me for being the "Killer DM." It's not that I went for a TPK on principle alone...that tends to lose players really quick...but I don't mind killing off NPCs (especially) and the occasional player, if necessary. My Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth campaign (see associated Campaign Journal story for an example) proves that.
Kind of a "meh" finishing point. The Red Wedding would have been a much better season ending. The next season starts late March/early April 2014. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I agree Red Wedding would of been a better season finale. The season finale did not have the impact Red Wedding did on the story so far. Imagine dealing with a year of pain after this without knowing (unless you read the books) what was next.
Apparently Starks are not favored in the Game of Thrones. Good thing for Tony Stark that George R.R. Martin does not write for Marvel.
They've typically had episode 9 be the big one - Ned Stark in season 1, the Battle of the Blackwater in season 2, Red Wedding in season 3 - and then use the final episode to wrap things up a bit. They left plenty for a big beginning to season 4, though: the coming battle at Castle Black and its aftermath, Arya's next move, Joffrey's wedding and its aftermath...I'm also curious to see if they follow Feast for Crows/Dance with Dragons separately, that is to say mimicking the geographical division between the books, or if they blend them together to keep the whole thing chronological (the two books happen more or less simultaneously).
I would expect things to be covered as they occur. Taking a year off amounts to 2 years of aging for the actors before they appear again, which could be very altering for the younger actors in particular. Then there are the acting contracts an such. I doubt the is is a "sit it out for a year" section in them. HBO won't make the mistake that G.R.R. Martin did (and he surely did) because they can't. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Technically Cersi got hers already. Joffrey will live a long time. The evil bastards usually do. Yeah, I figured Ironman would of been a short 3 books if George R.R> Martin wrote for Marvel.
Argon, if you mean that Cersei 'got hers' by having an arranged marriage to somebody she clearly doesn't want...I am hoping for something more "terminal"...
Yeah, sometimes the bad guys win and beyond the justice/retribution of even Heironeous or Trithereon. But, I guess that's 'life.'
Joffrey is Cersei's to bear. It is the second arranged marriage she has to go through. The only person she truly loves is her brother. I would go on that tangent but this is a PG- friendly site.
Finally started reading this series, starting with the first book (about halfway done), and really enjoying it. Yes, I realize that I already know what's gonna happen, but, to me, I like getting more inside information from the book that you don't get from watching the mini-series. I highly recommend everyone who is a fan to read as well.
Once you've finished all the books FOR THE SECOND TIME , just to drive yourself crazy, you can start delving into all the theories people have posted over on A Wiki of Ice & Fire. Who was Jon Snow's mother? What happened to Tyrion's first love? Who is really the reincarnation of Azor Ahai? Blah, blah, blah.
I'm just over halfway done with the second book (Clash of Kings) and have started rewatching Seasons 1-3. Something caught my attention with respect to titles. Isn't 'Your Grace' used for a Duke instead of a King? I thought 'Your Majesty' is the title for a King...
I'm just over halfway done with the second book (Clash of Kings) and have started rewatching Seasons 1-3. Something caught my attention with respect to titles. Isn't 'Your Grace' used for a Duke instead of a King? I thought 'Your Majesty' is the title for a King...
-Lanthorn
You are correct, Lanthorn, generally speaking.
However, for much of France's history, there was no King - the most powerful Duke (the Duke of Paris) was the one elected by the others to be the head of their 'confederation'. Thus, 'Duke' was the highest noble/royal rank in France and 'Your Majesty' was the proper reference to use for that personage.
SX, I thought you'd be the person with the answer.
As a sidenote, my wife and I had to make a compromise (always). In order for me to get her to watch "Game of Thrones" I am having to watch "Glee." Episode for episode, back and forth. Luckily for her, I am a high school teacher, so I get some of the nuances of "Glee," but I fear that "Game" has her stunned, overwhelmed, and disgusted with the sex, violence, and blatant injustice. She wisecracked, calling it a 'medieval, fantasy soap opera.'
I'm just over halfway done with the second book (Clash of Kings) and have started rewatching Seasons 1-3. Something caught my attention with respect to titles. Isn't 'Your Grace' used for a Duke instead of a King? I thought 'Your Majesty' is the title for a King...
-Lanthorn
In modern usage in the English system. That didn't come about until the 15th or 16th century. Henry VIII, always messin' with stuff! Until then, 'Your Grace' was the style for the kings of England.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
), I will admit that I am hooked.
Afterwards, the Queen (Lena Headey's character) and the youngling, blonde-haired Prince are equally repulsive for their hateful, vindictive actions. There are more, too many to list, who likewise deserve (my opinion) to have their heads on the end of a pike (or spear)...
Thanks, Mystic. I am very much looking forward to Season Two (borrowed it last night but obviously cannot watch it while my kids are around, which is most of the time).
Historically, my family and I (when I lived in Montana) visited Alberta at least once a year, typically around my birthday, usually to Lethbridge, once to Medicine Hat, and once or twice to Calgary. However, about a decade ago we toured up as far as Drumheller (MOST amazing dinosaur museum there!) and also Edmonton. You Canadians are a friendly lot.
