Game of Thrones

[XPac]

In hindsight, LF was probably the best choice to rule. Right mix of ruthlessness and reason. Too bad the show butchered him in the end.

Though very intelligent and capable, he's obviously not truthworty and frankly a a sociopath. He's probably one of the better choices among the villains of the show, because he's certainly SMART emough to rule, and he's at least better at HIDING the fact that he's a monster than people like Dany or Cersi. But ultimately, he's another monster on the throne who would need to be killed sooner or later for the greater good.

[remydat]

Though very intelligent and capable, he's obviously not truthworty and frankly a a sociopath. He's probably one of the better choices among the villains of the show, because he's certainly SMART emough to rule, and he's at least better at HIDING the fact that he's a monster than people like Dany or Cersi. But ultimately, he's another monster on the throne who would need to be killed sooner or later for the greater good.

No politician is really trustworthy. That is par for the course for politics. Ruling a country is a dirty business. LF is more capable of controlling his worse impulses than most. At least the book version. As I said they butchered his character in the show once they had him send Sansa to Bolton as in the books it was Sansa's friend that LF sent as he would never give up such a valuable chess piece as Sansa.

Even among the good folks, the fundamental problem with guys like Ned, Robb and Jon is that they are too noble and unable to navigate the politics of running a country. Their stupid sense of honor ultimately is their undoing. Ned by trying to reason with Cersei first and trusting LF despite LF telling him not to, Robb for breaking his marriage alliance with the Frey's and then thinking he could just smooth things over, and Jon for his idiotic decision to tell Dany and Sansa about his origins which ultimately is where everything fell apart. They are too naive to rule effectively.

[remydat]

Some humor

[XPac]

No politician is really trustworthy. That is par for the course for politics. Ruling a country is a dirty business. LF is more capable of controlling his worse impulses than most. At least the book version. As I said they butchered his character in the show once they had him send Sansa to Bolton as in the books it was Sansa's friend that LF sent as he would never give up such a valuable chess piece as Sansa.

Even among the good folks, the fundamental problem with guys like Ned, Robb and Jon is that they are too noble and unable to navigate the politics of running a country. Their stupid sense of honor ultimately is their undoing. Ned by trying to reason with Cersei first and trusting LF despite LF telling him not to, Robb for breaking his marriage alliance with the Frey's and then thinking he could just smooth things over, and Jon for his idiotic decision to tell Dany and Sansa about his origins which ultimately is where everything fell apart. They are too naive to rule effectively.

Once you're at the point where a politician is plotting to murder other innocent people, you're at a level of trustworthiness which simply shouldn't be acceptable.

You can argue some of the more noble characters are noble to the fault, but that doesn't necessarily mean you want a socipath like Little Finger on the Iron Throne either. There's a viable middle ground there. Again, probably one of the better choices amongst the villains ... I'd probably take him over Cersi or Dany. But he's far from an ideal choice.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Again my comment was not addressing this. It was addressing the simple fact that the North was part of the 7 Kingdoms for over 150 years without dragons. That is all.

Which is irrelevant. By that point they were firmly party of a dynastic monarchy for over a century that the whole realm accepted, they never had issues with the Targs until the event that ultimately ended with Robert’s Rebellion. They didn’t leave because they had no reason to. If the dragons died in Aegon’s lifetime, most kingdoms would have left. By that point the Stark’s spent 150 years under the current system and it barely effected them.

At this point they had Robert’s Rebellion where they fought a bloody war to oust the Targs once they finally threatened the North, Robert and Ned’s friendship kept the North in the realm, then less than 20 years later the King after Robert executes a Stark, and the North finally decided they didn’t want to deal with the crown anymore so they seceded. Then Roose betrayed them and they fought a bloody civil war to reclaim Winterfell from Ramsay who was sort of loyal to the crown only very loosely, named Jon King, then fought a costly war vs the WW’s. Then as repayment the King has already committed to pledging fealty to another Targaryen who helped them and they fought another war in the South under her command, she went crazy and burned everyone and their former king was held hostage for her murder.

Once the dragons died, the very first issue the North and the crown had started a multi decade long chain of rebellions, Northern King’s, civil wars, and bloodshed. In that whole time frame, a single friendship kept an uncontrollable North as part of the realm and a romance between Jon and Dany night have as well. Neither of those existed anymore.

The North as has been stated was too big and too populace to keep under control. Dragons did it. When the dragons were gone it lasted until the very first conflict with the South.

There are political reasons why the North being independent worked more for everyone. For one they couldn’t hope to hold the North if they didn’t want to remain. The North operates far more independently and they aren’t as reliant on the North. They also aren’t descended from the same people nor do they hold to similar customs.

Meanwhile, the Ironborn control trade routes are much smaller and known for being unruly and reaping the mainland. They are controllable, they are dependent on the realm, and left to their own devices have been completely dangerous. So if Yara tried to remain independent it would be only a matter of time before war broke out

[remydat]

Which is irrelevant. By that point they were firmly party of a dynastic monarchy for over a century that the whole realm accepted, they never had issues with the Targs until the event that ultimately ended with Robert’s Rebellion. They didn’t leave because they had no reason to. If the dragons died in Aegon’s lifetime, most kingdoms would have left. By that point the Stark’s spent 150 years under the current system and it barely effected them.

At this point they had Robert’s Rebellion where they fought a bloody war to oust the Targs once they finally threatened the North, Robert and Ned’s friendship kept the North in the realm, then less than 20 years later the King after Robert executes a Stark, and the North finally decided they didn’t want to deal with the crown anymore so they seceded. Then Roose betrayed them and they fought a bloody civil war to reclaim Winterfell from Ramsay who was sort of loyal to the crown only very loosely, named Jon King, then fought a costly war vs the WW’s. Then as repayment the King has already committed to pledging fealty to another Targaryen who helped them and they fought another war in the South under her command, she went crazy and burned everyone and their former king was held hostage for her murder.

Once the dragons died, the very first issue the North and the crown had started a multi decade long chain of rebellions, Northern King’s, civil wars, and bloodshed. In that whole time frame, a single friendship kept an uncontrollable North as part of the realm and a romance between Jon and Dany night have as well. Neither of those existed anymore.

The North as has been stated was too big and too populace to keep under control. Dragons did it. When the dragons were gone it lasted until the very first conflict with the South.

There are political reasons why the North being independent worked more for everyone. For one they couldn’t hope to hold the North if they didn’t want to remain. The North operates far more independently and they aren’t as reliant on the North. They also aren’t descended from the same people nor do they hold to similar customs.

Meanwhile, the Ironborn control trade routes are much smaller and known for being unruly and reaping the mainland. They are controllable, they are dependent on the realm, and left to their own devices have been completely dangerous. So if Yara tried to remain independent it would be only a matter of time before war broke out

Actually no it is not irrelevant as it was a direct response to the poster that said the only reason they were part of the 7 Kingdoms was because of dragons. That was factually incorrect so I corrected it. You seem to want to have a debate about something I was never arguing.

As for Yarra, the canon is that she wanted indepedence. I am not arguing whether them being independent would last. I am saying it is terrible writing that this is not addressed when it was the whole basis for Yarra siding against Cersei. The minute Sansa brought up indepedence Yarra should have said, "Oh yeah I wanted independence too."

It is clear to me the terrible writers wrote themselves into a corner and didnt know how to get themselves out of it so they simply ignored their own plot.

[remydat]

Once you're at the point where a politician is plotting to murder other innocent people, you're at a level of trustworthiness which simply shouldn't be acceptable.

You can argue some of the more noble characters are noble to the fault, but that doesn't necessarily mean you want a socipath like Little Finger on the Iron Throne either. There's a viable middle ground there. Again, probably one of the better choices amongst the villains ... I'd probably take him over Cersi or Dany. But he's far from an ideal choice.

Which King or Queen hasn't murdered people in this world? Robert was cool with having children murdered.

Even Bran obviously allowed countless people die so he could ascend to the throne.

[XPac]

Which King or Queen hasn't murdered people in this world? Robert was cool with having children murdered.

Even Bran obviously allowed countless people die so he could ascend to the throne.

Murdering innocent people under ANY context is pretty messed up, but if it at least can serve the greater good it can under certain circumstances be understandable. LIttle Finger is just a sociopath though, so that won't work. Sooner or later enough people will realize what a monster he is and kill him.

[Havok83]

Once you're at the point where a politician is plotting to murder other innocent people, you're at a level of trustworthiness which simply shouldn't be acceptable.

You can argue some of the more noble characters are noble to the fault, but that doesn't necessarily mean you want a socipath like Little Finger on the Iron Throne either. There's a viable middle ground there. Again, probably one of the better choices amongst the villains ... I'd probably take him over Cersi or Dany. But he's far from an ideal choice.

Littlefinger was many things but sociopath, he was not

[remydat]

Murdering innocent people under ANY context is pretty messed up, but if it at least can serve the greater good it can under certain circumstances be understandable. LIttle Finger is just a sociopath though, so that won't work. Sooner or later enough people will realize what a monster he is and kill him.

Who are you saying he killed that was innocent or not for greater good? Also not sure which deaths by the other Kings or Bran are you claiming are for the greater good. Was Ella being raped and her children murdered for the greater good? Was Robert wanting Dany and Viserys dead for the greater good. Who knows how Dany would have turned out if not for the fact that she was hunted and wanted dead for all her life.

There are no saints in the world of GoTs. Just people we like and so because we like them, we excuse their murderous deeds.

[XPac]

Who are you saying he killed that was innocent or not for greater good? Also not sure which deaths by the other Kings or Bran are you claiming are for the greater good. Was Ella being raped and her children murdered for the greater good? Was Robert wanting Dany and Viserys dead for the greater good. Who knows how Dany would have turned out if not for the fact that she was hunted and wanted dead for all her life.

There are no saints in the world of GoTs. Just people we like and so because we like them, we excuse their murderous deeds.

I agree there aren't saints in GoT... or real life politics for that matter. That said, Little Finger is still a monther, and as soon as enough people realize that they would murder the bastard. He was frankly lucky Arya didn't kill him sooner than she did quite frankly.

Honestly I'm not a big fan of Robert either... though I don't have any particular huge issues with anything Bran has done. I think part of the appeal of his is I don't think really anyone has any issues with him. He's no ones first choice, but in the least they're not a line outside his door to slit his through.

[remydat]

I agree there aren't saints in GoT... or real life politics for that matter. That said, Little Finger is still a monther, and as soon as enough people realize that they would murder the bastard. He was frankly lucky Arya didn't kill him sooner than she did quite frankly.

Honestly I'm not a big fan of Robert either... though I don't have any particular huge issues with anything Bran has done. I think part of the appeal of his is I don't think really anyone has any issues with him. He's no ones first choice, but in the least they're not a line outside his door to slit his through.

This didn't answer my question though. Who are you saying he killed that was innocent or not for the greater good?

It is what Bran hasn't done that is the issue. Bran knows about bad things that will happen and allows it to happen to apparently serve his ultimate destiny of being King. We don't know if it was for the greater good. You just assume it was. The only difference between his and Dany's messiah complex is that Dany had to actively take part in her quest for the throne while Bran just had to sit back and allow people to die that he could have possibly saved if he had spoken up.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Actually no it is not irrelevant as it was a direct response to the poster that said the only reason they were part of the 7 Kingdoms was because of dragons. That was factually incorrect so I corrected it. You seem to want to have a debate about something I was never arguing.

As for Yarra, the canon is that she wanted indepedence. I am not arguing whether them being independent would last. I am saying it is terrible writing that this is not addressed when it was the whole basis for Yarra siding against Cersei. The minute Sansa brought up indepedence Yarra should have said, "Oh yeah I wanted independence too."

It is clear to me the terrible writers wrote themselves into a corner and didnt know how to get themselves out of it so they simply ignored their own plot.

1. I was that poster.

2. It is a fact they were only part of the Seven Kingdoms because of dragons. The King in the North bent the knee to avoid fighting dragons.

3. It is not incorrectly. They literally only stayed after the Dragons died because they didn’t have conflicts with crown and it made no difference after 150 years. They were part of the 7 Kingdoms for nearly 2/3rds of the age of the United States by that point. And the minute interests conflicted they rebelled.

The very first conflict after the dragons were gone sparked a rebellion that overthrew the government and the North installed an ally. Once he died they declared independence. It was the dragons that brought them there and when they were gone they started rebelling at the very first dispute. The dragons were always the key to keeping them. After they were gone it was only a matter of time.

With Yara it doesn’t matter. They were never giving a culture that literally terrorizes the mainlands independence. They could have shown a fruitless argument but it didn’t matter in the long run because they wouldn’t have got it. And she just had a say in installing the new king. They could have had a huge political debate with everyone but the reality is of the current heads of state nearly all were aligned with the Stark’s and only Yara and the Dornish Prince were on the outside looking in. They would have lost that argument. Everyone knew it. So they didn’t need to show it

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Littlefinger was many things but sociopath, he was not

He was a sociopath.

[remydat]

1. I was that poster.

2. It is a fact they were only part of the Seven Kingdoms because of dragons. The King in the North bent the knee to avoid fighting dragons.

3. It is not incorrectly. They literally only stayed after the Dragons died because they didn’t have conflicts with crown and it made no difference after 150 years. They were part of the 7 Kingdoms for nearly 2/3rds of the age of the United States by that point. And the minute interests conflicted they rebelled.

The very first conflict after the dragons were gone sparked a rebellion that overthrew the government and the North installed an ally. Once he died they declared independence. It was the dragons that brought them there and when they were gone they started rebelling at the very first dispute. The dragons were always the key to keeping them. After they were gone it was only a matter of time.

With Yara it doesn’t matter. They were never giving a culture that literally terrorizes the mainlands independence. They could have shown a fruitless argument but it didn’t matter in the long run because they wouldn’t have got it. And she just had a say in installing the new king. They could have had a huge political debate with everyone but the reality is of the current heads of state nearly all were aligned with the Stark’s and only Yara and the Dornish Prince were on the outside looking in. They would have lost that argument. Everyone knew it. So they didn’t need to show it

The fact they stayed means it wasn't just because of dragons. It was also because as you said they had no conflict for the 150 years without dragons. Therefore, to say it was only because of dragons is factually inaccurate. The dragons are the reason why they submitted. The reason why they stayed was because of peace. So again to say it was solely because of dragons is incorrect.

As for Yarra, you are using your head canon to justify your answer. We don't know how they would have responded because Yarra didn't mention it. I don't watch a TV show so that you can tell me what you think happens in your head canon. I watch a TV show for the writers to do so and they introduced a major plot point and then abandoned it. It is stupid writing.

Anyone can head canon. I find it odd that the Mad Queen granted their independence but yet we automatically assume Bran would not. Further, Tyrion and the Unsullied know what Dany promised and we saw how Greyworm is all about justice. Tyrion also supposedly is going to learn from his mistakes so not sure how that happens if he betrays what was promised to the Iron Islands as Hand of the King. He was Hand when she made the promise and he is Hand now. He already has screwed up royally and how can anyone accept his counsel or word in negotiations if it is known he advised his new King to disregard the promise his previous Queen made. A Kingdom has obligations even as its rulers change. If Tyrion is not going to tell Bran to honor what he knows was promised then he might as well throw his badge away again. And to deny Yarra while acquiescing to his sister gives the impression that Bran is as corrupt and untrustworthy as previous rulers.

So my head canon is just as valid as your head canon and the fact that you and I have competing head canons is precisely why the shitty writers should have resolved it. You can't have a major kingdom ask for independence and it be granted with the knowledge of Tyrion and Greyworm and just drop it as a plot point simply because you stupidly decided to have a 6 episode season and show Tyrion playing with chairs.