Wait, that wasn't the point I was making. I'm comparing our perspective, as we play as Mira, to an outsider's perspective.
Morgryn couldn't know that Mira had no control whether the ironwood contract goes to her. Morgryn knows what is presented to him, which is a Forrester ruining everything he worked for.
Yes, being the middle man does not absolve Andros, but Lyman was hired to hire people to kill the Forresters too, and in the end the only head rolling for it was Andros's. Andros had a family to feed too, according to him. But oh well, Lyman is a Lannister, and Mira didn't even mention his name when talking to Cersei. Andros was killed because Mira set Cersei after him. However, he didn't have to die. Mira already "costed Ludd his army" back at the end of Episode 5, with Andros still alive.
Now, I'm not saying that what Morgryn did wasn't awful. What I'm saying is that his actions costed Mira or Tom's life, but Mira's actions costed Andros's life just the same.
Mira is as guilty of killing Damien as Gared is of killing Britt. Yes, it was self-defense on both cases, but that's our legal system, not theirs, and Gared was the only one that had someone that could speak for him on that case (that being Finn, but it didn't help).
Mira was ultimately responsible for him being pushed out of business because Andros thought Morgryn was working with her. Morgryn is equally responsible for that, of course, but just like Mira probably doesn't beat herself over causing Andros's death, I honestly doubt that Morgryn blames himself when he can blame Mira for all his woes instead. The point I'm trying to make with that is that Morgryn has reasons to hate her, that his issues with her are personal. You see, my post was not justifying what Morgryn did, it was putting it into perspective. As in, we KNOW of Mira's motives and personality, we KNOW what happened to her, and we are okay with what she did because we play as her. From an outsider's perspective, Mira might look much less innocent than she looks to us.
It is like the example I give of Daenerys and how she sees Ned.
Re is what Morgryn did to Mira different than what Mira did to Andros the answer is yes
Mira does not have control over whether the ironw… moreood contract goes to her. Whether she tries to make a deal with Tyrion or demures and says that such a deal could be dangerous for her family, it is Tyrion who grants the Forresters the ironwood contract and who insists that they meet. Then she finds out that Andros is working to buy an army on behalf of her families' biggest enemies. Mira needs to remove the threat to her family and prevent Andros' ability to gather up that army. Andros (and Lyman) may not have had any personal animosity towards Mira, but they know that their actions will have potentially ruinous effect on Mira's life and yet they still do it out of self interest. Andros was willing to work for a man that was attempting to kill a whole family to control a resource.
I think of it this way. The assassin hired to kill an innocent person… [view original content]
Okay. Backing up and thinking about things from their perspectives. Wait? Andros thought Morgryn was working with Mira? When did that come up? I thought Andros got greedy and removed Morgryn in a power play.
So Morgryn hires someone to kill Mira.
Mira manipulates, or takes advantage of, events to get Andros killed.
Mira gets someone killed = Morgryn gets someone killed.
So back when Morgryn and Andros were partners and Mira was the sole cause of them losing the contract he hired Damien to kill Mira.
Even though Mira destroys the army Andros and Lyman were gathering she still goes after Andros. Why? Just because she got rid of that one army doesn't mean that Andros is not still a threat to her or her family. Before, for Andros, hiring those soldiers was just business and he probably had nothing personal against the Forresters. After, well he probably had a personal grudge against Mira. So Mira did have much more of a justification to want to get rid of Andros.
Morgryn, on the other hand, had less of a reason to get rid of Mira after she gets rid of Andros. Because Andros pushed Morgryn out because of something Mira did, Morgryn had more of a reason to do away with Andros. It's possible that he would have dealt with Andros but Mira got rid of Andros before Morgryn got to him. Now that the initial reason (Mira being responsible for getting him out of the ironwood business) was no longer there... why kill her? Because she could do it again?
Initial reasons for wanting to get rid of X:
Morgryn: Mira snatched a deal I had been working on, and threatened my position. Also, it's embarrassing to have lost the contract to a mere handmaiden. I am going to remove this threat to my LIVELIHOOD.
Mira: Someone is plotting against my family. I need to foil their plans and protect my FAMILY.
After the Purple wedding:
Morgryn: Mira got rid of one of my competitors and now either I will control Mira and take what is hers by marriage or I will kill her. (Of course Morgryn could just as easily kill her after she has provided him with heirs.)
Mira: Andros is working for my enemy and could still threaten my family. I need to make sure that he doesn't do something to harm us. I need to kill him.
So, yeah, even if I consider things from their perspectives I still think Mira comes out ahead. Their motive for killing is different, and the motives matter. I'd argue that killing Mira trying to get Andros killed (and succeeding) is much more justifiable than Morgryn trying to Mira killed/getting her killed.
So in my equation :
Mira getting Andros killed does not equal Morgryn getting Mira killed.
As for justice in the GOT universe where killing anyone is considered murder regardless of the circumstances.... I don't know what to say to that.
Wait, that wasn't the point I was making. I'm comparing our perspective, as we play as Mira, to an outsider's perspective.
Morgryn couldn… more't know that Mira had no control whether the ironwood contract goes to her. Morgryn knows what is presented to him, which is a Forrester ruining everything he worked for.
Yes, being the middle man does not absolve Andros, but Lyman was hired to hire people to kill the Forresters too, and in the end the only head rolling for it was Andros's. Andros had a family to feed too, according to him. But oh well, Lyman is a Lannister, and Mira didn't even mention his name when talking to Cersei. Andros was killed because Mira set Cersei after him. However, he didn't have to die. Mira already "costed Ludd his army" back at the end of Episode 5, with Andros still alive.
Now, I'm not saying that what Morgryn did wasn't awful. What I'm saying is that his actions costed Mira or Tom's life, but Mira's actions coste… [view original content]
Andros says so when you talk to him in the Coronation Feast. He says that he knows what "you and your friend Morgryn are planning".
But I get what you are saying and trust me, I am as pissed off at Morgryn as the next player. But I'm trying to imagine here how it would be if we were playing as Andros or Morgryn, and we only knew what was presented to them about Mira and nothing else. I mean, people were wanting to kill Sera around here just because she didn't want to be friends anymore. I can't even imagine what we would have wanted to do with Mira if we played as them instead.
The same goes for playing the Whitehills instead of the Forresters. If we played as the Whitehills, wouldn't we want to "kill dem fookin' Forresters" too? I think it is very likely.
And yes, justice in the ASOIAF universe is a troublesome thing for people that has been accused of anything. Rumors can get you executed, it is more of a "guilty until proven otherwise" than "innocent until proven otherwise", and religion comes into play when it is a trial by combat.
Okay. Backing up and thinking about things from their perspectives. Wait? Andros thought Morgryn was working with Mira? When did that come u… morep? I thought Andros got greedy and removed Morgryn in a power play.
So Morgryn hires someone to kill Mira.
Mira manipulates, or takes advantage of, events to get Andros killed.
Mira gets someone killed = Morgryn gets someone killed.
So back when Morgryn and Andros were partners and Mira was the sole cause of them losing the contract he hired Damien to kill Mira.
Even though Mira destroys the army Andros and Lyman were gathering she still goes after Andros. Why? Just because she got rid of that one army doesn't mean that Andros is not still a threat to her or her family. Before, for Andros, hiring those soldiers was just business and he probably had nothing personal against the Forresters. After, well he probably had a personal grudge against Mira. So Mira did have much more of a justification… [view original content]
Regardless of her intentions though, she did a very piss poor job of it, with her actually asking Rodrik to submit to Gryff, and her actually having no objections to Forresters disgracefully becoming Ludd's bannerman (by submitting to him) and producing ironwood for Ludd (most likely until the Forresters have outlived their usefulness, especially when Whitehills learn how to produce ironwood as well as Forresters).
When Rodrik rejects Ludd's terms at High point, this angers Ludd, and all Gwyn says is "Give him time, father." Give my Rodrik time for what? To consider submitting to him? Yeah right. As if that will ever happen.
Come to think of it the only pro-Forrester actions Gwyn did were informing Rodrik of the traitor at their meeting, and sending a messenger to Rodrik saying Ludd will be coming soon with his army (but this is only if Asher is dead). All other times, her actions were that of nonchalant, or worse pro-Whitehill rather than Forrester.
I wanted to see Asher and Gwyn together (despite them being in enemy Houses), and I eventually did, but if Gwyn continues to put her House in front of House Forrester, who knows what my Asher will do to her...
Well, Gwyn wants to save both House Forrester and House Whitehill with the least number of dead possible. Peace has to start somewhere but a… moressuming you do kill Ludd and Gryff, that's just going to mean their sons/brothers will want to avenge them. Annihilating a whole family is pretty damn hard in Westeros, since they tend to have a lot of relatives ready to avenge them.
Guest right isn't a thing to be taken seriously in game of thrones.
A song of ice and fire? Sure. Game of thrones the TV series? It's a joke. No justice upon the Freys, in the series you can do whatever you want. Honor is of no use to the dead.
Asher broke guest right. He invited the Whitehills into his home and tired to murder them, he even says that they are his honored guests, if you pick the right dialogue options. What Asher did was no better than what the Freys did. You could make the argument that the Forresters had to do it to survive, but you could also say that the Freys had to do what they did to survive a s well, who knows, maybe if they didn't kill the Starks the Lannisters would have killed them.
What the Forresters did was wrong, it was unhonorable, and I'm glad Gregor wasn't there to see it, I imagine he would have been very disappointed to see what had happened to his house. Even though in my play through I tried to make peace with the Whitehills by calling off the plan to poison Ludd, but Lady Forrester had to go and cut Ludd's face.
That's is just my opinion, the Forresters broke guest right. I still love them, but what they did makes them no better than the Freys.
I agree with you. The only thing I could imagine is that no one would really care in the end. I mean Ironrath and every "evidence" probably burned down and we are not even sure if any Forrester-soldier survived the battle (except Royland/Duncan which are determinant). If the Whitehills would start to complain about how house Forrester broke guest right the Boltons wouldnt really care I guess, since >90% of house Forrester died. I think the Forresters are now what they are described as in the books: a clan, without a castle of their own. With that being said Iam really excited how they will continue this story in season 2. I mean the majority is confident that season will be about the Forresters. Especially the Gared ending made me believe this story will continue.
Even if they don't get to drink or eat anything, that's hard to explain to anyone else in the kingdom. "Sure there was food or drink on the … moretable but they didn't get to eat/drink it so we are good, right?". I don't think someone would buy it. Especially since either Ludd or Gryff escaped, and they will tell their story around.
But apparently that wasn't enough, they had to kill every Northern for vengeance
The problem with plan Asher made that it's stupid , and an expected thing to happen which resulted in the fall of the Castle, Not to mention that it's kind of dishonorable
Asher broke guest right. He invited the Whitehills into his home and tired to murder them, he even says that they are his honored guests, if… more you pick the right dialogue options. What Asher did was no better than what the Freys did. You could make the argument that the Forresters had to do it to survive, but you could also say that the Freys had to do what they did to survive a s well, who knows, maybe if they didn't kill the Starks the Lannisters would have killed them.
What the Forresters did was wrong, it was unhonorable, and I'm glad Gregor wasn't there to see it, I imagine he would have been very disappointed to see what had happened to his house. Even though in my play through I tried to make peace with the Whitehills by calling off the plan to poison Ludd, but Lady Forrester had to go and cut Ludd's face.
That's is just my opinion, the Forresters broke guest right. I still love them, but what they did makes them no better than the Freys.
Well, investigating the Whitehill tapestry in Highpoint reveals that Torrhen is currently directly serving the Boltons. And since Boltons decided to stay neutral in this conflict, perhaps he too decided not to take part or was forbidden from it? Or maybe he just realised that both his father and brother are such assholes that he wants to get away from them as far as possible?
Yeah, I had a theory that this was the story of how House Forrester became Clan Forrester, and I actually liked the ending for Ironrath. I'm not so excited for Season 2 though, because we lost our King's Landing POV, and things were about to get really interesting in King's Landing with Tyrion's escape and the queens being arrested and everything. I wish TellTale would at least hint at adding a different King's Landing POV so I could jump on the Season 2 hype train too.
I agree with you. The only thing I could imagine is that no one would really care in the end. I mean Ironrath and every "evidence" probably … moreburned down and we are not even sure if any Forrester-soldier survived the battle (except Royland/Duncan which are determinant). If the Whitehills would start to complain about how house Forrester broke guest right the Boltons wouldnt really care I guess, since >90% of house Forrester died. I think the Forresters are now what they are described as in the books: a clan, without a castle of their own. With that being said Iam really excited how they will continue this story in season 2. I mean the majority is confident that season will be about the Forresters. Especially the Gared ending made me believe this story will continue.
No, I love it too because it was absolutely justified
They put honor aside so they could survive, not to get more power. It is something that could have saved several characters that died in the books, and I'm all for it.
It's difficult to uphold guest right knowing Ethan was killed in that very hall.
I'm aware Ramsay (very cleverly) sidestepped the issue by refusing Ethan's bread and salt, but it still very much seems like a technicality.
It's also probably hard to uphold guest right with the Whitehills when Ludd held a knife to Ryon's throat when we met them at Highpoint. Again I suppose a technicality since Ryon was his ward and not a guest, but it's annoying that you can sidestep the issue like that.
Of course these points are all moot if you think nobody told Asher what happened to Ethan and at Highpoint (but I assume he got the rundown).
Uhmmm, of COURSE she's Pro-Whitehill. That's never in doubt. The whole thing with Gwyn is she wants the Whitehills and Forresters not to be enemies. Not for one to destroy the other.
Guest right isn't a thing to be taken seriously in game of thrones.
A song of ice and fire? Sure. Game of thrones the TV series? It's a joke. No justice upon the Freys, in the series you can do whatever you want. Honor is of no use to the dead.
Eh, it was their best option versus actually making peace with the Whitehills and, honestly, I don't think peace with the Whitehills would have worked out so well anyway. Ramsay Bolton is a psychopath stirring the pot for its own sake.
I think more Whitehills end up slaughtered with Asher's plan than Rodriks.
Though I could be wrong since the Whitehills are sieging in Rodriks.
As for dishonorable? Oh hell yes. Asher doesn't give a flying figg for honor and thats' a nice bit to differentiate him from Rodrik.
The Freys didn't have to do anything
They marched home the moment Robb broke the deal
But apparently that wasn't enough, they had to k… moreill every Northern for vengeance
The problem with plan Asher made that it's stupid , and an expected thing to happen which resulted in the fall of the Castle, Not to mention that it's kind of dishonorable
I regret choosing Asher now
It's difficult to uphold guest right knowing Ethan was killed in that very hall.
I'm aware Ramsay (very cleverly) sidestepped the issue b… morey refusing Ethan's bread and salt, but it still very much seems like a technicality.
It's also probably hard to uphold guest right with the Whitehills when Ludd held a knife to Ryon's throat when we met them at Highpoint. Again I suppose a technicality since Ryon was his ward and not a guest, but it's annoying that you can sidestep the issue like that.
Of course these points are all moot if you think nobody told Asher what happened to Ethan and at Highpoint (but I assume he got the rundown).
I did most of what Royland suggested, and all he complains about is that I didn't take soldiers to Highpoint, it sounds so lame without his other complaints. What does he complain about if you do everything he suggests?
I had known the ending before I played, so I knew that whatever decisions I made, only few would affect the main characters' life. So I:
… more
* Had Mira did nothing for her family, her family would be safe until Episode 6 anyway. I asked Tom to do nothing, and he killed the Lannister so he deserved to die. I treated the future husband Morgryn nicely from the start and didn't demand anything, so they were a fine couple.
* Had Asher protected Beskha at all cost, let het beated him without avoiding, who cares about Malcom, he would stay with Danearys anyway.
* Had Gared became the baddass, spoilt the North Grove to anyone, told Jon Snow that Gared would do bad stuffs, didn't let Finn join him because Finn would die along the way.
* Chose Duncan as the settinel but did everything according to Royland's suggestions: bold, unbowed, stood up against the Whitehill and Ramsay anytime... Imprision Ser Royland sothat Duncan would get kill in th… [view original content]
That's the thing though. Almost all her Pro-Whitehill actions were pretty much Con-Forrester. Peace achieved through her means would have never lasted, especially if it meant Forresters submitting to Whitehills like Ludd wanted (ant Gwyn pretty much had no problem with that, as you can see during Rodrik and Ludd's meet at High Point). At best, their peace would have lasted days, before another war broke out.
This is why I don't have much respect for Gwyn's character (despite making her end up with Asher at the end). I would have thought since she wants to marry Asher and be part of the Forrester family, she would have at least try to convince her father to treat Forresters as equals. But she made no effort at all and just let her father do whatever he wanted.
She pretty much put Whitehills in front of Forresters most of the time (not a good idea if she plans to be a future Lady Forrester).
Only real peace I can see hapeening is if Ludd is killed and Gwyn's brothers are wise enough to not seek retaliation.
Uhmmm, of COURSE she's Pro-Whitehill. That's never in doubt. The whole thing with Gwyn is she wants the Whitehills and Forresters not to be enemies. Not for one to destroy the other.
How is it different in the books though? I mean, I don't think there has been any more breaking of guest rights in the show than there are in the books - less actually since there are no Frey Pies in the show.
Guest right isn't a thing to be taken seriously in game of thrones.
A song of ice and fire? Sure. Game of thrones the TV series? It's a joke. No justice upon the Freys, in the series you can do whatever you want. Honor is of no use to the dead.
which gods are butthurt about guest right? Because there is only one god, and his name is Death. And there is only one thing we say to Death: 'Not today'.
Both endings are terrible and the choice is false. You violate guest right (or your mom does it for you) and lose your house and lands. Or you don't and lose them anyway. Gratz.
Lord Manderly actually follows guest right to the letter. He gives the Freys horses when they leave White Harbor, so they were no longer his guests, and he could kill them in revenge for Wendel without breaking guest right at all. But I think the point about the show is that the Freys are not made to suffer for the Red Wedding, since there is no Lady Stoneheart hanging them in the Riverlands and plotting a second Red Wedding when Daven Lannister marries a Frey at Riverrun. Instead the Freys, and the idea of guest right in general, is forgotten completely by the show.
How is it different in the books though? I mean, I don't think there has been any more breaking of guest rights in the show than there are in the books - less actually since there are no Frey Pies in the show.
I keep wondering what "Guest Right" means in the show version of Game of Thrones....nothing apparently or otherwise the Freys would be having some huge rebellion problems holding the Riverlands since they, you know killed all the possible high-born hostages that would have kept them in check (like in the books).
I don't think Asher has too much to worry about other then that "Guest Right" is going down the toilet from the RW and it is starting to show. Who can trust Guest Right after it was violated so badly and the Iron Throne(Lannisters) condones it?
Lord Manderly actually follows guest right to the letter. He gives the Freys horses when they leave White Harbor, so they were no longer his… more guests, and he could kill them in revenge for Wendel without breaking guest right at all. But I think the point about the show is that the Freys are not made to suffer for the Red Wedding, since there is no Lady Stoneheart hanging them in the Riverlands and plotting a second Red Wedding when Daven Lannister marries a Frey at Riverrun. Instead the Freys, and the idea of guest right in general, is forgotten completely by the show.
Comments
Wait, that wasn't the point I was making. I'm comparing our perspective, as we play as Mira, to an outsider's perspective.
Morgryn couldn't know that Mira had no control whether the ironwood contract goes to her. Morgryn knows what is presented to him, which is a Forrester ruining everything he worked for.
Yes, being the middle man does not absolve Andros, but Lyman was hired to hire people to kill the Forresters too, and in the end the only head rolling for it was Andros's. Andros had a family to feed too, according to him. But oh well, Lyman is a Lannister, and Mira didn't even mention his name when talking to Cersei. Andros was killed because Mira set Cersei after him. However, he didn't have to die. Mira already "costed Ludd his army" back at the end of Episode 5, with Andros still alive.
Now, I'm not saying that what Morgryn did wasn't awful. What I'm saying is that his actions costed Mira or Tom's life, but Mira's actions costed Andros's life just the same.
Mira is as guilty of killing Damien as Gared is of killing Britt. Yes, it was self-defense on both cases, but that's our legal system, not theirs, and Gared was the only one that had someone that could speak for him on that case (that being Finn, but it didn't help).
Mira was ultimately responsible for him being pushed out of business because Andros thought Morgryn was working with her. Morgryn is equally responsible for that, of course, but just like Mira probably doesn't beat herself over causing Andros's death, I honestly doubt that Morgryn blames himself when he can blame Mira for all his woes instead. The point I'm trying to make with that is that Morgryn has reasons to hate her, that his issues with her are personal. You see, my post was not justifying what Morgryn did, it was putting it into perspective. As in, we KNOW of Mira's motives and personality, we KNOW what happened to her, and we are okay with what she did because we play as her. From an outsider's perspective, Mira might look much less innocent than she looks to us.
It is like the example I give of Daenerys and how she sees Ned.
It's comments like these that make me glad the Rodrik version doesn't have to deal with this.
I'm now going to call him roderick because I don't care.
roderickroderickroderickroderickroderickroderickroderick
What's wrong with people preferring Rodrik's version?
Nothing. I called out how the guy mispronouced Rodrik's name. A blasphemer!
Okay. Backing up and thinking about things from their perspectives. Wait? Andros thought Morgryn was working with Mira? When did that come up? I thought Andros got greedy and removed Morgryn in a power play.
So Morgryn hires someone to kill Mira.
Mira manipulates, or takes advantage of, events to get Andros killed.
Mira gets someone killed = Morgryn gets someone killed.
So back when Morgryn and Andros were partners and Mira was the sole cause of them losing the contract he hired Damien to kill Mira.
Even though Mira destroys the army Andros and Lyman were gathering she still goes after Andros. Why? Just because she got rid of that one army doesn't mean that Andros is not still a threat to her or her family. Before, for Andros, hiring those soldiers was just business and he probably had nothing personal against the Forresters. After, well he probably had a personal grudge against Mira. So Mira did have much more of a justification to want to get rid of Andros.
Morgryn, on the other hand, had less of a reason to get rid of Mira after she gets rid of Andros. Because Andros pushed Morgryn out because of something Mira did, Morgryn had more of a reason to do away with Andros. It's possible that he would have dealt with Andros but Mira got rid of Andros before Morgryn got to him. Now that the initial reason (Mira being responsible for getting him out of the ironwood business) was no longer there... why kill her? Because she could do it again?
Initial reasons for wanting to get rid of X:
Morgryn: Mira snatched a deal I had been working on, and threatened my position. Also, it's embarrassing to have lost the contract to a mere handmaiden. I am going to remove this threat to my LIVELIHOOD.
Mira: Someone is plotting against my family. I need to foil their plans and protect my FAMILY.
After the Purple wedding:
Morgryn: Mira got rid of one of my competitors and now either I will control Mira and take what is hers by marriage or I will kill her. (Of course Morgryn could just as easily kill her after she has provided him with heirs.)
Mira: Andros is working for my enemy and could still threaten my family. I need to make sure that he doesn't do something to harm us. I need to kill him.
So, yeah, even if I consider things from their perspectives I still think Mira comes out ahead. Their motive for killing is different, and the motives matter. I'd argue that killing Mira trying to get Andros killed (and succeeding) is much more justifiable than Morgryn trying to Mira killed/getting her killed.
So in my equation :
Mira getting Andros killed does not equal Morgryn getting Mira killed.
As for justice in the GOT universe where killing anyone is considered murder regardless of the circumstances.... I don't know what to say to that.
Andros says so when you talk to him in the Coronation Feast. He says that he knows what "you and your friend Morgryn are planning".
But I get what you are saying and trust me, I am as pissed off at Morgryn as the next player. But I'm trying to imagine here how it would be if we were playing as Andros or Morgryn, and we only knew what was presented to them about Mira and nothing else. I mean, people were wanting to kill Sera around here just because she didn't want to be friends anymore. I can't even imagine what we would have wanted to do with Mira if we played as them instead.
The same goes for playing the Whitehills instead of the Forresters. If we played as the Whitehills, wouldn't we want to "kill dem fookin' Forresters" too? I think it is very likely.
And yes, justice in the ASOIAF universe is a troublesome thing for people that has been accused of anything. Rumors can get you executed, it is more of a "guilty until proven otherwise" than "innocent until proven otherwise", and religion comes into play when it is a trial by combat.
Yep.
It's a habit and annoying.
Embarrassing too.
Regardless of her intentions though, she did a very piss poor job of it, with her actually asking Rodrik to submit to Gryff, and her actually having no objections to Forresters disgracefully becoming Ludd's bannerman (by submitting to him) and producing ironwood for Ludd (most likely until the Forresters have outlived their usefulness, especially when Whitehills learn how to produce ironwood as well as Forresters).
When Rodrik rejects Ludd's terms at High point, this angers Ludd, and all Gwyn says is "Give him time, father." Give my Rodrik time for what? To consider submitting to him? Yeah right. As if that will ever happen.
Come to think of it the only pro-Forrester actions Gwyn did were informing Rodrik of the traitor at their meeting, and sending a messenger to Rodrik saying Ludd will be coming soon with his army (but this is only if Asher is dead). All other times, her actions were that of nonchalant, or worse pro-Whitehill rather than Forrester.
I wanted to see Asher and Gwyn together (despite them being in enemy Houses), and I eventually did, but if Gwyn continues to put her House in front of House Forrester, who knows what my Asher will do to her...
Guest right isn't a thing to be taken seriously in game of thrones.
A song of ice and fire? Sure. Game of thrones the TV series? It's a joke. No justice upon the Freys, in the series you can do whatever you want. Honor is of no use to the dead.
So you think he was at Highpoint?
Asher broke guest right. He invited the Whitehills into his home and tired to murder them, he even says that they are his honored guests, if you pick the right dialogue options. What Asher did was no better than what the Freys did. You could make the argument that the Forresters had to do it to survive, but you could also say that the Freys had to do what they did to survive a s well, who knows, maybe if they didn't kill the Starks the Lannisters would have killed them.
What the Forresters did was wrong, it was unhonorable, and I'm glad Gregor wasn't there to see it, I imagine he would have been very disappointed to see what had happened to his house. Even though in my play through I tried to make peace with the Whitehills by calling off the plan to poison Ludd, but Lady Forrester had to go and cut Ludd's face.
That's is just my opinion, the Forresters broke guest right. I still love them, but what they did makes them no better than the Freys.
I agree with you. The only thing I could imagine is that no one would really care in the end. I mean Ironrath and every "evidence" probably burned down and we are not even sure if any Forrester-soldier survived the battle (except Royland/Duncan which are determinant). If the Whitehills would start to complain about how house Forrester broke guest right the Boltons wouldnt really care I guess, since >90% of house Forrester died. I think the Forresters are now what they are described as in the books: a clan, without a castle of their own. With that being said Iam really excited how they will continue this story in season 2. I mean the majority is confident that season will be about the Forresters. Especially the Gared ending made me believe this story will continue.
How dare you to call me Roderick ? You will have the same fate as Harys !
The Freys didn't have to do anything
They marched home the moment Robb broke the deal
But apparently that wasn't enough, they had to kill every Northern for vengeance
The problem with plan Asher made that it's stupid , and an expected thing to happen which resulted in the fall of the Castle, Not to mention that it's kind of dishonorable
I regret choosing Asher now
Well, investigating the Whitehill tapestry in Highpoint reveals that Torrhen is currently directly serving the Boltons. And since Boltons decided to stay neutral in this conflict, perhaps he too decided not to take part or was forbidden from it? Or maybe he just realised that both his father and brother are such assholes that he wants to get away from them as far as possible?
Yeah, I had a theory that this was the story of how House Forrester became Clan Forrester, and I actually liked the ending for Ironrath. I'm not so excited for Season 2 though, because we lost our King's Landing POV, and things were about to get really interesting in King's Landing with Tyrion's escape and the queens being arrested and everything. I wish TellTale would at least hint at adding a different King's Landing POV so I could jump on the Season 2 hype train too.
No, I love it too because it was absolutely justified
They put honor aside so they could survive, not to get more power. It is something that could have saved several characters that died in the books, and I'm all for it.
It's difficult to uphold guest right knowing Ethan was killed in that very hall.
I'm aware Ramsay (very cleverly) sidestepped the issue by refusing Ethan's bread and salt, but it still very much seems like a technicality.
It's also probably hard to uphold guest right with the Whitehills when Ludd held a knife to Ryon's throat when we met them at Highpoint. Again I suppose a technicality since Ryon was his ward and not a guest, but it's annoying that you can sidestep the issue like that.
Of course these points are all moot if you think nobody told Asher what happened to Ethan and at Highpoint (but I assume he got the rundown).
They will have the mothers mercy.
Uhmmm, of COURSE she's Pro-Whitehill. That's never in doubt. The whole thing with Gwyn is she wants the Whitehills and Forresters not to be enemies. Not for one to destroy the other.
Bran seems to think the Freys are ****ed so I wouldn't be so sure.
Eh, it was their best option versus actually making peace with the Whitehills and, honestly, I don't think peace with the Whitehills would have worked out so well anyway. Ramsay Bolton is a psychopath stirring the pot for its own sake.
I think more Whitehills end up slaughtered with Asher's plan than Rodriks.
Though I could be wrong since the Whitehills are sieging in Rodriks.
As for dishonorable? Oh hell yes. Asher doesn't give a flying figg for honor and thats' a nice bit to differentiate him from Rodrik.
Well Ryon is a hostage so the whole point is you're supposed to kill them if they act up.
See Theon Greyjoy.
But that's not going to keep the Forresters from wanting to gut the Whitehills like pigs.
I did most of what Royland suggested, and all he complains about is that I didn't take soldiers to Highpoint, it sounds so lame without his other complaints. What does he complain about if you do everything he suggests?
That's the thing though. Almost all her Pro-Whitehill actions were pretty much Con-Forrester. Peace achieved through her means would have never lasted, especially if it meant Forresters submitting to Whitehills like Ludd wanted (ant Gwyn pretty much had no problem with that, as you can see during Rodrik and Ludd's meet at High Point). At best, their peace would have lasted days, before another war broke out.
This is why I don't have much respect for Gwyn's character (despite making her end up with Asher at the end). I would have thought since she wants to marry Asher and be part of the Forrester family, she would have at least try to convince her father to treat Forresters as equals. But she made no effort at all and just let her father do whatever he wanted.
She pretty much put Whitehills in front of Forresters most of the time (not a good idea if she plans to be a future Lady Forrester).
Only real peace I can see hapeening is if Ludd is killed and Gwyn's brothers are wise enough to not seek retaliation.
How is it different in the books though? I mean, I don't think there has been any more breaking of guest rights in the show than there are in the books - less actually since there are no Frey Pies in the show.
which gods are butthurt about guest right? Because there is only one god, and his name is Death. And there is only one thing we say to Death: 'Not today'.
Both endings are terrible and the choice is false. You violate guest right (or your mom does it for you) and lose your house and lands. Or you don't and lose them anyway. Gratz.
Lord Manderly actually follows guest right to the letter. He gives the Freys horses when they leave White Harbor, so they were no longer his guests, and he could kill them in revenge for Wendel without breaking guest right at all. But I think the point about the show is that the Freys are not made to suffer for the Red Wedding, since there is no Lady Stoneheart hanging them in the Riverlands and plotting a second Red Wedding when Daven Lannister marries a Frey at Riverrun. Instead the Freys, and the idea of guest right in general, is forgotten completely by the show.
I keep wondering what "Guest Right" means in the show version of Game of Thrones....nothing apparently or otherwise the Freys would be having some huge rebellion problems holding the Riverlands since they, you know killed all the possible high-born hostages that would have kept them in check (like in the books).
I don't think Asher has too much to worry about other then that "Guest Right" is going down the toilet from the RW and it is starting to show. Who can trust Guest Right after it was violated so badly and the Iron Throne(Lannisters) condones it?
I wonder if the traitor is still alive if you spared him in the Gwyn ending?
Check the codex in the Gwyn ending.
If season 6 forgets it then you can say that, because it will be the first season to return to the Riverland plot and Freys after Red Wedding.