They did it so well too. Ludd is bitter because his wife and firstborn son are dead and he genuinely cares for his family. Gryff is bitter because he was bullied by his brothers growing up (I had a feeling his birth and his mother's death were connected, which certainly couldn't help matters.) Gwyn has torn loyalties and just wanted to avoid violence.
All that was immediately thrown away with episode five's ending.
This phrase is cliche as fuck, but I'm still going to say it - the whole Whitehill situation in ep. 5 is a shitload of wasted potential. Tel… moreltale has managed to humanize them perfectly - and for what? To make them one these characters you just hate and want to flay alive once again? The whole Whitehill-Forrester conflict could've been so complicated from moral point of view, their relationship could've been made player-determinant - from pure hatred to attempts of making peace. But of course. We need drama, we need super hard choice, which could've been avoided by simply using some brains, and we need bad guys with magic healing abilities and no redeeming qualities at all. Nicely done, telltale. Nicely done.
Well, that person was planning to go to war against the people he serves. The smile and spitting were pretty overboard but if we had been in opposite positions I'd have done the same. In fact with Gryff I DID do the same, just without the pleasure of the kill.
Well, that person was planning to go to war against the people he serves. The smile and spitting were pretty overboard but if we had been in… more opposite positions I'd have done the same. In fact with Gryff I DID do the same, just without the pleasure of the kill.
To tell the truth, I still have a tiny shred of hope for Whitehills being shown not as a pure evil, but as characters you can at least understand. Now the only hope left for that is something Gwyn might do - and, maybe, getting to know Gregor's and Ludd's backstory, considering the fact, that Ludd implies, that they weren't always enemies. The fact, that Gregor's father fought Whitehills for the part of the grove (if I remember correctly) may mean something too. But I need to face the truth - Gryff is a dead man walking. No way they are going to even make him determinant. The whole point of choices is the player being at least a bit torn between the options - and how do you think this one will look? "You and 100% of players have gutted him like a fooking fish"?
I hated that.
They humanised him: "Gryff was bullied a lot by his brothers growing up"
And then "LOLOLOLOL I'M GONNA SMIRK AS ONE OF THE FORRESTER BROTHERS DIES"
He saved Rodrik from an ass kicking/death. He didn't kill Royland when he was well within his rights to (if you chose to have Royland attack). He isn't as much of an asshole as the other Whitehill soldiers, he generally just stays quiet. In the final fight he didn't do anything except spear the Beast and move on the Forrester brother after they went for Gryff, he just observed the fight and didn't make a move except when he had to.
Pretty much, he only speaks or kills when he has to. Plus I like his voice and mannerisms. He's strong and confident enough that he could be the biggest asshole out of all the Whitehill soldiers (even Gryff) but chooses not to be.
To tell the truth, I still have a tiny shred of hope for Whitehills being shown not as a pure evil, but as characters you can at least under… morestand. Now the only hope left for that is something Gwyn might do - and, maybe, getting to know Gregor's and Ludd's backstory, considering the fact, that Ludd implies, that they weren't always enemies. The fact, that Gregor's father fought Whitehills for the part of the grove (if I remember correctly) may mean something too. But I need to face the truth - Gryff is a dead man walking. No way they are going to even make him determinant. The whole point of choices is the player being at least a bit torn between the options - and how do you think this one will look? "You and 100% of players have gutted him like a fooking fish"?
He saved Rodrik from an ass kicking/death. He didn't kill Royland when he was well within his rights to (if you chose to have Royland attack… more). He isn't as much of an asshole as the other Whitehill soldiers, he generally just stays quiet. In the final fight he didn't do anything except spear the Beast and move on the Forrester brother after they went for Gryff, he just observed the fight and didn't make a move except when he had to.
Pretty much, he only speaks or kills when he has to. Plus I like his voice and mannerisms. He's strong and confident enough that he could be the biggest asshole out of all the Whitehill soldiers (even Gryff) but chooses not to be.
No, I like him because he's calm and quiet and isn't as dickish as he could be. He's strong and confident enough that he could be an asshole constantly. He isn't though. The only really bad thing he does is spit on the Forrester brother and hit him in the eye (unless you hit Gryff in the eye like I did, then it's reasonable.)
He threatens the forresters at every possibility. He laid the first blow of Asher/Rodrik and the final killing blow while hitting him in the eye and spitting on him with a smirk. He is a piece of shit.
No, I like him because he's calm and quiet and isn't as dickish as he could be. He's strong and confident enough that he could be an asshole… more constantly. He isn't though. The only really bad thing he does is spit on the Forrester brother and hit him in the eye (unless you hit Gryff in the eye like I did, then it's reasonable.)
Come to think of it, there is one thing they can do to actually make the choice work - let us choose between killing Gryff and saving Talia (Ryon obviously does not fit here, most players genuinely don't give two shits about him, though I'd gladly sacrifice Talia to save him). I can't say, that I can vouch for the result of such choice, not to mention that it's unlikely to happen at all.
He threatens them once... After saving Rodrik. The Forrester Brother was his enemy and made a move against the person he serves, there is literally nothing wrong with him killing him. The spitting on him was excessive (unless you knocked out or spit on Gryff), as was the eye thing (unless you took Gryff's eye.) The smirk wasn't necessary but I don't blame him for it, they just took out an enemy leader and had a successful mission against those that imprisoned him.
He threatens the forresters at every possibility. He laid the first blow of Asher/Rodrik and the final killing blow while hitting him in the eye and spitting on him with a smirk. He is a piece of shit.
He threatens them once... After saving Rodrik. The Forrester Brother was his enemy and made a move against the person he serves, there is li… moreterally nothing wrong with him killing him. The spitting on him was excessive (unless you knocked out or spit on Gryff), as was the eye thing (unless you took Gryff's eye.) The smirk wasn't necessary but I don't blame him for it, they just took out an enemy leader and had a successful mission against those that imprisoned him.
He laughs and introduces Gryff during the scene in the picture.
Later he tells the Whitehill soldiers to leave Rodrik alone and that Gryff will deal with him it later, and when Gryff's done "he'll own this fucking House."
He is quiet. He is not as much of an asshole as he could be, especially with his strength and confidence. He avoids violence until it's needed. His voice is sexy as fuck. He saves Rodrik and (possibly) Royland.
I find it strange, that if Asher stays behind he just gives him a black eye, but if it's Rodrick he always completely destroys his eye, no matter what you did to Gryff earlier. Like, how Rodrick, if he hasn't even touched Gryff, is any different from Asher, whom he didn't maim due to the fact, that he hasn't done that to Gryff? Or is it something wrong with my logic and Harys actually has other reasons?
I totally agree with you though. Harys is just a soldier, no wonder that defeating an enemy lord makes him satisfied. He tried to avoid violence for as long as he could, which is more than can be said for any other member of the garrison. I don't care what anybody else thinks, he is not a bad guy and obviously an interesting character in my book.
He threatens them once... After saving Rodrik. The Forrester Brother was his enemy and made a move against the person he serves, there is li… moreterally nothing wrong with him killing him. The spitting on him was excessive (unless you knocked out or spit on Gryff), as was the eye thing (unless you took Gryff's eye.) The smirk wasn't necessary but I don't blame him for it, they just took out an enemy leader and had a successful mission against those that imprisoned him.
Yes. Although the black eye/completely obliterated eye thing did stick out for me. I don't understand that at all. I suppose it could be that he's had a more negative experience with Rodrik. Maybe.
It still makes more sense than the traitor though.
I find it strange, that if Asher stays behind he just gives him a black eye, but if it's Rodrick he always completely destroys his eye, no m… moreatter what you did to Gryff earlier. Like, how Rodrick, if he hasn't even touched Gryff, is any different from Asher, whom he didn't maim due to the fact, that he hasn't done that to Gryff? Or is it something wrong with my logic and Harys actually has other reasons?
I totally agree with you though. Harys is just a soldier, no wonder that defeating an enemy lord makes him satisfied. He tried to avoid violence for as long as he could, which is more than can be said for any other member of the garrison. I don't care what anybody else thinks, he is not a bad guy and obviously an interesting character in my book.
Eh. My reasons make quite a bit of sense.
You not understanding =/= Not making sense.
He is quiet. He is not as much of an asshole as … morehe could be, especially with his strength and confidence. He avoids violence until it's needed. His voice is sexy as fuck. He saves Rodrik and (possibly) Royland.
Eh. My reasons make quite a bit of sense.
You not understanding =/= Not making sense.
He is quiet. He is not as much of an asshole as … morehe could be, especially with his strength and confidence. He avoids violence until it's needed. His voice is sexy as fuck. He saves Rodrik and (possibly) Royland.
Believe me, mate. Even if it turns out, that whoever stayed behind survived due to being "real lucky", Talia and Ryon team up and kill all the Whitehills with their bare hands and Gared flies back to Westeros on a back of an Ice Dragon he has found in the North Grove and destroys the Bolton's army - it will still make more sense than the traitor.
Yes. Although the black eye/completely obliterated eye thing did stick out for me. I don't understand that at all. I suppose it could be tha… moret he's had a more negative experience with Rodrik. Maybe.
It still makes more sense than the traitor though.
Being quiet is a character trait. I can learn as much from a character that is quiet as I can a character that talks, and talks and talks. He could be harassing the Forresters constantly, he could have joined in/ignored Rodrik's ass-kicking. He avoids violence, in the last fight he only spears the Beast and moves against the Brother moving towards Gryff. He stays on the sideline until he's needed. I like reserved/introverted characters. I don't think Ludd would care, after all Gryff is there purely to instigate things and cause Rodrik's death, the Bolton's wouldn't care because at the moment 0% of their Ironwood is coming from the Forresters.
The traitor reveal was stupid and should never be taken into account for anything ever. Besides, I don't think him or Gryff knew there even was a traitor.
He is quiet.
Apparently characters that don't have any character development from dialogue are a good thing.
He is not as much… more of an asshole as he could be
Yes he is.
especially with his strength and confidence.
This is actually a good reason to like his character.
He avoids violence until it's needed
I don't see much of that. In fact he just seems threatening and knows people won't mess with him.
His voice is sexy as fuck
That's not a fact.
He saves Rodrik
So Ludd doesn't get pissy and the Boltons don't crack down for hurting their ironwood supply.
(possibly) Royland.
Who could be the traitor.
I admit, that I may be wrong about your opinion, but the thing about people denying good qualities of some charaters just because they are not friendly towards Forresters still exists.
Careful now, I don't think Gryff would like that. That's his boyfriend and knowing Gryff he'll get super jealous and want to teach you a lesson in humility.
Being quiet is a character trait. I can learn as much from a character that is quiet as I can a character that talks, and talks and talks.
It is a character trait but no, you can not learn as much from a quiet character as you can from a one that talks. Unless the character is on screen a lot and participates in a lot, then no, you can't.
He avoids violence
He avoids violence because he is huge and no one is dumb enough to fight him.
the Bolton's wouldn't care because at the moment 0% of their Ironwood is coming from the Forresters.
The Boltons would care. Ramsay hates when people go against his order, the boltons need ironwood, the Whitehills produce bad ironwood. This is obvious from when Ludd needs the forresters at Highpoint.
The traitor reveal was stupid and should never be taken into account for anything ever.
Lmao, so you're just going to ignore an important point of the game because you didn't like it? Explains why you like this guy.
Being quiet is a character trait. I can learn as much from a character that is quiet as I can a character that talks, and talks and talks. H… moree could be harassing the Forresters constantly, he could have joined in/ignored Rodrik's ass-kicking. He avoids violence, in the last fight he only spears the Beast and moves against the Brother moving towards Gryff. He stays on the sideline until he's needed. I like reserved/introverted characters. I don't think Ludd would care, after all Gryff is there purely to instigate things and cause Rodrik's death, the Bolton's wouldn't care because at the moment 0% of their Ironwood is coming from the Forresters.
The traitor reveal was stupid and should never be taken into account for anything ever. Besides, I don't think him or Gryff knew there even was a traitor.
His voice is Sexy. As. Fuck.
What good qualities? He brought up one or two, which I agreed were good character traits but his character isn't likable, his other reasons were wrong as they usually go against other facts and reasons.
I admit, that I may be wrong about your opinion, but the thing about people denying good qualities of some charaters just because they are not friendly towards Forresters still exists.
Yes. A lot can be learned from silence. He isn't as violent as he could be, he could have just put his sword through Royland's back, or stomped him to death after taking him down, or could have beat Rodrik. The Boltons really wouldn't care. Ramsay ignored Ludd defying his order to only take half the forest, he had them install a garrison to keep the Forresters in line, keeping them in line is vague, but it's safe to assume that "killing opposition" falls under this. Ludd needs the Forresters but Gryff and Co. don't know that. Plus Rodrik isn't a woodworker, he isn't what Ludd needs. The traitor reveal wasn't important and should ALWAYS be ignored. It had no influence over anything and never will, it was cheap shock value and explains nothing about why I like Harys. That was stupid, think before replying.
Being quiet is a character trait. I can learn as much from a character that is quiet as I can a character that talks, and talks and talks.
… more
It is a character trait but no, you can not learn as much from a quiet character as you can from a one that talks. Unless the character is on screen a lot and participates in a lot, then no, you can't.
He avoids violence
He avoids violence because he is huge and no one is dumb enough to fight him.
the Bolton's wouldn't care because at the moment 0% of their Ironwood is coming from the Forresters.
The Boltons would care. Ramsay hates when people go against his order, the boltons need ironwood, the Whitehills produce bad ironwood. This is obvious from when Ludd needs the forresters at Highpoint.
The traitor reveal was stupid and should never be taken into account for anything ever.
Lmao, so you're just going to ignore an important point of the game because you didn't like it? Explains why you like this guy.
Eh no, all my reasons were backed up by scenes from the game. You've brought nothing but "he threatens them!" (he does once, after Rodrik hits or threatens them), he's a piece of shit/an asshole! (m'kay... that adds nothing.) Ludd or the Boltons will be mad because wood! (Rodrik doesn't craft the Ironwood, he isn't a woodworker, his death is okay in the long run.)
What good qualities? He brought up one or two, which I agreed were good character traits but his character isn't likable, his other reasons were wrong as they usually go against other facts and reasons.
Well, for me those qualities are enough to call a character likeable. If they aren't for you, that's understandable. But you can't just say "the character is not likeable" like it's a fact. For you, maybe, but not for everybody.
What good qualities? He brought up one or two, which I agreed were good character traits but his character isn't likable, his other reasons were wrong as they usually go against other facts and reasons.
Nothing can be learned from silence, I think you mean, a lot can be learned from actions.
Ramsay ignored Ludd defying his order to only take half the forest
Ramsay didn't know.
he had them install a garrison to keep the Forresters in line, keeping them in line is vague, but it's safe to assume that "killing opposition" falls under this.
Killing the last lord of the house isn't keeping someone in line, it's completely taking over a house.
Ludd needs the Forresters but Gryff and Co. don't know that.
You act like Gryff is a completely separate entity from The Whitehills. Ludd tells Gryff things. That was stupid, think before replying.
The traitor reveal wasn't important and should ALWAYS be ignored.
The traitor reveal was a huge part of the plot. I don't like it either but you can just think none of it happened.
It had no influence over anything and never will, it was cheap shock value and explains nothing about why I like Harys.
Wow. Wow...That's really...Wow. You said that Harys didn't step in when Royland tried to fight it, if Royland is the traitor then he wouldn't step in. That is directly correlating. For fucks sake, try to read your posts and connect things before saying something completely different.
Yes. A lot can be learned from silence. He isn't as violent as he could be, he could have just put his sword through Royland's back, or stom… moreped him to death after taking him down, or could have beat Rodrik. The Boltons really wouldn't care. Ramsay ignored Ludd defying his order to only take half the forest, he had them install a garrison to keep the Forresters in line, keeping them in line is vague, but it's safe to assume that "killing opposition" falls under this. Ludd needs the Forresters but Gryff and Co. don't know that. Plus Rodrik isn't a woodworker, he isn't what Ludd needs. The traitor reveal wasn't important and should ALWAYS be ignored. It had no influence over anything and never will, it was cheap shock value and explains nothing about why I like Harys. That was stupid, think before replying.
Eh no, all my reasons were backed up by scenes from the game.
Scenes of the game which directly correlate with scenes that show different sides of it.
You've brought nothing but "he threatens them!"
You decided not to read my arguments apparently.
(m'kay... that adds nothing.)
That's everything.
Ludd or the Boltons will be mad because wood!
Rodrik leads the house that crafts the best wood, guess what happens when you kill the last lord...Oh yes, the house goes into chaos meaning production stops and the workers starve. Asher wasn't there yet, Ludd has the last lord captured, and the women are...Well, it's game of thrones.
Eh no, all my reasons were backed up by scenes from the game. You've brought nothing but "he threatens them!" (he does once, after Rodrik hi… morets or threatens them), he's a piece of shit/an asshole! (m'kay... that adds nothing.) Ludd or the Boltons will be mad because wood! (Rodrik doesn't craft the Ironwood, he isn't a woodworker, his death is okay in the long run.)
Fair enough, it is opinions. Although, I severely disagree with the statements and wanted some reasons why, I disagree with the reasons. I apologize if I got a little aggressive in my posts with you, it is your opinion.
Well, for me those qualities are enough to call a character likeable. If they aren't for you, that's understandable. But you can't just say "the character is not likeable" like it's a fact. For you, maybe, but not for everybody.
Yes. A lot can be learned from silence.
Nothing can be learned from silence, I think you mean, a lot can be learned from actions.
… more Ramsay ignored Ludd defying his order to only take half the forest
Ramsay didn't know.
he had them install a garrison to keep the Forresters in line, keeping them in line is vague, but it's safe to assume that "killing opposition" falls under this.
Killing the last lord of the house isn't keeping someone in line, it's completely taking over a house.
Ludd needs the Forresters but Gryff and Co. don't know that.
You act like Gryff is a completely separate entity from The Whitehills. Ludd tells Gryff things. That was stupid, think before replying.
The traitor reveal wasn't important and should ALWAYS be ignored.
The traitor reveal was a huge part of the plot. I don't like it either but you can just think none of it happened.
It had no influence over … [view original content]
Killing the last lord of the house is fine, Rodrik doesn't work the wood, they don't need him.
Are you actually being serious? "Our leadership is dead, oh well, who needs em."
Stop giving such shit arguments and fucking read. If you're going to post stupid and baseless arguments without thinking then please refrain from posting again.
Holy shit, I would tell you how I feel about you right now but I would get banned. Honestly, if you're going to act like a child when your arguments are being challenged by facts in the game, then I'm not going to keep talking to you.
Comments
He killed the person you sacrificed, with a smile. Fuck him.
They did it so well too. Ludd is bitter because his wife and firstborn son are dead and he genuinely cares for his family. Gryff is bitter because he was bullied by his brothers growing up (I had a feeling his birth and his mother's death were connected, which certainly couldn't help matters.) Gwyn has torn loyalties and just wanted to avoid violence.
All that was immediately thrown away with episode five's ending.
And he spit on him right before too
Well, that person was planning to go to war against the people he serves. The smile and spitting were pretty overboard but if we had been in opposite positions I'd have done the same. In fact with Gryff I DID do the same, just without the pleasure of the kill.
He's still a piece of shit.
Definitely, but I still like him. Doesn't mean I won't kill him though.
Why do you still like him?
To tell the truth, I still have a tiny shred of hope for Whitehills being shown not as a pure evil, but as characters you can at least understand. Now the only hope left for that is something Gwyn might do - and, maybe, getting to know Gregor's and Ludd's backstory, considering the fact, that Ludd implies, that they weren't always enemies. The fact, that Gregor's father fought Whitehills for the part of the grove (if I remember correctly) may mean something too. But I need to face the truth - Gryff is a dead man walking. No way they are going to even make him determinant. The whole point of choices is the player being at least a bit torn between the options - and how do you think this one will look? "You and 100% of players have gutted him like a fooking fish"?
I never thought about him much other than he was a Whitehill goon but Beskha is going to cut his beard off and shove it up his ass.
He saved Rodrik from an ass kicking/death. He didn't kill Royland when he was well within his rights to (if you chose to have Royland attack). He isn't as much of an asshole as the other Whitehill soldiers, he generally just stays quiet. In the final fight he didn't do anything except spear the Beast and move on the Forrester brother after they went for Gryff, he just observed the fight and didn't make a move except when he had to.
Pretty much, he only speaks or kills when he has to. Plus I like his voice and mannerisms. He's strong and confident enough that he could be the biggest asshole out of all the Whitehill soldiers (even Gryff) but chooses not to be.
Haha, yes. I'm thinking that the "Kill Gryff" option is going to be the only option where 100% of players agree.
So you like a piece of shit just because...He's strong and confident? If anything his actions are worse than Gryff's.
No, I like him because he's calm and quiet and isn't as dickish as he could be. He's strong and confident enough that he could be an asshole constantly. He isn't though. The only really bad thing he does is spit on the Forrester brother and hit him in the eye (unless you hit Gryff in the eye like I did, then it's reasonable.)
He threatens the forresters at every possibility. He laid the first blow of Asher/Rodrik and the final killing blow while hitting him in the eye and spitting on him with a smirk. He is a piece of shit.
Come to think of it, there is one thing they can do to actually make the choice work - let us choose between killing Gryff and saving Talia (Ryon obviously does not fit here, most players genuinely don't give two shits about him, though I'd gladly sacrifice Talia to save him). I can't say, that I can vouch for the result of such choice, not to mention that it's unlikely to happen at all.
I really like his design, but I didn't even know who Harys was till I saw the picture, how many lines has he had again?
He threatens them once... After saving Rodrik. The Forrester Brother was his enemy and made a move against the person he serves, there is literally nothing wrong with him killing him. The spitting on him was excessive (unless you knocked out or spit on Gryff), as was the eye thing (unless you took Gryff's eye.) The smirk wasn't necessary but I don't blame him for it, they just took out an enemy leader and had a successful mission against those that imprisoned him.
How can you like him. His design maybe but how can you actually like him? You tried to explain it earlier but your reasons make no sense.
He laughs and introduces Gryff during the scene in the picture.
Later he tells the Whitehill soldiers to leave Rodrik alone and that Gryff will deal with him it later, and when Gryff's done "he'll own this fucking House."
So two.
Eh. My reasons make quite a bit of sense.
You not understanding =/= Not making sense.
He is quiet. He is not as much of an asshole as he could be, especially with his strength and confidence. He avoids violence until it's needed. His voice is sexy as fuck. He saves Rodrik and (possibly) Royland.
No, i don't like him,he doesn't have a personality
I find it strange, that if Asher stays behind he just gives him a black eye, but if it's Rodrick he always completely destroys his eye, no matter what you did to Gryff earlier. Like, how Rodrick, if he hasn't even touched Gryff, is any different from Asher, whom he didn't maim due to the fact, that he hasn't done that to Gryff? Or is it something wrong with my logic and Harys actually has other reasons?
I totally agree with you though. Harys is just a soldier, no wonder that defeating an enemy lord makes him satisfied. He tried to avoid violence for as long as he could, which is more than can be said for any other member of the garrison. I don't care what anybody else thinks, he is not a bad guy and obviously an interesting character in my book.
Yes. Although the black eye/completely obliterated eye thing did stick out for me. I don't understand that at all. I suppose it could be that he's had a more negative experience with Rodrik. Maybe.
It still makes more sense than the traitor though.
Apparently characters that don't have any character development from dialogue are a good thing.
Yes he is.
This is actually a good reason to like his character.
I don't see much of that. In fact he just seems threatening and knows people won't mess with him.
That's not a fact.
So Ludd doesn't get pissy and the Boltons don't crack down for hurting their ironwood supply.
Who could be the traitor.
All of your reasons make perfect sense, no sarcasm. But, I guess, for some people "not a Forrester-friendly"="unholy and disgusting satanspawn".
Apparently you jump to conclusions about my opinion on a character.
Believe me, mate. Even if it turns out, that whoever stayed behind survived due to being "real lucky", Talia and Ryon team up and kill all the Whitehills with their bare hands and Gared flies back to Westeros on a back of an Ice Dragon he has found in the North Grove and destroys the Bolton's army - it will still make more sense than the traitor.
Being quiet is a character trait. I can learn as much from a character that is quiet as I can a character that talks, and talks and talks. He could be harassing the Forresters constantly, he could have joined in/ignored Rodrik's ass-kicking. He avoids violence, in the last fight he only spears the Beast and moves against the Brother moving towards Gryff. He stays on the sideline until he's needed. I like reserved/introverted characters. I don't think Ludd would care, after all Gryff is there purely to instigate things and cause Rodrik's death, the Bolton's wouldn't care because at the moment 0% of their Ironwood is coming from the Forresters.
The traitor reveal was stupid and should never be taken into account for anything ever. Besides, I don't think him or Gryff knew there even was a traitor.
His voice is Sexy. As. Fuck.
I admit, that I may be wrong about your opinion, but the thing about people denying good qualities of some charaters just because they are not friendly towards Forresters still exists.
Careful now, I don't think Gryff would like that. That's his boyfriend and knowing Gryff he'll get super jealous and want to teach you a lesson in humility.
It is a character trait but no, you can not learn as much from a quiet character as you can from a one that talks. Unless the character is on screen a lot and participates in a lot, then no, you can't.
He avoids violence because he is huge and no one is dumb enough to fight him.
The Boltons would care. Ramsay hates when people go against his order, the boltons need ironwood, the Whitehills produce bad ironwood. This is obvious from when Ludd needs the forresters at Highpoint.
Lmao, so you're just going to ignore an important point of the game because you didn't like it? Explains why you like this guy.
What good qualities? He brought up one or two, which I agreed were good character traits but his character isn't likable, his other reasons were wrong as they usually go against other facts and reasons.
Yes. A lot can be learned from silence. He isn't as violent as he could be, he could have just put his sword through Royland's back, or stomped him to death after taking him down, or could have beat Rodrik. The Boltons really wouldn't care. Ramsay ignored Ludd defying his order to only take half the forest, he had them install a garrison to keep the Forresters in line, keeping them in line is vague, but it's safe to assume that "killing opposition" falls under this. Ludd needs the Forresters but Gryff and Co. don't know that. Plus Rodrik isn't a woodworker, he isn't what Ludd needs. The traitor reveal wasn't important and should ALWAYS be ignored. It had no influence over anything and never will, it was cheap shock value and explains nothing about why I like Harys. That was stupid, think before replying.
Eh no, all my reasons were backed up by scenes from the game. You've brought nothing but "he threatens them!" (he does once, after Rodrik hits or threatens them), he's a piece of shit/an asshole! (m'kay... that adds nothing.) Ludd or the Boltons will be mad because wood! (Rodrik doesn't craft the Ironwood, he isn't a woodworker, his death is okay in the long run.)
Well, for me those qualities are enough to call a character likeable. If they aren't for you, that's understandable. But you can't just say "the character is not likeable" like it's a fact. For you, maybe, but not for everybody.
Nothing can be learned from silence, I think you mean, a lot can be learned from actions.
Ramsay didn't know.
Killing the last lord of the house isn't keeping someone in line, it's completely taking over a house.
You act like Gryff is a completely separate entity from The Whitehills. Ludd tells Gryff things. That was stupid, think before replying.
The traitor reveal was a huge part of the plot. I don't like it either but you can just think none of it happened.
Wow. Wow...That's really...Wow. You said that Harys didn't step in when Royland tried to fight it, if Royland is the traitor then he wouldn't step in. That is directly correlating. For fucks sake, try to read your posts and connect things before saying something completely different.
Scenes of the game which directly correlate with scenes that show different sides of it.
You decided not to read my arguments apparently.
That's everything.
Rodrik leads the house that crafts the best wood, guess what happens when you kill the last lord...Oh yes, the house goes into chaos meaning production stops and the workers starve. Asher wasn't there yet, Ludd has the last lord captured, and the women are...Well, it's game of thrones.
Fair enough, it is opinions. Although, I severely disagree with the statements and wanted some reasons why, I disagree with the reasons. I apologize if I got a little aggressive in my posts with you, it is your opinion.
[removed]
Are you actually being serious? "Our leadership is dead, oh well, who needs em."
Holy shit, I would tell you how I feel about you right now but I would get banned. Honestly, if you're going to act like a child when your arguments are being challenged by facts in the game, then I'm not going to keep talking to you.