So what if he's been bullied? I don't give a shit if he has some superiority complex, what Gryff did was horrible, and the beating of him was justified. He had done nothing redeemable, he had never been fair, he had never tried to make peace, nothing. If I was playing as Gryff I sure as hell wouldn't be beating on Rodrik because there was simply no reason to do so.
It is all about perspective. Imagine if we were playing as the Whitehills, if we were Gryff. However, right now, we are playing as the Forre… moresters, as Rodrik. This is the way narration in storytelling goes. There are always two sides to a story, but the point of storytelling is to make the audience/players sympathize with the main characters/the playable characters. And in the GoT universe, none of the characters are either only good or bad, that's what makes the story more intriguing and the choices harder. We didn't know Gryff had been bullied as a child, nor did Rodrik. And that's the whole point.
So what if he's been bullied? I don't give a shit if he has some superiority complex, what Gryff did was horrible, and the beating of him wa… mores justified. He had done nothing redeemable, he had never been fair, he had never tried to make peace, nothing. If I was playing as Gryff I sure as hell wouldn't be beating on Rodrik because there was simply no reason to do so.
Since arriving at Ironrath he and his men have done nothing but abuse the smallfolk, mock Ethan's death, threaten multiple members of the Forrester family including children, and in Gryff's cause brutally beating the Maester, and attempting to the do the same to Rodrik twice despite the fact that Rodrik is crippled. Gryff also angrily demanded 'justice' for one of his men bitten by Talia in self-defense after he put his hands on her.
It's not about perspective at all. The guy is a complete jerkass who was asking for the beating he eventually gets.
You didn't see what Forresters did to Whitehills to make them so mad. And I can actually see Ludd's claims that Forresters were arrogant and… more bitchy, it's not like both are perfect, and Whitehills didn't even had ironwood (maybe Forresters deliberately fucked up their teaching, and Whitehills just didn't know proper way of caring for Ironwood trees, lost them, and smug Forresters remained only suppliers)
My bad then. I thought you were saying that based on perspective the beating of Gryff was somehow an evil choice. If I were playing as the Whitehills Gryff would be a very different person because of my actions. I can't see how his actions would look any different due to perspective, he was made to be a horrible character that you would fear, like Ramsey. He has no redeeming qualities that are shown or spoken of by his own family.
Completely different situations, other members above explained it very well.
Also give me a break with all the "we don't know the Whitehills's side of the story". Forresters = Atreides and Whitehills = Harkonnen so much that I sometimes almost expect them to discuss Spice instead of Ironwood.
And I never needed to know the Harkonnen's side of the story to figure out that they were a bunch of arrogant, sadistic bastards. They act like ones, they are ones, don't give a shit about their reasons.
Definitely not. If we were playing as Gryff, we'd be seeing a different side to him. But Gryff is an antagonist and that is because we are supposed to sympathize with Rodrik (and the Forresters). From a narrative point of view - you have the good guy vs. the bad guy. It doesn't mean the classic hero vs. the one-dimensional villain (thankfully). That is what I love about Game of Thrones. Basically no villain is without purpose, and no good guy is without flaws. Now I'm not saying Gryff isn't horrible, but he does (in his eyes) have a reason for what he's doing. He clearly wants to prove something (to Ludd), he's grown up thinking the Forresters are horrible people, just as Ludd thinks. It doesn't justify his behavior, but from his point-of-view he does have his reason. In the end, he is human... even if he is a pretty crappy human. I don't know if you've played Heavy Rain, but that game is a perfect example of how you play as a villain all the way without your knowledge, and you grow to really sympathize with them during the game. In conclusion, perspective is very important. On an end note: Rodrik is my second favorite character, so I'm definitely not speaking against him
My bad then. I thought you were saying that based on perspective the beating of Gryff was somehow an evil choice. If I were playing as the W… morehitehills Gryff would be a very different person because of my actions. I can't see how his actions would look any different due to perspective, he was made to be a horrible character that you would fear, like Ramsey. He has no redeeming qualities that are shown or spoken of by his own family.
Considering Kenny was justified in both of those things...its close enough to nothing.
Kenny kills one of Carver's men but it is after Carver's group takes hostages at gunpoint from Kenny's group. The stealing of tools occurs after Kenny and his group have been basically abducted (also at gunpoint) and taken to Carver's camp to work. (a.k.a. slavery)
Hard to see how Carver's beating of Kenny in retaliation in any way compares to Rodrik's beating of Gryff, other than both being assaults.
Did nothing to Carver,
Kinda bs there, he killed one of his friends and shot him in the process. Later he steals a necessary tool C… morearver ha in attempt to release a herd on Carver's camp in attempt Ty o kill them all.
That's your definition of nothing, huh?
I was afraid Rodrik might kill Gryff. I didn't want that outcome because I knew he could be exchanged for Ryon even before Lady Forrester suggested it, but I still had Rodrik continue beating Gryff. If he died I would just have reloaded and taken every prompt until the one that triggers a fatality.
I'm partly wondering how many people kept on clicking the prompts in hopes that they were one click away from killing Gryff. I held back onc… moree the cane came up, but I really wanted to make a crack at Gryff for calling my bluff and making a quip about using a walking stick against him. I promise Elaena that I'll kill him to protect her, and suddenly I'm not allowed to fetch a cheese knife? It worked out well in the end, I guess.
As i view it, Kenny was a buddy, and got viewed as a friend from Season 1. Depending on how you play and friendly up with Kenny, he will be a great and caring character. Carver and Kenny situation is way different from Gryff and Rodrik situation.
Carver is seen as an oppressor who beat up Kenny because he had cover Clementine. Carver beat him down unnecessary to the point of life threatening. Kenny wanted revenge and killed him. The situation with Gryff and Rodrik is that Gryff was brought in to bring chaos and give a reason for Whitehills to use aggression. Gryff as he is power-hungry beat up a cripple(Rodrik) so he can be "Lord" of Ironrath, he later went on to threaten to kill Talia,bully Duncan(depending on your choices), and also beat up Maester because he felt like it. He also threatened to teach Rodrik "another lesson on Humility". Which didn't happen because Glenmore army. He was put and viewed as a villain, he was there to stop whatever you wanted to do. I view both situations as you described to be totally different from each other.
You taunt me about my dead brother, you push my little sister down and say she will end up the same way, you disrespect my house by stealing and tearing down family paintings, you beat down a crippled man who is still twice the man you are, and you beat the maester and break his fingers. Maiming him wasn't even close to what I wanted to do to him.
I actually have played Heavy Rain and it's amazing. I understand what you're saying about perspective but Gryff just wasn't fleshed out enough and that isn't Telltale's fault since they really couldn't have you bond with that character. I feel that if we saw a different side to Gryff earlier I may have not hit him at all but since we only saw "LOL you my bitch!" he gained no sympathy from me.
Definitely not. If we were playing as Gryff, we'd be seeing a different side to him. But Gryff is an antagonist and that is because we are s… moreupposed to sympathize with Rodrik (and the Forresters). From a narrative point of view - you have the good guy vs. the bad guy. It doesn't mean the classic hero vs. the one-dimensional villain (thankfully). That is what I love about Game of Thrones. Basically no villain is without purpose, and no good guy is without flaws. Now I'm not saying Gryff isn't horrible, but he does (in his eyes) have a reason for what he's doing. He clearly wants to prove something (to Ludd), he's grown up thinking the Forresters are horrible people, just as Ludd thinks. It doesn't justify his behavior, but from his point-of-view he does have his reason. In the end, he is human... even if he is a pretty crappy human. I don't know if you've played Heavy Rain, but that game is a perfect example of how you play as a villain all the… [view original content]
I consider my Rodrick to be a bad guy. I don't want my playthrough to be Whitehills=bad Forresters=good. I like Whitehills=bad Forresters=bad. So I had no issue maiming Gryff, I'd have kill him if it was possible, I wrote Ryon off as dead the moment he became Ludd's ward.
If you were Gryff you might have very good reason to be beating Rodrik. He's could have been shitting on the Whitehills his entire life. We don't know what went down before the series starts between the families. It says they used to be allies but they've probably be natural enemies of one another in their generation.
So what if he's been bullied? I don't give a shit if he has some superiority complex, what Gryff did was horrible, and the beating of him wa… mores justified. He had done nothing redeemable, he had never been fair, he had never tried to make peace, nothing. If I was playing as Gryff I sure as hell wouldn't be beating on Rodrik because there was simply no reason to do so.
Except the situations were not the same at all. A generally good guy that was being held against his will in a prison camp takes a beating f… morerom his captor and loses his eye for it. With GOT a snobby prick that has beaten on a crippled man and other people for absolutely no reason for the past 2 episodes gets beaten by the same crippled man. 1st scenario= Good/Neutral guy gets beaten by the antagonist. 2nd scenario= Antagonist gets beaten by good guy because he had been picked on and beaten by the same antagonist.
I'd be fine with doing that to Gryff. I'd say Kenny turned psychotic but I wouldn't say he was like Carver. Carver was more of a sociopath. Kenny at least had somewhat good intentions whereas Carver was just an ass.
Jane said herself the best. "once you smash someones head in it becomes a lot easier to do it again". But youre right he probably wasn't going to turn into a Carver type leader over random people that join him.. But i could see him as a drifter like Nate going arond killing people for their stuff.
I'd be fine with doing that to Gryff. I'd say Kenny turned psychotic but I wouldn't say he was like Carver. Carver was more of a sociopath. Kenny at least had somewhat good intentions whereas Carver was just an ass.
Yeah, I'm in team kenny and proud, Jane is just a moany bitch, Luke is a sexually-disabled-asshole-that-wants-his-dick-wet (And all of his body got wet in episode 5 if you know what I mean muahaha >:D), Arvo a Russian asshole, I now hate Russians because of DayZ, Lee was black ew.
The Forresters never got the Whitehills to bend the knee. You only bend the knee to your Liege Lord (The Boltons are the Whitehills Liege Lord), the Warden of the North (The Starks), and the King. What the hell are you talking about?
King (Joffrey) => Wardens (of the north - Starks - used to be, Boltons - current) => Lords (Glovers, Boltons - used to be) => Minor Lords (Whitehills, Forresters) => ........
Whitehills are sworn to the Boltons and Forresters are sworn to the Glovers. Boltons are wardens of the north and Whitehills, Forresters, Glovers and every other lord at the north "serve" to the Boltons.
I know what Jane said but she was completely nuts. Kenny and Carver were too different people. Kenny was psychotic but he was essentialy a chaotic good/neutral while Carver was mad, crazy and killer that killed Regie without reason.
Also I would be ok with smashing Gryff´s head nobody will threaten to my family.
Jane said herself the best. "once you smash someones head in it becomes a lot easier to do it again". But youre right he probably wasn't g… moreoing to turn into a Carver type leader over random people that join him.. But i could see him as a drifter like Nate going arond killing people for their stuff.
The Forresters never got the Whitehills to bend the knee. You only bend the knee to your Liege Lord (The Boltons are the Whitehills Liege Lord), the Warden of the North (The Starks), and the King. What the hell are you talking about?
I meant it more like the situations were reversed. Im sure the starks would have been on our side when they were Wardens of the north which means the whitehills would need to obey us the same way that we have to obey them now. I don't mean that the Forresters were Wardens of the north. Im very well aware of the hierarchy in Westeros lol
@Wigams Hierarchy in Westeros works like this:
King (Joffrey) => Wardens (of the north - Starks - used to be, Boltons - current) =>… more; Lords (Glovers, Boltons - used to be) => Minor Lords (Whitehills, Forresters) => ........
Whitehills are sworn to the Boltons and Forresters are sworn to the Glovers. Boltons are wardens of the north and Whitehills, Forresters, Glovers and every other lord at the north "serve" to the Boltons.
Jane wasn't completely nuts? I think you misunderstood everything about her if that's you see it. Kenny wasn't a "good/neutral" character. He was the main source of tension and conflict in the group throughout episodes 4-5, always insulting others opinions, his way is the only way, is only aware of his own feelings/family (ben points that out in season 1), etc.
And to your Carver thing. Well Arvo wasn't a mad, crazy killer and Kenny automatically treats him the way Carver would have treated him presumably because of what he did to Carver. If he hadn't been so hard on Arvo and just accepted him into the group then why would Mike, Bonnie and him ever leave? Why would Arvo even shoot Clementine? That entire part is all Kenny's fault.
I know what Jane said but she was completely nuts. Kenny and Carver were too different people. Kenny was psychotic but he was essentialy a c… morehaotic good/neutral while Carver was mad, crazy and killer that killed Regie without reason.
Also I would be ok with smashing Gryff´s head nobody will threaten to my family.
Dont make me start about Arvo. He would bring his group to us and robb us whatever you rob him or no. If there was a way to kill him stright in the beginning he would be dead. There was a city, I had no intention to go hunt some house that could be real or it could be a lie.
Jane wasn't completely nuts? I think you misunderstood everything about her if that's you see it. Kenny wasn't a "good/neutral" character… more. He was the main source of tension and conflict in the group throughout episodes 4-5, always insulting others opinions, his way is the only way, is only aware of his own feelings/family (ben points that out in season 1), etc.
And to your Carver thing. Well Arvo wasn't a mad, crazy killer and Kenny automatically treats him the way Carver would have treated him presumably because of what he did to Carver. If he hadn't been so hard on Arvo and just accepted him into the group then why would Mike, Bonnie and him ever leave? Why would Arvo even shoot Clementine? That entire part is all Kenny's fault.
Finally a thread that has some Kenny lovers.
TeamKenny
Yeah, I'm in team kenny and proud, Jane is just a moany bitch, Luke is a sexual… morely-disabled-asshole-that-wants-his-dick-wet (And all of his body got wet in episode 5 if you know what I mean muahaha >:D), Arvo a Russian asshole, I now hate Russians because of DayZ, Lee was black ew.
Serious. Except for the Lee part, I'm not.
You didn't see him ? He's a very important character, he's even in the Codex !
Jokes aside, a controversial character from The Walking Dead game also made by Telltale. Some people love him, some people hate him, his attitude towards you depends on the choices you made.
But he has a similar scene to Rodrik's beating up of Gryff, except he plays Griff's role, getting beat up (and blinded) to protect a little girl.
So on one hand we have a guy imprisoned against his will, who had one of his friends killed and got beat up to cover a little girl and on the other hand we have a sadistic moron who gets what he deserves.
But I won't bother going any further, people have covered that extensively already.
Gryff COULD have done much worse, that's why i didn't try to beat him to death, Rodrik just had his revenge. About the plot thing, it actually DOES tell u who is right, that's why it's a plot after all, unless there's a plot twist coming, the whitehills are wrong.
That's not bending the knee. "Bending the knee" refers to swearing fealty. The Whitehills have never been subservient to the Forresters - at least not according to any official details. You're just making shit up to bolster your argument since you can't provide actual supporting evidence.
Never been subservient to the Forresters? Well according to in-game dialogue they have been.
"It was bad when you were above us but now its even worse cause you can't see how far you've fallen" - Gryff Whitehill
"You Forresters have shit on us for generations. Well now the starks are no longer around to have your back, are they? Were the power in the North now." - Ludd Whitehill.
Supporting enough for you? Alright they never "swore fealty" to the Forresters. They would have probably had to bend the knee for the Starks who we gladly followed. We we're probably tasked with keeping the Whitehills in check just as the Whitehills are being tasked to keep us in line. We were higher up in the food chain with the Starks in power the same way the whitehills are higher in the food chain with the boltons in power. That is all that i meant,
That's not bending the knee. "Bending the knee" refers to swearing fealty. The Whitehills have never been subservient to the Forresters - at… more least not according to any official details. You're just making shit up to bolster your argument since you can't provide actual supporting evidence.
Comments
So what if he's been bullied? I don't give a shit if he has some superiority complex, what Gryff did was horrible, and the beating of him was justified. He had done nothing redeemable, he had never been fair, he had never tried to make peace, nothing. If I was playing as Gryff I sure as hell wouldn't be beating on Rodrik because there was simply no reason to do so.
I didnt really care in either instance
Kenny beating carver was a bit of a waste of time, I've never really had an issue with it
Gryff was more just something we could use in the future. I dont care about Gryff but after 2 punches the hostage needs some credibility
That's not what I said? I only implied that we are seeing everything from Rodrik's point of view.
Gryff is a bad guy.
Since arriving at Ironrath he and his men have done nothing but abuse the smallfolk, mock Ethan's death, threaten multiple members of the Forrester family including children, and in Gryff's cause brutally beating the Maester, and attempting to the do the same to Rodrik twice despite the fact that Rodrik is crippled. Gryff also angrily demanded 'justice' for one of his men bitten by Talia in self-defense after he put his hands on her.
It's not about perspective at all. The guy is a complete jerkass who was asking for the beating he eventually gets.
It's a completely different story from Kenny.
They were defiant. Thats what was making Gryf mad and we definitely saw that.
My bad then. I thought you were saying that based on perspective the beating of Gryff was somehow an evil choice. If I were playing as the Whitehills Gryff would be a very different person because of my actions. I can't see how his actions would look any different due to perspective, he was made to be a horrible character that you would fear, like Ramsey. He has no redeeming qualities that are shown or spoken of by his own family.
Completely different situations, other members above explained it very well.
Also give me a break with all the "we don't know the Whitehills's side of the story". Forresters = Atreides and Whitehills = Harkonnen so much that I sometimes almost expect them to discuss Spice instead of Ironwood.
And I never needed to know the Harkonnen's side of the story to figure out that they were a bunch of arrogant, sadistic bastards. They act like ones, they are ones, don't give a shit about their reasons.
Definitely not. If we were playing as Gryff, we'd be seeing a different side to him. But Gryff is an antagonist and that is because we are supposed to sympathize with Rodrik (and the Forresters). From a narrative point of view - you have the good guy vs. the bad guy. It doesn't mean the classic hero vs. the one-dimensional villain (thankfully). That is what I love about Game of Thrones. Basically no villain is without purpose, and no good guy is without flaws. Now I'm not saying Gryff isn't horrible, but he does (in his eyes) have a reason for what he's doing. He clearly wants to prove something (to Ludd), he's grown up thinking the Forresters are horrible people, just as Ludd thinks. It doesn't justify his behavior, but from his point-of-view he does have his reason. In the end, he is human... even if he is a pretty crappy human. I don't know if you've played Heavy Rain, but that game is a perfect example of how you play as a villain all the way without your knowledge, and you grow to really sympathize with them during the game. In conclusion, perspective is very important. On an end note: Rodrik is my second favorite character, so I'm definitely not speaking against him
Considering Kenny was justified in both of those things...its close enough to nothing.
Kenny kills one of Carver's men but it is after Carver's group takes hostages at gunpoint from Kenny's group. The stealing of tools occurs after Kenny and his group have been basically abducted (also at gunpoint) and taken to Carver's camp to work. (a.k.a. slavery)
Hard to see how Carver's beating of Kenny in retaliation in any way compares to Rodrik's beating of Gryff, other than both being assaults.
I was afraid Rodrik might kill Gryff. I didn't want that outcome because I knew he could be exchanged for Ryon even before Lady Forrester suggested it, but I still had Rodrik continue beating Gryff. If he died I would just have reloaded and taken every prompt until the one that triggers a fatality.
As i view it, Kenny was a buddy, and got viewed as a friend from Season 1. Depending on how you play and friendly up with Kenny, he will be a great and caring character. Carver and Kenny situation is way different from Gryff and Rodrik situation.
Carver is seen as an oppressor who beat up Kenny because he had cover Clementine. Carver beat him down unnecessary to the point of life threatening. Kenny wanted revenge and killed him. The situation with Gryff and Rodrik is that Gryff was brought in to bring chaos and give a reason for Whitehills to use aggression. Gryff as he is power-hungry beat up a cripple(Rodrik) so he can be "Lord" of Ironrath, he later went on to threaten to kill Talia,bully Duncan(depending on your choices), and also beat up Maester because he felt like it. He also threatened to teach Rodrik "another lesson on Humility". Which didn't happen because Glenmore army. He was put and viewed as a villain, he was there to stop whatever you wanted to do. I view both situations as you described to be totally different from each other.
You taunt me about my dead brother, you push my little sister down and say she will end up the same way, you disrespect my house by stealing and tearing down family paintings, you beat down a crippled man who is still twice the man you are, and you beat the maester and break his fingers. Maiming him wasn't even close to what I wanted to do to him.
Apples and Oranges.. Kenny and Gryff are completely different personalities..
B-but m-muh Kenny hate, muh butthurt, muh Lily muh Jane
I actually have played Heavy Rain and it's amazing. I understand what you're saying about perspective but Gryff just wasn't fleshed out enough and that isn't Telltale's fault since they really couldn't have you bond with that character. I feel that if we saw a different side to Gryff earlier I may have not hit him at all but since we only saw "LOL you my bitch!" he gained no sympathy from me.
Arvo had it coming
Didn't know we were in the second grade. Jane is completely trash btw
I consider my Rodrick to be a bad guy. I don't want my playthrough to be Whitehills=bad Forresters=good. I like Whitehills=bad Forresters=bad. So I had no issue maiming Gryff, I'd have kill him if it was possible, I wrote Ryon off as dead the moment he became Ludd's ward.
I made new gifs, ENJOY...
If you were Gryff you might have very good reason to be beating Rodrik. He's could have been shitting on the Whitehills his entire life. We don't know what went down before the series starts between the families. It says they used to be allies but they've probably be natural enemies of one another in their generation.
You can't say that it's without reason. Who knows how the Forresters were able to get the Whitehills to bend the knee to them.
This what we would have done to Gryff has we not been stopped. After Kenny murdered Carver he turned into a psycho. He was going to become Carver.
I'd be fine with doing that to Gryff. I'd say Kenny turned psychotic but I wouldn't say he was like Carver. Carver was more of a sociopath. Kenny at least had somewhat good intentions whereas Carver was just an ass.
Jane said herself the best. "once you smash someones head in it becomes a lot easier to do it again". But youre right he probably wasn't going to turn into a Carver type leader over random people that join him.. But i could see him as a drifter like Nate going arond killing people for their stuff.
Finally a thread that has some Kenny lovers.
TeamKenny
Yeah, I'm in team kenny and proud, Jane is just a moany bitch, Luke is a sexually-disabled-asshole-that-wants-his-dick-wet (And all of his body got wet in episode 5 if you know what I mean muahaha >:D), Arvo a Russian asshole, I now hate Russians because of DayZ, Lee was black ew.
Serious. Except for the Lee part, I'm not.
The Forresters never got the Whitehills to bend the knee. You only bend the knee to your Liege Lord (The Boltons are the Whitehills Liege Lord), the Warden of the North (The Starks), and the King. What the hell are you talking about?
Pot, I have a Mr. Kettle on line 1. He has an urgent message for you.
@Wigams Hierarchy in Westeros works like this:
King (Joffrey) => Wardens (of the north - Starks - used to be, Boltons - current) => Lords (Glovers, Boltons - used to be) => Minor Lords (Whitehills, Forresters) => ........
Whitehills are sworn to the Boltons and Forresters are sworn to the Glovers. Boltons are wardens of the north and Whitehills, Forresters, Glovers and every other lord at the north "serve" to the Boltons.
I know what Jane said but she was completely nuts. Kenny and Carver were too different people. Kenny was psychotic but he was essentialy a chaotic good/neutral while Carver was mad, crazy and killer that killed Regie without reason.
Also I would be ok with smashing Gryff´s head nobody will threaten to my family.
Omg you not like the fucking boltons. The same way LUdd makes you kiss his ring
I meant it more like the situations were reversed. Im sure the starks would have been on our side when they were Wardens of the north which means the whitehills would need to obey us the same way that we have to obey them now. I don't mean that the Forresters were Wardens of the north. Im very well aware of the hierarchy in Westeros lol
Jane wasn't completely nuts? I think you misunderstood everything about her if that's you see it. Kenny wasn't a "good/neutral" character. He was the main source of tension and conflict in the group throughout episodes 4-5, always insulting others opinions, his way is the only way, is only aware of his own feelings/family (ben points that out in season 1), etc.
And to your Carver thing. Well Arvo wasn't a mad, crazy killer and Kenny automatically treats him the way Carver would have treated him presumably because of what he did to Carver. If he hadn't been so hard on Arvo and just accepted him into the group then why would Mike, Bonnie and him ever leave? Why would Arvo even shoot Clementine? That entire part is all Kenny's fault.
Dont make me start about Arvo. He would bring his group to us and robb us whatever you rob him or no. If there was a way to kill him stright in the beginning he would be dead. There was a city, I had no intention to go hunt some house that could be real or it could be a lie.
Kenny is old af and was the basis of s2 (ughh). He's mentally ill also.
I'd hate to see Gryff have kids. At lease Kenny knows that children are to be loved and cared for.
Who is Kenny?
You didn't see him ? He's a very important character, he's even in the Codex !
Jokes aside, a controversial character from The Walking Dead game also made by Telltale. Some people love him, some people hate him, his attitude towards you depends on the choices you made.
But he has a similar scene to Rodrik's beating up of Gryff, except he plays Griff's role, getting beat up (and blinded) to protect a little girl.
So on one hand we have a guy imprisoned against his will, who had one of his friends killed and got beat up to cover a little girl and on the other hand we have a sadistic moron who gets what he deserves.
But I won't bother going any further, people have covered that extensively already.
Gryff COULD have done much worse, that's why i didn't try to beat him to death, Rodrik just had his revenge. About the plot thing, it actually DOES tell u who is right, that's why it's a plot after all, unless there's a plot twist coming, the whitehills are wrong.
That's not bending the knee. "Bending the knee" refers to swearing fealty. The Whitehills have never been subservient to the Forresters - at least not according to any official details. You're just making shit up to bolster your argument since you can't provide actual supporting evidence.
Never been subservient to the Forresters? Well according to in-game dialogue they have been.
Supporting enough for you? Alright they never "swore fealty" to the Forresters. They would have probably had to bend the knee for the Starks who we gladly followed. We we're probably tasked with keeping the Whitehills in check just as the Whitehills are being tasked to keep us in line. We were higher up in the food chain with the Starks in power the same way the whitehills are higher in the food chain with the boltons in power. That is all that i meant,