Yeah pick on Talia cause she definitely doesn't know what it's like to lose your family. Pick on Talia cause it was definitely her fault, being a 14 year old girl. Yes, pick on Talia because you can't face your enemy directly so instead you take it out on those that have no way of defending themselves.
Part 3.19
I'm sure I've mentioned Kyra's lemon-cake addiction somewhere... it was reinforced by Arthur.
Also I couldn't help but throw in a bit of comedy relief in regards to that last picture.
Part 3.19
I'm sure I've mentioned Kyra's lemon-cake addiction somewhere... it was reinforced by Arthur.
Also I couldn't help but throw in a bit of comedy relief in regards to that last picture.
I haven't commented the last few posts - but that must've been simply because everything's just so good, I couldn't come up with anything xD Lyarra having that sweet crown, Talia & Ostyn seemingly becoming friends, Ebbert finally in the play & with my precious cinnamon roll Aaron (who, judging by this part's name, will have a role in it, right?)), Eddard Thornton instantly going to the list of my trash favorites, Kyra having a lemoncake, people actually remembering Malcolm... All those rare semi-happy moments in the au are so, so precious to me. I love them
I've got only one question - if we chose to say Ostyn should stay away from Lyarra, would he be here? And if not, how would the scene look? Just Talia & Lyarra interacting - maybe, the latter teaching her a thing or two about archery (since I noticed on the wiki she's good at it)?
Part 3.19
I'm sure I've mentioned Kyra's lemon-cake addiction somewhere... it was reinforced by Arthur.
Also I couldn't help but throw in a bit of comedy relief in regards to that last picture.
An example, when I said: “And could we stop talking about this?” I didn’t mean everything
I did not mean that either, I meant that we can stop talking about the part of the conversation you’re no longer interested in (simply don’t reply to it if you don’t want to, it’ll be enough), sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I didn’t mean everything, just the part where I said that even if Forresters did stole a small part of the Ironwood (which they didn’t) it doesn’t really matter since Ludd stole ALL of it. He had no right and he disobeyed the Boltons. Still, no one minds. And at least Thorren (assuming he did) conquered it back the old way. Ludd just steals it without a fight.
I assume this is the part you no longer want to talk about, since you follow what Ortengryn says & I - the au’s canon? Because au’s canon does say that the Forrsters stole it.
Also, I do not see why stealing “the old way” is any better than stealing without a fight. If anything, I only find that “old way” much worse than the new one.
Right, because a prolonged life of slavery and abuse is better than dying like a free man, opposing the tyrants. We need men and women like that. If everyone thought like you do, who would stand up to tyrants like Whitehills?
If everyone thought like me, Whitehill’s part of the grove wouldn’t have ended up in Forrester’s hands in the first place, and nothing of the following would’ve happened.
YES, under Stark rule, peasants and children weren’t slaughtered. Under Stark rule, acts of treason and theft were expected to be punished. And under Stark rule, you could question you lord without the fear of being mutilated or flayed.
You probably mean, under Eddard Stark’s rule? He wasn’t the Warden of the North yet when Thorren captured Whitehill’s part of the groves. And he was the one, who ruled with honor & justice - due to his upbringing in the Vale, not in the North. House Stark before him wasn’t known for being outstandingly just, there were assholes among their lords, same as among the lords of any other house. Northerners as whole are known for being just & honorable only due to Eddard & the way he raised his kids - those qualities aren’t traditionally associated with them.
Do you mean when the Ironwood was nearly destroyed under Whitehill rule, which then forced the Forresters to intervene?
They were not forced to intervene. At that particular moment, what Whitehills did didn’t affect the Forresters. And au’s Thorren didn’t even attack them because of their treatment of Ironwood - he just believed it inherently belonged to his house & that it was superior to the Whitehills.
Even Duncan says they “squandered their share”.
Here’s one more important detail. Whitehills “squandering their share” happened after Thorren took their groves - & happened to what little trees they had left, in an attempt to make any money out of what remained, which was not enough & would predictably end in nothing being left. So, it’s debatable whether Whitehills are that shitty with the ironwood in the first place - sure, they don’t know the big ironwood secret Forresters have, but they could’ve been doing at least semi-fine before major part of the trees was taken from them. After all, before Thorren taking their groves, they've owned them for decades, if not centuries - and didn't end up destroying them, or there simply wouldn't be anything left for him to take.
Also, Whitehills "squandering" remaining trees happened with Ludd in power - after his father, who managed the groves before him, and his first son, raised to do it after him, were killed. Could it be it was simply Ludd who was incapable of managing the business, due to not being raised to do it, not the Whitehills in general?
Or do you mean the river valley’s retake? Because in the first case, that happened who knows how long before Ludd was even born
He was not only born when it happened, he was already old enough to become a lord after his brother & father got killed during it. Just to make sure, "Forresters being forced to intervene" & "river valley's retake" are the same case? Bc I don't know what else can they be.
Oh you can’t be serious. If the Whitehills destroyed their parts, they would destroy their source of income thus falling into ruin. They would then start to steal and cut down Ironwood that didn’t belong to them. Oh wait, that’s exactly what happened!
So, you predict the Whitehills destroying their groves, think that it'll make them cut down your part of the trees in the future, and you... Rob them of the groves they have, so that the only trees that are out there for cutting down are yours & sooner or later Whitehills will still cut down what now doesn't belong to them?
As I’ve already said, it’s not even clear whether they would’ve destroyed their parts without Thorren’s “help”. And how does an assumption that they would commit a crime against Forresters afterwards justifies a real attack? It wouldn’t even be logical for the Whitehills to do it, since they were much less powerful than the Forresters at the time. And if they did - then Forresters, holding more power at that period &, as you are putting it, foreseeing the stealing, could be at the ready, prepare, smother the conflict at the beginning, make the war about defense & minimizing victims from both sides, not about offense & doing as much damage as possible. So, having more control over the situation, they chose the more harmful way.
Also, Whitehills have another source of income, which is masonry. Destroying ironwood wouldn't lead them to instant ruin.
Excluding that trees ARE actually living beings (we learned that in biology class)
I believe you do realize, that by saying "a living being" I meant "a being, capable of experiencing emotions/pain/both".
still the Whitehills have no right to just destroy a precious resource just because they can. Especially if that resource is vital to their survival.
Firstly, whether they would've destroyed it is debatable. Secondly, it's kinda strange how you say "they have no right to destroy a resource vital for their survival", bc it would make sense if they were destroying a resource vital for someone else?.. And thirdly, yes, they actually have that right (destroying what belongs to them). That's how property works.
You want proof? Go check the AU wiki where it says that the only conspirators were Thorren and the maester.
I said, "if I was Ludd". I didn't realize he had access to the wiki (same as the internet as whole).
First, thank you for only replying to small parts of my paragraphs that taken out of the context lose their initial meaning. An example, whe… moren I said: "And could we stop talking about this?" I didn't mean everything, just the part where I said that even if Forresters did stole a small part of the Ironwood (which they didn't) it doesn't really matter since Ludd stole ALL of it. He had no right and he disobeyed the Boltons. Still, no one minds. And at least Thorren (assuming he did) conquered it back the old way. Ludd just steals it without a fight.
Same as it would be nice to see some actions from the Forresters, other than expressing dislike of Thorren's doings. Their only actions ended up in a death of another Whitehill though.
Haha, nope. The Forresters executed their own maester for his doings. Even if said maester's actions "benefited" them as you say.
Trust me, I would not forget to thank them for all the people who st… [view original content]
Aaaand, just as soon as I appreciate a moment of peace, shit goes down again x D A perfect timing, that is. Gods, let nothing bad happen to Aaron, he is precious & is to be preserved by all means. I'm pretty sure it's Boros on that horse, but, I suppose, we shall see about that.
Also, I noticed Ebbert saying he can't even think about sending a raven to Highpoint - but doesn't he actually keep in touch with Torrhen, according to rp?
Also, I noticed Ebbert saying he can't even think about sending a raven to Highpoint - but doesn't he actually keep in touch with Torrhen, according to rp?
Aaaand, just as soon as I appreciate a moment of peace, shit goes down again x D A perfect timing, that is. Gods, let nothing bad happen to … moreAaron, he is precious & is to be preserved by all means. I'm pretty sure it's Boros on that horse, but, I suppose, we shall see about that.
Also, I noticed Ebbert saying he can't even think about sending a raven to Highpoint - but doesn't he actually keep in touch with Torrhen, according to rp?
Also, I noticed Ebbert saying he can't even think about sending a raven to Highpoint - but doesn't he actually keep in touch with Torrhen, according to rp?
Curious, hmm?
Screw this. You're trying to troll me or I don't even know.
He was not only born when it happened, he was already old enough to become a lord after his brother & father got killed during it. Just to make sure, "Forresters being forced to intervene" & "river valley's retake" are the same case? Bc I don't know what else can they be.
You completely misunderstood me. Do you even realize that I was talking about two completely unrelated events and I asked you which one you meant? One was: The centuries old Whitehill destruction of Ironwood (Talked about in Ep, 1 by Ethan and Ramsay - E: "The Whitehills HAD Ironwood. Once. But now those hills are bare." Ram: Hence the name. Of course. Roy/Dunc: "Look at their sigil my lord. A barren hill!" E: "Do you want Ironwood for the next five years or the next fifty generations?" Ram: "The little lord does have a point.") The second one was the river valley. And when I said in the first case I meant the first example, the first event. NOT THE RIVER VALLEY. Don't you get it? The Whitehills are named Whitehills because they destroy every forest they own! Because they're not able to work it properly! Just look at the land at Highpoint - completely desolate and bare!
Here’s one more important detail. Whitehills “squandering their share” happened after Thorren took their groves - & happened to what little trees they had left, in an attempt to make any money out of what remained, which was not enough & would predictably end in nothing being left. So, it’s debatable whether Whitehills are that shitty with the ironwood in the first place
No, you don't know that. Show me some facts that "squandering their share" happened after Thorren retaked their groves. It doesn't make sense! Why would they give them a "share" when according to you they stole the Whitehill land! "Squandered their share" means that in the far past, the Whitehills probably asked the Forresters for a share of the Ironwood - the Forresters obliged but after the Whitehills proved their inability to harvest, they took it back. Yes, it's just my assumption but I don't go around saying it's a fact and "an important detail".
Also, Whitehills have another source of income, which is masonry. Destroying ironwood wouldn't lead them to instant ruin.
Well then they must be shit masons as well because the entire game they spent stealing the Ironwood - which they then couldn't handle enough so they wanted help from the Forresters.
Firstly, whether they would've destroyed it is debatable.
Would be a shit debate considering that one side was 100% right and the other 100% wrong.
Secondly, it's kinda strange how you say "they have no right to destroy a resource vital for their survival", bc it would make sense if they were destroying a resource vital for someone else?
Pointless stalling. Ironwood is vital to both the Forrsters and the Whitehills. If the Whitehills want to destroy their fucking livelihood be my guest. The problem is that they destroyed that which wasn't theirs.
And thirdly, yes, they actually have that right (destroying what belongs to them). That's how property works.
Yeah! But they have no right to destroy someone else's which they actually did! That's my problem with that!
I said, "if I was Ludd". I didn't realize he had access to the wiki (same as the internet as whole).
Here's the thing. Everyone that was alive around the greyscale plot is dead by the start of the game. (Except Gregor that executed his own maester) Ludd should be satisfied with that.
An example, when I said: “And could we stop talking about this?” I didn’t mean everything
I did not mean that either, I meant that w… moree can stop talking about the part of the conversation you’re no longer interested in (simply don’t reply to it if you don’t want to, it’ll be enough), sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I didn’t mean everything, just the part where I said that even if Forresters did stole a small part of the Ironwood (which they didn’t) it doesn’t really matter since Ludd stole ALL of it. He had no right and he disobeyed the Boltons. Still, no one minds. And at least Thorren (assuming he did) conquered it back the old way. Ludd just steals it without a fight.
I assume this is the part you no longer want to talk about, since you follow what Ortengryn says & I - the au’s canon? Because au’s canon does say that the Forrsters stole it.
Also, I do not see why stealing “the old way” is any better than stealing wi… [view original content]
No, you don't know that. Show me some facts that "squandering their share" happened after Thorren retaked their groves.
I can confirm the squandering of the share happened long before Thorren took the grove, and it is in fact part of the reason he chose to take the river valley in the first place. He was sick of those he deemed 'unworthy' wasting the Ironwood. They've had the name Whitehill for a long, long time, meaning their share must have disappeared long, long ago.
I don't know how the Whitehills got it in the first place, but I want to say they won it in a naked mud wrestle between two Ludd-sized men.
(also can I just say this whole debate is looking remarkably like the Forrester-Whitehill conflict as a whole haha)
Screw this. You're trying to troll me or I don't even know.
He was not only born when it happened, he was already old enough to become… more a lord after his brother & father got killed during it. Just to make sure, "Forresters being forced to intervene" & "river valley's retake" are the same case? Bc I don't know what else can they be.
You completely misunderstood me. Do you even realize that I was talking about two completely unrelated events and I asked you which one you meant? One was: The centuries old Whitehill destruction of Ironwood (Talked about in Ep, 1 by Ethan and Ramsay - E: "The Whitehills HAD Ironwood. Once. But now those hills are bare." Ram: Hence the name. Of course. Roy/Dunc: "Look at their sigil my lord. A barren hill!" E: "Do you want Ironwood for the next five years or the next fifty generations?" Ram: "The little lord does have a point.") The second one was the river valley. And when I said in the first… [view original content]
I've got only one question - if we chose to say Ostyn should stay away from Lyarra, would he be here? And if not, how would the scene look? Just Talia & Lyarra interacting - maybe, the latter teaching her a thing or two about archery (since I noticed on the wiki she's good at it)?
This scene was written after people made the Ostyn choice, but I remember thinking a lot about how things would have gone if people had decided to tell him to bugger off. I know that Lyarra would have definitely made reference to it, because she'd still be salty even a month on. I remember thinking about Talia testing herself against a random soldier instead of Ostyn (where they either would have gone easy on her to her displeasure, or wiped the floor with her. Either way, Ned would've made a different snide comment). Ned probably wouldn't have buggered off so quick either, with no Ostyn there to stop him.
Lyarra teaching Talia about archery wasn't something I thought about, but it would be a good call. Maybe that whole month would have been spend honing a different skill!
I haven't commented the last few posts - but that must've been simply because everything's just so good, I couldn't come up with anything xD… more Lyarra having that sweet crown, Talia & Ostyn seemingly becoming friends, Ebbert finally in the play & with my precious cinnamon roll Aaron (who, judging by this part's name, will have a role in it, right?)), Eddard Thornton instantly going to the list of my trash favorites, Kyra having a lemoncake, people actually remembering Malcolm... All those rare semi-happy moments in the au are so, so precious to me. I love them
I've got only one question - if we chose to say Ostyn should stay away from Lyarra, would he be here? And if not, how would the scene look? Just Talia & Lyarra interacting - maybe, the latter teaching her a thing or two about archery (since I noticed on the wiki she's good at it)?
Yeah, Brandon doesn't speak the Common Tongue ("English") - he rarely even says anything in his own language. He probably speaks it due to wildling heritage, as they're the only people who speak it any more.
Made a page on the S2AU wiki for Smallfolk today, thought I’d post this interesting bit of info. If you're interested in the reasons behind the commoners finding certain characters favourable/unfavourable then feel free to ask (also you can just give me a name of a character not listed and I'll tell you "good reputation" or "bad reputation".)
Made a page on the S2AU wiki for Smallfolk today, thought I’d post this interesting bit of info. If you're interested in the reasons behind … morethe commoners finding certain characters favourable/unfavourable then feel free to ask (also you can just give me a name of a character not listed and I'll tell you "good reputation" or "bad reputation".)
He murdered another noble (debatable), Rass Mason, and was sent to the Wall for it. Murder and being publicly ordered to take the black by your Lord Father are bound to lower your reputation with the Smallfolk.
He murdered another noble (debatable), Rass Mason, and was sent to the Wall for it. Murder and being publicly ordered to take the black by your Lord Father are bound to lower your reputation with the Smallfolk.
Comments
Yeah pick on Talia cause she definitely doesn't know what it's like to lose your family. Pick on Talia cause it was definitely her fault, being a 14 year old girl. Yes, pick on Talia because you can't face your enemy directly so instead you take it out on those that have no way of defending themselves.
Part 3.19
I'm sure I've mentioned Kyra's lemon-cake addiction somewhere... it was reinforced by Arthur.
Also I couldn't help but throw in a bit of comedy relief in regards to that last picture.
Oh Talia...
Well, at least Ebbert seems friendly enough. Nice to know he's not holding a grudge against Talia.
Oh man, Malcolm... I hope he's doing alright with Daenerys back in Meereen.
I haven't commented the last few posts - but that must've been simply because everything's just so good, I couldn't come up with anything xD Lyarra having that sweet crown, Talia & Ostyn seemingly becoming friends, Ebbert finally in the play & with my precious cinnamon roll Aaron (who, judging by this part's name, will have a role in it, right?)), Eddard Thornton instantly going to the list of my trash favorites, Kyra having a lemoncake, people actually remembering Malcolm... All those rare semi-happy moments in the au are so, so precious to me. I love them
I've got only one question - if we chose to say Ostyn should stay away from Lyarra, would he be here? And if not, how would the scene look? Just Talia & Lyarra interacting - maybe, the latter teaching her a thing or two about archery (since I noticed on the wiki she's good at it)?
I did not mean that either, I meant that we can stop talking about the part of the conversation you’re no longer interested in (simply don’t reply to it if you don’t want to, it’ll be enough), sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I assume this is the part you no longer want to talk about, since you follow what Ortengryn says & I - the au’s canon? Because au’s canon does say that the Forrsters stole it.
Also, I do not see why stealing “the old way” is any better than stealing without a fight. If anything, I only find that “old way” much worse than the new one.
If everyone thought like me, Whitehill’s part of the grove wouldn’t have ended up in Forrester’s hands in the first place, and nothing of the following would’ve happened.
You probably mean, under Eddard Stark’s rule? He wasn’t the Warden of the North yet when Thorren captured Whitehill’s part of the groves. And he was the one, who ruled with honor & justice - due to his upbringing in the Vale, not in the North. House Stark before him wasn’t known for being outstandingly just, there were assholes among their lords, same as among the lords of any other house. Northerners as whole are known for being just & honorable only due to Eddard & the way he raised his kids - those qualities aren’t traditionally associated with them.
They were not forced to intervene. At that particular moment, what Whitehills did didn’t affect the Forresters. And au’s Thorren didn’t even attack them because of their treatment of Ironwood - he just believed it inherently belonged to his house & that it was superior to the Whitehills.
Here’s one more important detail. Whitehills “squandering their share” happened after Thorren took their groves - & happened to what little trees they had left, in an attempt to make any money out of what remained, which was not enough & would predictably end in nothing being left. So, it’s debatable whether Whitehills are that shitty with the ironwood in the first place - sure, they don’t know the big ironwood secret Forresters have, but they could’ve been doing at least semi-fine before major part of the trees was taken from them. After all, before Thorren taking their groves, they've owned them for decades, if not centuries - and didn't end up destroying them, or there simply wouldn't be anything left for him to take.
Also, Whitehills "squandering" remaining trees happened with Ludd in power - after his father, who managed the groves before him, and his first son, raised to do it after him, were killed. Could it be it was simply Ludd who was incapable of managing the business, due to not being raised to do it, not the Whitehills in general?
He was not only born when it happened, he was already old enough to become a lord after his brother & father got killed during it. Just to make sure, "Forresters being forced to intervene" & "river valley's retake" are the same case? Bc I don't know what else can they be.
So, you predict the Whitehills destroying their groves, think that it'll make them cut down your part of the trees in the future, and you... Rob them of the groves they have, so that the only trees that are out there for cutting down are yours & sooner or later Whitehills will still cut down what now doesn't belong to them?
As I’ve already said, it’s not even clear whether they would’ve destroyed their parts without Thorren’s “help”. And how does an assumption that they would commit a crime against Forresters afterwards justifies a real attack? It wouldn’t even be logical for the Whitehills to do it, since they were much less powerful than the Forresters at the time. And if they did - then Forresters, holding more power at that period &, as you are putting it, foreseeing the stealing, could be at the ready, prepare, smother the conflict at the beginning, make the war about defense & minimizing victims from both sides, not about offense & doing as much damage as possible. So, having more control over the situation, they chose the more harmful way.
Also, Whitehills have another source of income, which is masonry. Destroying ironwood wouldn't lead them to instant ruin.
I believe you do realize, that by saying "a living being" I meant "a being, capable of experiencing emotions/pain/both".
Firstly, whether they would've destroyed it is debatable. Secondly, it's kinda strange how you say "they have no right to destroy a resource vital for their survival", bc it would make sense if they were destroying a resource vital for someone else?.. And thirdly, yes, they actually have that right (destroying what belongs to them). That's how property works.
I said, "if I was Ludd". I didn't realize he had access to the wiki (same as the internet as whole).
Part 3.20
Aaaand everything goes to shit, just like usual.
Fucking Whitehills... Always showing up at the worst time.
Aaaand, just as soon as I appreciate a moment of peace, shit goes down again x D A perfect timing, that is. Gods, let nothing bad happen to Aaron, he is precious & is to be preserved by all means. I'm pretty sure it's Boros on that horse, but, I suppose, we shall see about that.
Also, I noticed Ebbert saying he can't even think about sending a raven to Highpoint - but doesn't he actually keep in touch with Torrhen, according to rp?
Curious, hmm?
Well, I suppose, our maester isn't being completely truthful, eh? :] Can't say I blame him, though, Talia certainly wouldn't've reacted well to this.
I thought Harys first. But now I can definitely see Boros sittin' on that horse.
Screw this. You're trying to troll me or I don't even know.
You completely misunderstood me. Do you even realize that I was talking about two completely unrelated events and I asked you which one you meant? One was: The centuries old Whitehill destruction of Ironwood (Talked about in Ep, 1 by Ethan and Ramsay - E: "The Whitehills HAD Ironwood. Once. But now those hills are bare." Ram: Hence the name. Of course. Roy/Dunc: "Look at their sigil my lord. A barren hill!" E: "Do you want Ironwood for the next five years or the next fifty generations?" Ram: "The little lord does have a point.") The second one was the river valley. And when I said in the first case I meant the first example, the first event. NOT THE RIVER VALLEY. Don't you get it? The Whitehills are named Whitehills because they destroy every forest they own! Because they're not able to work it properly! Just look at the land at Highpoint - completely desolate and bare!
No, you don't know that. Show me some facts that "squandering their share" happened after Thorren retaked their groves. It doesn't make sense! Why would they give them a "share" when according to you they stole the Whitehill land! "Squandered their share" means that in the far past, the Whitehills probably asked the Forresters for a share of the Ironwood - the Forresters obliged but after the Whitehills proved their inability to harvest, they took it back. Yes, it's just my assumption but I don't go around saying it's a fact and "an important detail".
Well then they must be shit masons as well because the entire game they spent stealing the Ironwood - which they then couldn't handle enough so they wanted help from the Forresters.
Would be a shit debate considering that one side was 100% right and the other 100% wrong.
Pointless stalling. Ironwood is vital to both the Forrsters and the Whitehills. If the Whitehills want to destroy their fucking livelihood be my guest. The problem is that they destroyed that which wasn't theirs.
Yeah! But they have no right to destroy someone else's which they actually did! That's my problem with that!
Here's the thing. Everyone that was alive around the greyscale plot is dead by the start of the game. (Except Gregor that executed his own maester) Ludd should be satisfied with that.
I can confirm the squandering of the share happened long before Thorren took the grove, and it is in fact part of the reason he chose to take the river valley in the first place. He was sick of those he deemed 'unworthy' wasting the Ironwood. They've had the name Whitehill for a long, long time, meaning their share must have disappeared long, long ago.
I don't know how the Whitehills got it in the first place, but I want to say they won it in a naked mud wrestle between two Ludd-sized men.
(also can I just say this whole debate is looking remarkably like the Forrester-Whitehill conflict as a whole haha)
This scene was written after people made the Ostyn choice, but I remember thinking a lot about how things would have gone if people had decided to tell him to bugger off. I know that Lyarra would have definitely made reference to it, because she'd still be salty even a month on. I remember thinking about Talia testing herself against a random soldier instead of Ostyn (where they either would have gone easy on her to her displeasure, or wiped the floor with her. Either way, Ned would've made a different snide comment). Ned probably wouldn't have buggered off so quick either, with no Ostyn there to stop him.
Lyarra teaching Talia about archery wasn't something I thought about, but it would be a good call. Maybe that whole month would have been spend honing a different skill!
He has his reasons - particularly things no one is supposed to know about.
Part 3.21
It wasn't Boros at all!
Is Branden speaking another language?
Also glad to see Alanna! My favourite Elite guard.
Yeah, Brandon doesn't speak the Common Tongue ("English") - he rarely even says anything in his own language. He probably speaks it due to wildling heritage, as they're the only people who speak it any more.
Made a page on the S2AU wiki for Smallfolk today, thought I’d post this interesting bit of info. If you're interested in the reasons behind the commoners finding certain characters favourable/unfavourable then feel free to ask (also you can just give me a name of a character not listed and I'll tell you "good reputation" or "bad reputation".)
What's the issue with Astor?
He murdered another noble (debatable), Rass Mason, and was sent to the Wall for it. Murder and being publicly ordered to take the black by your Lord Father are bound to lower your reputation with the Smallfolk.
Part 3.22
The name of the chapter finally comes into play...
Edit: nvm
3.21 came out yesterday - the number is pretty much "3." and then the day of the month because I started this part on the 1st of August.
O ok thanks for telling me.
Debatable that it was murder or debatable that it happened?
This is the same part as last time. Or maybe the link isn't working for me.
Fuck, shit I see what you mean now. I got the link wrong D :
Got the link wrong. I keep doing that D :
This is not going to be good.
Yea thats what I meant.
Part 3.23
This is gonna sting.
Typical Whitehills. Punching cripples, little girls and old men - that's their greatest skill.
:O Oh shit! What a bitch! Hitting a blind man with his own stick like that.
Of course the Whitehills resort to beating a blind cripple. Fucking cowards
Damn guy mentioned he was blind too much "I'm just an innocent blind man, pay me no mind"
I noticed that Alanna was gonna leave but was like "Shit, I'll go soft if I let this slide"
There's gonna be a choice today. No prizes for guessing, because it's pretty obvious :]
I'm assuming it's gonna be like help or don't help.
Part 3.24
The choice... it cometh.