Game of Thrones begins....

[Neil]

You really think Melisandre is "the villain"?

One of them.  She's a monotheist, and those types are always evil.  Her deity has a Cthulhu-esque name.  Her goal is to burn everyone.  She also prolonged the war, which worked against her stated goals.

Yeah, but as a worshiper of a fire deity with actual magical power who can bring back the dead she's probably the best ally the people of Westeros have against the Others.

I get the impression that they're not really the same when they get back.  Dondarion was certainly a ruin of a man.  And is R'hllor isn't any better than The Others.

[Neil]

No kidding.  For an alleged sophisticate, that was an incredibly Tim-esque statement by Spellus.  Honestly, the Fist of the First Men isn't really important, except that it happens.  There are no major characters even involved.

I thought it was one of the more memorable action sequences in the novels.    The entire retreat is also pretty great.

Great sequences in the books don't necessarily make for good TV.  There just isn't enough time.

[Queequeg]

I get the impression that they're not really the same when they get back.  Dondarion was certainly a ruin of a man.  And is R'hllor isn't any better than The Others.

I think that's an open question.  I suspect he had some kind of involvement in The Doom, and that ultimately The Others and R'hllor are more ying-yang than Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.  But the fact remains that the ice-men seem to pose a far more imminent threat than any possible fire-men.

[Razgovory]

You really think Melisandre is "the villain"?

One of them.  She's a monotheist, and those types are always evil.  Her deity has a Cthulhu-esque name.  Her goal is to burn everyone.  She also prolonged the war, which worked against her stated goals.

Yeah, but as a worshiper of a fire deity with actual magical power who can bring back the dead she's probably the best ally the people of Westeros have against the Others.   TBH I get the impression that her religion is right about the big stuff , even if her precious Lord of Light isn't nearly as benevolent as Ahura Mazda.

I can't shake the idea of Ahura Mazda being a car company.

[Eddie Teach]

I can't shake the idea of Ahura Mazda being a car company.

Would make a great name for a Mazda dealership. 

[Queequeg]

Ahura just means light or shining. Call the dealership "Shining Mazda" and make the 1/20,000,000 Zorastrian customer giggle in appreciation.

[Martinus]

It really amuses me how you can call Stannis a rightful king but call Danny an upstart. She is the rightful queen, Stannis is simply an usurper's brother.

Stannis's morality is completely flexible and abhorrent - it's very ex post facto in its justification of his misdeeds. He will put family over loyalty to the legitimate monarch when it suits him (i.e. supporting Robert's rebellion) and when it suits him he will do the opposite (i.e. "executing" Renly, when Stannis feels himself the legitimate monarch). He is a classic hypocrite.

[Martinus]

You really think Melisandre is "the villain"?

One of them.  She's a monotheist, and those types are always evil.  Her deity has a Cthulhu-esque name.  Her goal is to burn everyone.  She also prolonged the war, which worked against her stated goals.

Yeah, but as a worshiper of a fire deity with actual magical power who can bring back the dead she's probably the best ally the people of Westeros have against the Others.   TBH I get the impression that her religion is right about the big stuff , even if her precious Lord of Light isn't nearly as benevolent as Ahura Mazda.

I would say that three dragons are a much better ally than some cunt who can give birth to murderous shadows.

[Neil]

Rhaegar's line isn't suitable to rule, due to hereditary insanity.

[Martinus]

Rhaegar's line isn't suitable to rule, due to hereditary insanity.

An ad hoc excuse.

[Berkut]

It really amuses me how you can call Stannis a rightful king but call Danny an upstart. She is the rightful queen, Stannis is simply an usurper's brother.

Stannis's morality is completely flexible and abhorrent - it's very ex post facto in its justification of his misdeeds. He will put family over loyalty to the legitimate monarch when it suits him (i.e. supporting Robert's rebellion) and when it suits him he will do the opposite (i.e. "executing" Renly, when Stannis feels himself the legitimate monarch). He is a classic hypocrite.

Supporting his brother is completely standard in the hierarchical medieval pecking order. His older brother is his liege, therefore it is not per se immoral to support him if he rebels (the immorality of that rebellion is born by Robert, not by Roberts vassals). And rebellion is certainly morally justifiable under the proper circumstances.

It is not hypocritical to treat Renly very differently. Renly rebellion is against Stanis, who is Renly's liege lord. So not at all the same. Further, Renly does not have any mitigating circumstance making his rebellion against Stannis justifiable. Renly does not even try to justify it - he just claims he should be king because nobody likes Stannis. I always thought this was a weak point in the story in fact - that so many would support Renly who is clearly NOT under any justifiable reasoning the heir to Robert's throne. Most Lords and such are not going to be swayed by such arguments, or else there would not be so many bad kings and lords. If any king can be put aside simply because some people don't like him, then why not a lord or a baron or a duke or whatever?

There is absolutely NOTHING hypocritical about Stannis actions towards his brother. Indeed, he states his reasoning explicitly - when Robert was the elder brother, Stannis deferred to him, and he expects Renly to do the same now that he is eldest. That is 100% completely consistent.

[jimmy olsen]

It really amuses me how you can call Stannis a rightful king but call Danny an upstart. She is the rightful queen, Stannis is simply an usurper's brother.

Stannis's morality is completely flexible and abhorrent - it's very ex post facto in its justification of his misdeeds. He will put family over loyalty to the legitimate monarch when it suits him (i.e. supporting Robert's rebellion) and when it suits him he will do the opposite (i.e. "executing" Renly, when Stannis feels himself the legitimate monarch). He is a classic hypocrite.

Robert was his leige lord was he not?

[Martinus]

It really amuses me how you can call Stannis a rightful king but call Danny an upstart. She is the rightful queen, Stannis is simply an usurper's brother.

Stannis's morality is completely flexible and abhorrent - it's very ex post facto in its justification of his misdeeds. He will put family over loyalty to the legitimate monarch when it suits him (i.e. supporting Robert's rebellion) and when it suits him he will do the opposite (i.e. "executing" Renly, when Stannis feels himself the legitimate monarch). He is a classic hypocrite.

Supporting his brother is completely standard in the hierarchical medieval pecking order. His older brother is his liege, therefore it is not per se immoral to support him if he rebels (the immorality of that rebellion is born by Robert, not by Roberts vassals). And rebellion is certainly morally justifiable under the proper circumstances.

It is not hypocritical to treat Renly very differently. Renly rebellion is against Stanis, who is Renly's liege lord. So not at all the same. Further, Renly does not have any mitigating circumstance making his rebellion against Stannis justifiable. Renly does not even try to justify it - he just claims he should be king because nobody likes Stannis. I always thought this was a weak point in the story in fact - that so many would support Renly who is clearly NOT under any justifiable reasoning the heir to Robert's throne. Most Lords and such are not going to be swayed by such arguments, or else there would not be so many bad kings and lords. If any king can be put aside simply because some people don't like him, then why not a lord or a baron or a duke or whatever?

There is absolutely NOTHING hypocritical about Stannis actions towards his brother. Indeed, he states his reasoning explicitly - when Robert was the elder brother, Stannis deferred to him, and he expects Renly to do the same now that he is eldest. That is 100% completely consistent.

Well, the support for Renly comes mainly from his own bannermen (so his vassals) and from the Reach, and we know Tyrells are not sticklers for such things as rightful claims and whatnot.

Stannis was, on the other hand, supported mainly by his own bannermen.

[Eddie Teach]

It really amuses me how you can call Stannis a rightful king but call Danny an upstart. She is the rightful queen, Stannis is simply an usurper's brother.

Stannis's morality is completely flexible and abhorrent - it's very ex post facto in its justification of his misdeeds. He will put family over loyalty to the legitimate monarch when it suits him (i.e. supporting Robert's rebellion) and when it suits him he will do the opposite (i.e. "executing" Renly, when Stannis feels himself the legitimate monarch). He is a classic hypocrite.

So conquering the peoples of the seven kingdoms makes the Targaryens "rightful" rulers, but deposing them and being accepted as king doesn't do so for the Baratheons?

[Phillip V]

Woman and Direwolf