Game of Thrones begins....

[grumbler]

I would have preferred Roose to stab Ramsey. I liked Roose better as a character. He had more depth.

Agreed.  Roose was, in many ways, the scarier character of the two.  You just know Ramsey is going to fuck it all up (starting with the brutal way he killed Walder Frey's grand-daughter and great-grandson).

I briefly (while still thinking this was Roose killing Ramsey) admired the writers for going away from the easy route of satisfying everyone's bloodlust for Ramsey by giving him a brutal death; dying like a mad dog being put down as a matter of routine would have been an even better end.

[Zanza]

Not sure if we can make any deductions from how feudal societies work for Westeros. During the last generation at least, we have seen a massive rebellion that ended with the legitimate king murdered, his family exiled. We have then seen a massive rebellion once the next king was dead, with lots of high and low lords not being loyal to their overlord among them the youngest brother of the king. After things turned sour for the various insurgents, we saw more betrayal, e.g. Red Wedding. Even in the Nights Watch or the Kings Guard we see betrayal.
In general the right of conquest or might makes right seems to be fairly accepted in Westeros.

[crazy canuck]

And, of course, if Robb as the head of his house created an offense against House Karstark, then Sansa inherits that offense and the obligation for restitution.  That's the way feudal societies work.  Your assertion that Robb's actions have no bearing on Sansa and that the Karstarks would find it easy to follow her without every resolving the stain on their honor (if that were really how they saw it) seems unfounded.

That makes no sense.  Sansa "inherits the offense"?  Maybe in the world you have created for yourself where Rob is forgiven but not one that is consistent with what has occurred thus far in either the Books or the Show.  How could Sansa possibly held responsible for a misdeed she was powerless to influence.  It is far more probable that the Karstarks look upon Sansa as a worthy heir of House Stark.  A direct descendant of the beloved Ned and without the taint of the hated Rob.

[Martinus]

And, of course, if Robb as the head of his house created an offense against House Karstark, then Sansa inherits that offense and the obligation for restitution.  That's the way feudal societies work.  Your assertion that Robb's actions have no bearing on Sansa and that the Karstarks would find it easy to follow her without every resolving the stain on their honor (if that were really how they saw it) seems unfounded.

That makes no sense.  Sansa "inherits the offense"?  Maybe in the world you have created for yourself where Rob is forgiven but not one that is consistent with the what has occurred thus far in either the Books or the Show.  How could Sansa possibly held responsible for a misdeed she was powerless to influence.  It is far more probable that the Karstarks look upon Sansa as a worthy heir of House Stark.  A direct descendant of the beloved Ned and without the taint of the hated Rob.

As much as it pains me, I gotta agree with grumbler. There is a reason why blood feuds flourished in feudal societies - that wouldn't be the case without blood offences being shares by all members of a house. In Karstarks' eyes, Sansa shares as much blame for old Karstark''s death as Myrcella did for the death of Oberyn and Elia.

[grumbler]

Not sure if we can make any deductions from how feudal societies work for Westeros. During the last generation at least, we have seen a massive rebellion that ended with the legitimate king murdered, his family exiled. We have then seen a massive rebellion once the next king was dead, with lots of high and low lords not being loyal to their overlord among them the youngest brother of the king. After things turned sour for the various insurgents, we saw more betrayal, e.g. Red Wedding. Even in the Nights Watch or the Kings Guard we see betrayal.
In general the right of conquest or might makes right seems to be fairly accepted in Westeros.

Sure.  And right of conquest existed in feudal times, as well (Henry Tudor claimed the throne as Henry VII by right of conquest, IIRC).  So did massive rebellions, lots of high and low lords not being loyal to their overlord, betrayal, and the rest.  Martin has said that the starting point for his work was the War of the Roses, which took place in late medieval England.

None of that has to do with my point, however.  My point was about how the surviving members of House Karstark would see Robb's execution of Rickon, and how they would view Sansa's inheritance of the title of House Stark.  Either a feudal lord has the right to execute vassals who commit treason against him, or they don't.  If they do, the Rickon's execution was legit, and the members of House Karstark (after they get over the initial shock and grief) will see it that way (because they, too, wish to have power over their vassals).   If they don't see execution of vassals for treason as a legitimate power of the lord, then they have  a grievance against House Stark, and they believe that Sansa inherited the responsibility for making them whole.  The one thing they cannot do is believe that Robb was acting as a private person when killing Rickon, which would allow them to blame him as a criminal who had nothing to do with Sansa's inheritance.

[grumbler]

That makes no sense.  Sansa "inherits the offense"?  Maybe in the world you have created for yourself where Rob is forgiven but not one that is consistent with what has occurred thus far in either the Books or the Show.  How could Sansa possibly held responsible for a misdeed she was powerless to influence.  It is far more probable that the Karstarks look upon Sansa as a worthy heir of House Stark.  A direct descendant of the beloved Ned and without the taint of the hated Rob.

This is even more tenuous speculation than your earlier assertions.  Why would House Karstark, contrary to all principals of inheritance we know of, believe that Sansa inherited from Ned when even Rickard acclaimed Robb as head of House Stark and King of the North?  They'd be disowning Rickard's own actions.

And you say that I am arguing from a "world have created for [my]self?"   

[crazy canuck]

And, of course, if Robb as the head of his house created an offense against House Karstark, then Sansa inherits that offense and the obligation for restitution.  That's the way feudal societies work.  Your assertion that Robb's actions have no bearing on Sansa and that the Karstarks would find it easy to follow her without every resolving the stain on their honor (if that were really how they saw it) seems unfounded.

That makes no sense.  Sansa "inherits the offense"?  Maybe in the world you have created for yourself where Rob is forgiven but not one that is consistent with the what has occurred thus far in either the Books or the Show.  How could Sansa possibly held responsible for a misdeed she was powerless to influence.  It is far more probable that the Karstarks look upon Sansa as a worthy heir of House Stark.  A direct descendant of the beloved Ned and without the taint of the hated Rob.

As much as it pains me, I gotta agree with grumbler. There is a reason why blood feuds flourished in feudal societies - that wouldn't be the case without blood offences being shares by all members of a house. In Karstarks' eyes, Sansa shares as much blame for old Karstark''s death as Myrcella did for the death of Oberyn and Elia.

So if they are going to make Sansa responsible for Jon's actions, tell me why you agree with Grumbles' assertion that the Karstarks will forgive Jon.

Grumbler has wrapped himself into an inconsistency for the sake of making an absurd point - news at 11.

[grumbler]

So if they are going to make Sansa responsible for Jon's actions, tell me why you agree with Grumbles' assertion that the Karstarks will forgive Jon.

Grumbler has wrapped himself into an inconsistency for the sake of making an absurd point - news at 11.

I have never said that I think the Karstarks will forgive Jon.  A little more reading comprehension and a little less making up things would go a long way towards keeping this discussion useful.  I won't ask you t stop the personal attacks, since I know that the ad hom is your defining "thing" in debate.

[KRonn]

Did anyone else think it was Roose who had stabbed the Ramsay?

I wasn't sure at first either, but then not too surprised that Ramsay killed Roose. Perhaps Roose should have been a lot more careful in dealings with his mad dog bastard son, which is what I really was thinking after seeing Roose get killed. He should have seen that coming. Then after Ramsay fed the mother and child to the dogs, well, that shows the point Roose was making about Ramsay being too wild eyed. So far he's gotten away with his craziness, though now he'll be a lot more visible as head of House Bolton, but in this story line it's not necessarily the nasty or hated ones who lose out.

[KRonn]

Very cool to see Jon Snow alive. I can't wait to see how that all goes with him now, confronting his killers, and how the others regard him probably with some reverence. That includes the Widlings too.

I think Ramsay had some ideas of gaining an alliance, or some other dealings, with the Night's Watch? I thought he mentioned something about that when talking with his father, er, before the killing. Anyhow, I wouldn't think a meet up with the Watch won't go so well with Jon Snow alive and now a Wildling army in Snow's debt for giving them a home. Just that aspect of the Wildlings is likely to have an interesting story line to play out, with Sansa coming to Castle Black, etc.

[Eddie Teach]

And what makes as little sense as the evaporating dogs in the Sansa rescue scene is that all of Doran's guards could have been suborned without a single one of them ratting the scheme out to Hotah.  The Martells have, after all, been the reigning dynasty for a thousand years, and surely at least one guardsman would think such a lineage worth preserving, even if his own oaths to the dynasty were somehow made null and void.

If the writers were wise, they'd have an earthquake drop Dorne into the ocean at the start of the next episode.  It is pretty clear that thinking about Dorne makes any writer (including Martin) stupid.

I agree, the Dorne plotline doesn't seem too well thought out. But given the execution of the plot that was shown, I think one has to credit Ellaria as being at least "competent" in her scheming.

[Eddie Teach]

Very cool to see Jon Snow alive. I can't wait to see how that all goes with him now, confronting his killers, and how the others regard him probably with some reverence. That includes the Widlings too.

I think Ramsay had some ideas of gaining an alliance, or some other dealings, with the Night's Watch? I thought he mentioned something about that when talking with his father, er, before the killing. Anyhow, I wouldn't think a meet up with the Watch won't go so well with Jon Snow alive and now a Wildling army in Snow's debt for giving them a home. Just that aspect of the Wildlings is likely to have an interesting story line to play out, with Sansa coming to Castle Black, etc.

I wonder if Jon chooses to stay with the Watch considering his oath has been fulfilled by his death. He could lead an army against Winterfell, either on his own or Sansa's behalf.

[grumbler]

(snip) I think Ramsay had some ideas of gaining an alliance, or some other dealings, with the Night's Watch? I thought he mentioned something about that when talking with his father, er, before the killing. (snip)

Ramsey proposed to raid the Black castle and kill all of the Night's Watch, so as to make sure Jon won't interfere with the Boltons' schemes.

[Tamas]

I would have preferred Roose to stab Ramsey. I liked Roose better as a character. He had more depth.

Yes a much more interesting character.

[Martinus]

If Roose stabbed Ramsay there would be no "dingo ate my baby" moment, though.