Didn't Edmure Tully's bonehead manuever allow the Lannister army to slip by, enabling them to get to King's Landing in time to stop Stannis? If Stannis sacks King's Landing and takes the throne, Robb could have backed off on the whole "King in the North" nonsense.

The entire point of the series is that there aren't really "completely good" and "completely bad" characters. Rob is a better person than Tywin in that I would rather have him as friend and neighbor. Tywin is a better person in that he can rule a kingdom effectively. Yeah he might have a village of innocent people slaughtered to make a point, but it is for the good of the kingdom. He may be a "bad guy", but he can keep the kingdom in control better than any of the alternatives.

The "best" character so far has been Ned, and he proved he couldn't be an effective ruler of an entire kingdom. Its admirable that he does what is "right", but there is no denying that he could have done more good if he had been willing to compromise his morals occasionally.

Not in the mood?! Mood's a thing for cattle and love play, not fighting!

I think someone mentioned it before (sorry, not going to reread just to quote), but Robb is more naive than anything. He originally called his banners when his father was taken captive, which is a perfectly understandable response. Also keep in mind that the Lannisters were already mobilized and raiding the Riverlands as a result of Catelyn acting rashly and taking Tyrion captive. With the Lannisters raiding their lands as well as the obvious family connection, Riverrun chose to side with Robb, which is why he could not just simply retreat and fortify the North, as it would leave his grandfather and uncles to fend for themselves against a much more powerful army.

That is part of the beauty of ASoIaF. It plays out like real life, with numerous reasons that the war is started. As many have mentioned before, there are no true good or bad guys. You may look at Ned and his family as such, but more than anything, they are honorable to a fault, which does not necessarily make them good, just more respectable. After reading both series, I like to think of Ned as like Galad in Wheel of Time: it's never about what is best, it's about what is honorable. Some may think that to be "good", but with both characters, we see that it can be detrimental, not only to themselves, but to many others around them. Sometimes, we must make difficult decisions because we know that it is what is best, whether for our families or even on a larger scale, and Robb, as with his father, failed to see the true impact that such decisions would bring.

His biggest and most unjustifiable decision was declaring independently. That made no sense when you consider what he was after.

BoCH has been gold in this thread.

*****show spoilers
What I like about GoT is that GRRM is very intent on showing that it is our actions that define whether we are good or evil. We can think and talk how we like, but end the end it is all about actions.

Take Jaime for example, I think he is developing into one of the most altruistic characters in the latter part of the series. He saved Kings Landing and all the inhabitants(in the past but just now shared it with someone). He refuses to turn his back on Brienne which shows that he found a sense of honor lacking in much of his household. How many of us wrote him off in season 1 as an incestuous child murderer. Think about it, if a blonde Lena Heady was your sister how many would pass that up?

On the flip side I kind of see Aria becoming one of the darker characters, I mean she outright murdered a guy!!! Besides that it's obvious that she is just getting warmed up, however since many of the fans have empathized with her since the beginning they will continue to back her.

To be honest I think some of the most compelling characters in the show are now Tywin(the true acting ruler of the 7 kingdoms), Jaime(now that he's back at KL), and Reese Bolton(a minor character that is always present with Rob but never got much attention until the Red Wedding). Before everyone rips me a new one go YouTube search all of Reese Bolton's scenes leading up to the Red Wedding(takes maybe 15 minutes), you'll notice that time and again he gives Rob sound advice/recomendations on ruling but is always rejected. I never noticed this since it was spread out in the show. Question his motives but I think he saved the north from being annihilated by the South.

End spoilers*****

Bring on the flame(targaryen style!!!)

[This message has been edited by hunter2012 (edited 6/22/2013 8:25a).]

The only real fault in your logic is this:

quote:

---

Think about it, if a blonde Lena Heady was your sister how many would pass that up?

---

Dude - she's still my sister. No.

Was just trying to get people to think, didn't say I would do it either.

Also Hodor...
http://youtu.be/0LUIRDBM2yA

quote:

---

On the flip side I kind of see Aria becoming one of the darker characters, I mean she outright murdered a guy!!! Besides that it's obvious that she is just getting warmed up, however since many of the fans have empathized with her since the beginning they will continue to back her.

---

Us book people are ~3 seasons ahead of you and many of us still back her

aegon is the true king of westeros

all others are pretenders him and connington ftw

The real truth is there is NO true King of Westeros. The Targs took the throne because they had dragons but once the dragons died it was simply a matter of time before their kingdom fell apart.

There is a reason there were 7 Kingdoms and really the only way there can be peace is for it to go back to a similar arrangement. Some of the Kingdoms could live in peace because they are too difficult to conquer due to geographic advantages (Dorne, The Vale, The North), some are destined for war over territory (The Reach, The Riverlands (which is technically not a Kingdom for this reason), The Rock to an extent, the Stormlands. The Iron Islands can only really be captured with a vast fleet as they were under Robert Baratheon.

So Robb's idea of declaring himself King of the North was not necessarily bad, he just got an unlucky gamble. He had Cat offer Renly that he would bend the knee and keep the title which was a smart negotiating tactic. The truth is that the King of Westeros really has minimal control over most of his Kingdom, it's really about Kings Landing and the Crownlands.

It is also true that there are no true "good" characters. Every one of the "good" characters has at least one major flaw or is an oathbreaker. There are also very few purely "bad" characters. Probably Ramsay Bolton and Joffrey have no real "good" qualities outside of lust for power which is kind of a virtue in Westeros.

Another fascinating element of the story is that power is an illusion. This was expressed by Varys in Season 2 in his speech. It was expressed by Tywin when he spoke of how "Any man who has to say he is the King is not the King". You could make an argument as well that Littlefinger is the most powerful man in Westeros as well and he has no real family or natural base of power.

That's part of why I think the only solution long term is to either have a benevolent dictator with dragons that scares everyone into submission or to let it go back to the natural order of the Kingdoms.

Similar scenarios played out in Old England, with separate kingdoms that were united then fought each other again later. I read somewhere GRRM was inspired by the War of the Roses.

"No true King" makes a more compelling story than Robert's Rebellion IMO.

What do we have here, the Targaryen line is gone and Dany is possibly barren, the dude who took their place is dead with no true sons. This gives GRRM a blank slate to add histories and allegiances and show what a power vacuum looks like. (Chaos is a ladder).

For the nonreader we still have kingdoms (Dorne, Vale), free cities, and religions to be injected in this power struggle (and an undead army). If GRRM wanted to answer Varys' riddle about the sellsword, he could. But I think he has something more to say than that.

The point of the riddle was to imply that true power lies where the people decide it lies.