Board 8 > Game of Thrones Season 8: Final Topic [spoilers]

(+) Yeah! (+)

idk I only played the Telltale's game and it sucked balls

Shout out to the character of Asher and the song "Ballad of the Forresters" for being the only good things in that shitshow
---

Safer_777 posted...

Is there a good GOT video game? Of a fan game? Or a mod based on a video game?

I didnt hate the Telltale one. It was a mix of really dumb stuff and pretty good stuff though and at times it bordered on fan fiction level. Still probably worth a quick play through if youre a fan though.
---

The Crusader Kings 2 mod is probably the best GoT themed game thing that I know of.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

. It was a mix of really dumb stuff and pretty good stuff though and at times it bordered on fan fiction level.

Sounds familiar...
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhWUFXvaZjo" data-time="

4:09 Grover predicted Bran's ascension.
---

GANON1025 posted...

The Crusader Kings 2 mod is probably the best GoT themed game thing that I know of.

By far. Check it out.

Thanks I guess.
---

Theres one of those browser type games where you build a castle and war that is officially licensed and it is decentish. Like all browser games it is a massive time sink but it is at least super generous with speed ups.

It's called game of thrones winter is coming by like gtarcade or something

v_charon posted...

Elite level argumentative skills. Debate team president material.

Oh fuck vcharon on gamefaqs doesn't respect my argument. I am defeated.
---

The Telltale game was great. Shame we'll never see a sequel. I kept wondering where they were going to move the plot with all the stuff that happened in the show, and then, oh, they're not.

The Reigns GOT Game? Second the CK2 GOT Mod, probably the closest.

foolm0r0n posted...

v_charon posted...

Elite level argumentative skills. Debate team president material.

Oh fuck vcharon on gamefaqs doesn't respect my argument. I am defeated.

I mean, really? You can't speak on respecting an argument when you just write off anyone that doesn't agree with you as "not getting it". It's like the lowest form of arguing, online or anywhere else. Disagreeing with someone isn't quite the same as "you just don't get it :)".
---

Lmao vcharon
---

v_charon posted...

You can't speak on respecting an argument when you just write off anyone that doesn't agree with you as "not getting it".

I'm not. I'm saying if you don't think she had enough development leading up to the massacre then you don't get it.

You can't dismiss criticism of your shitty understanding of the story as a simple disagreement. If you didn't get it properly then your opinions are literally wrong.
---

I just wish people would stop with the "it was too sudden! This is not her at all! They ruined Dany!"
I hate to defend this season and I hate it, but I hate people's ignorance more
---

I find this pretty interesting

https://twitter.com/jowrotethis/status/1131956466993094656?s=19

I dun wont tet
---

It was inevitable, but it was clearly too sudden and did ruin Dany.

Ehh they'd been building up mad queen all season. It wouldn't get a reaction if it was something strongly hinted at all series.

Dany prior to KL never attacked anyone she perceived as innocent. Had she gone straight to the Keep and burned that to the ground, cool, all set up just fine.

Yes, she was set up as willing to invoke and rule through fear, to execute those who crossed her. None of that leads to razing a city that's already surrendered, that she explicitly wants to rule, without multiple steps inbetween. You can yell development all you want, that wasn't what was developed.

Was she on the path to it? Yes.

Had she got there yet? Absolutely not.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

I find this pretty interesting

https://twitter.com/jowrotethis/status/1131956466993094656?s=19

I wonder how this looks if you remove the brothel exposition dumps from the first few seasons
---

GildedFool posted...

Dany prior to KL never attacked anyone she perceived as innocent. Had she gone straight to the Keep and burned that to the ground, cool, all set up just fine.

Yes, she was set up as willing to invoke and rule through fear, to execute those who crossed her. None of that leads to razing a city that's already surrendered, that she explicitly wants to rule, without multiple steps inbetween. You can yell development all you want, that wasn't what was developed.

Was she on the path to it? Yes.

Had she got there yet? Absolutely not.

idk man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2P_v7wxTQ" data-time="

"I will crucify the masters, I will set their fleets afire, kill every last one of their soldiers and return their cities to the dirt."

Seems unlikely that she could "return a city to the dirt" without killing innocents. Tyrion talked her out of it here. After a certain point - when she wasn't winning all the time, when plans failed, her claim to the throne no longer viable, Jon rejecting her, etc - he stopped being able to.
---

this is the girl who imprisoned her dragons for roasting one random kid
---

Its like it was a coin flip or something
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

this is the girl who imprisoned her dragons for roasting one random kid

I think it's pretty clear that she is not stable???
---

Also worth pointing out that when Jon executed people he did it cleanly, with hanging or beheading.

Daenerys sometimes did that too but there was also a lot of burning people alive and actual crucifixions. This is someone who pursued a sadistic, vengeful idea of justice far more than Jon, the show's moral compass.
---

Burning is symbolic and crucifixion sends a message. Also, burning is within her skillset. We've never seen Daenerys wield a broadsword - why should she carry one around now for executions?
---

Just like she wasn't the one actually burning them or crucifying them, she would have one of her soldiers do the beheading too.

Another thing that people complain about and it bothers me - Bran being king

Yes it might not make sense from a royality view, he is not a rightful heir or know how to rule or whatever, but he has a fucking scary power
He can predict wars before they happen
He can stop coups and the likes

Well if anything he might become a dictator and a conquerer, but this is not what people complain about
---

I actually think the next in line through traditional means would be Tyrion.

ShatteredElysium posted...

Just like she wasn't the one actually burning them or crucifying them, she would have one of her soldiers do the beheading too.

The dragons are an extension of Dany - a tool of hers. Even though we see characterization of them, they are essentially Dany powers.

Otherwise, why do we blame Dany for burning Kings Landing and not Drogon? We blame. Grey Worm for executing people in the street, despite him saying it's on her orders.

Dragons are viewed as part of the Dragon Queen. Hence why she burns people alive - it's what she has the power to do herself. Nobody else can do that.
---

Death by Dragon fire is not actually a cruel death btw. Its fucking dragon fire; death is pretty much instantaneous. This isnt like burning people at the stake like people seem to want to compare it to. Its arguably more humane than hanging, which while in theory is also instant can also be a very cruel death if anything goes wrong, of which there are plenty of historical examples.
---

Yep, the dragons being Daenerys's expressions of agency makes things dissonant from a narrative standpoint. They ARE her sword.

And I'm totally down for that being a slow burn of her more impersonal method of execution leading to her becoming more detached but the show has no interest in doing that and tries to pivot way too fast. Theres some token scenes of the carnage in the Loot Train fight where Tyrion realizes War is Hell and Fire is Bad but it falls completely flat. The Tarly execution needed to be actually controversial and grotesque and not something any lord would have decided to do and then the absolutely laughable 3 seconds of fire and they fall down dead. Followed of course by Tyrion and Varys agonizing over it to explain to the audience how bad fire is.

If she had incinerated the Tarly soldiers that kneel to her after the execution because she decides she can't trust their loyalty or something, that would have gotten the point across.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

I actually think the next in line through traditional means would be Tyrion.

Nope.

Technically Gendry would be next using House Baratheons Claim to the Iron Throne (sort of? His claim to House Baratheon was derived from House Targareyen which would mean that in becoming a Baratheon he acknowledged that House Baratheon were unlawful usurpers).

Jon would be next using House Targaryen's claim.

Gotta remember the Lannisters were never actually invested with a claim to the Iron Throne.

It was Robert Baratheon ->Joffrey Baratheon -> Tommen Baratheon and then finally when there were no other legal options (with Stannis and Renly dead) Cersei Baratheon.

Despite the factual parentage of Joffrey and Tommen, legally all of that authority was derived from Robert's coup.

And after the Targaryen Restoration and with Jon exiled, Varys and Danaerys dead and Aegon being Sir Not Appearing In This Series no one left really had a legit claim outside of kinda sorta Gendry but again... Not really.
---

Bran makes less sense as king because it doesnt make sense for anyone other than his sisters and Tyrion to back him up in the moment.

There's the less meaningful issue of: an independent North shouldn't have a say in the Kingsmoot, and by extension, Bran shouldn't be considered for king. But that doesnt really matter if they just go with "we'll choose our leaders from now on".
---

Bran doesn't makes sense. Yeah we know about him as an audience but pretty sure like 5 people know what exactly he is and they aren't even sure about what exactly he does.
---

Eddv posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

I actually think the next in line through traditional means would be Tyrion.

Nope.

Technically Gendry would be next using House Baratheons Claim to the Iron Throne (sort of? His claim to House Baratheon was derived from House Targareyen which would mean that in becoming a Baratheon he acknowledged that House Baratheon were unlawful usurpers).

Jon would be next using House Targaryen's claim.

Gotta remember the Lannisters were never actually invested with a claim to the Iron Throne.

It was Robert Baratheon ->Joffrey Baratheon -> Tommen Baratheon and then finally when there were no other legal options (with Stannis and Renly dead) Cersei Baratheon.

Despite the factual parentage of Joffrey and Tommen, legally all of that authority was derived from Robert's coup.

And after the Targaryen Restoration and with Jon exiled, Varys and Danaerys dead and Aegon being Sir Not Appearing In This Series no one left really had a legit claim outside of kinda sorta Gendry but again... Not really.

Gendry is a bastard though so has no claim. Daenerys took that away but had no authority to do so as she wasn't Queen. As far as the Baratheon/Lannister line was concerned he was still a bastard

Jon gave away his claim when he took the black the first time. Yes he died and came back which may technically get him his right back but good luck explaining that to people. Especially as all the people involved are now dead. Plus Jon also doesn't want the throne anyway

So Tyrion would be next in line I think through the Lannister family because even if it's derived through the Baratheon line, there isn't anybody else in line I can think of.

Nanis23 posted...

Another thing that people complain about and it bothers me - Bran being king

Yes it might not make sense from a royality view, he is not a rightful heir or know how to rule or whatever, but he has a fucking scary power
He can predict wars before they happen
He can stop coups and the likes

Well if anything he might become a dictator and a conquerer, but this is not what people complain about

Yes, he totally predicted Dany going crazy and killing every-oh, oops.
---

The entire Baratheon line that we know about is dead.

Robert/Stannis/Renly had a great-aunt who's descendants (if they exist) would be next in line theoretically, but that is so far removed and they would never have been in line before the Baratheon Rebellion their claim is basically frivolous and they've literally never been mentioned in any media.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Bran makes less sense as king because it doesnt make sense for anyone other than his sisters and Tyrion to back him up in the moment.

The Tullys and Arryns are close enough to the Starks that having a Stark on the throne should be advantageous to them. And both are enough of a joke that they can't rule themselves.

And (I think) Edmure, Robin, and Gendry are the last major surviving members of their families, so they'd essentially be giving their homeland titles to NPCs if they left for the throne.
---

RyoCaliente posted...

Nanis23 posted...

Another thing that people complain about and it bothers me - Bran being king

Yes it might not make sense from a royality view, he is not a rightful heir or know how to rule or whatever, but he has a fucking scary power
He can predict wars before they happen
He can stop coups and the likes

Well if anything he might become a dictator and a conquerer, but this is not what people complain about

Yes, he totally predicted Dany going crazy and killing every-oh, oops.

Oh he did, he just didnt tell anyone
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Eddv posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

I actually think the next in line through traditional means would be Tyrion.

Nope.

Technically Gendry would be next using House Baratheons Claim to the Iron Throne (sort of? His claim to House Baratheon was derived from House Targareyen which would mean that in becoming a Baratheon he acknowledged that House Baratheon were unlawful usurpers).

Jon would be next using House Targaryen's claim.

Gotta remember the Lannisters were never actually invested with a claim to the Iron Throne.

It was Robert Baratheon ->Joffrey Baratheon -> Tommen Baratheon and then finally when there were no other legal options (with Stannis and Renly dead) Cersei Baratheon.

Despite the factual parentage of Joffrey and Tommen, legally all of that authority was derived from Robert's coup.

And after the Targaryen Restoration and with Jon exiled, Varys and Danaerys dead and Aegon being Sir Not Appearing In This Series no one left really had a legit claim outside of kinda sorta Gendry but again... Not really.

Gendry is a bastard though so has no claim. Daenerys took that away but had no authority to do so as she wasn't Queen. As far as the Baratheon/Lannister line was concerned he was still a bastard

Jon gave away his claim when he took the black the first time. Yes he died and came back which may technically get him his right back but good luck explaining that to people. Especially as all the people involved are now dead. Plus Jon also doesn't want the throne anyway

So Tyrion would be next in line I think through the Lannister family because even if it's derived through the Baratheon line, there isn't anybody else in line I can think of.

Yes for practical purposes no one throigh either claim has a legitimate claim for the throne.

So they either had to go find some random distant Baratheon relative/legitimize a Baratheon bastard like Edric Storm/Gendry

Or just pick someone.
---

[Succession Stuff]

I think it's Gendry but it requires a few things that I'm not 100% sure on and don't feel like confirming, especially book v show continuity adding to it.

The Baratheon claim was "officially" justified/rooted in Targaryen ancestry. Jon Arryn basically was like "yo there was a Targ/Baratheon marriage like three generations back so with Aerys/Rhaegar/Viserys/Dany all dead/exiled technically Robert is next-in-line!"

Obviously that was just a paper-thin rationale to provide a veneer of legitimacy beyond right of conquest (which is weird because obviously that flies in Westeros since it's how the Targs took over in the first place) but officially/legally Robert's reign was framed as descended from the Targaryen line, just a different branch than that of Aerys II... which after his death was the next closest.

Of course, the War of Five Kings then went and extinguished the Baratheon line so "whoops." At that point I genuinely don't know who the rightful heir would have been. I'd have to look up a Targ family tree or something. Could be some dude in Dorne for all we know.

However, when Dany legitimized Gendry, the Baratheon line rose from the dead so I think it would fall back to him. Of course, the sticking point would be Dany herself. She was recognized as the rightful queen by like... most of the realm at that point. But beyond that, Gendry was at the ~council~ that picked Bran, so clearly the rest of Westeros was rolling with him being legitimized and the Lord of Storm's End... ad so theoretically I think his claim to the Iron Throne via Robert (via Targs) was back in play... just no one cared at that point so Bran it was.

tl;dr: Remember that Robert's rule was officially derived from the Targ line. I think the official line of succession went something like:

Aerys II -> Rhaegar -> Jon -> Aegon -> Viscerys -> Dany* -> Robert -> Gendry** -> Stannis -> Shireen* -> Renly -> ???

*I think the Targs were unique compared to the Westeros in deprioritizing female claims so it's possible that any female heirs would be moved to the back of the line, but I'm too lazy to double-check.

**Once legitimized; Also Joffrey/Myrcella/Tommen would be here under the fiction they were Robert's trueborn children. After a legitimized Gendry though I believe, nevermind they were all dead by the time that happened.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Bran makes less sense as king because it doesnt make sense for anyone other than his sisters and Tyrion to back him up in the moment.

You know, this is something that really bothered me
The last two seasons were all about the North and King's Landing, barely anything other
It made it feel like the rest of the world doesn't exist
So yeah, while it's obvious for us that Bran has super-powers, the other people in the meeting...should have been confused

There was a time-skip so they could have heard about it, but still
---

Death by dragon fire is instantaneous unlike burning people at the stake, someone said, which is something that Stannis actually did all the time without getting a bunch of guys crying about how Stannis was super evil all the time and they knew he was a ***** and people should feel stupid for liking him. Nope, people still shout Stannis the Mannis to this day. Annoys me to no end.

Stannis the Mannis is entirely a holdover from book fanboys. Show Stannis was not a popular character.
---

Stannis the Mannis 4life!

First character to be assassinated by the shits D&D.
---

Stannis burned innocent folks at the stake in the books Im fairly sure and Id say being a slaver is way more reason to be burned than religious differences. People like to say book Stannis wouldnt do it and it would probably be better written and a slower build-up, but book Stannis will likely burn his daughter for power. So many characters have a choice between two things they claim to love and eventually end up picking for the worse.

Characters like Jamie and Sandor always talk up how evil they are, how little they care, but end up doing the right thing 90% of the time. Stannis always struck me as the opposite. A character that always talks about how good and right and honorable he is who usually does some pretty bad and deceitful stuff instead.

but book Stannis will likely burn his daughter for power.

Nope. Book Stannis already specifically refuses to burn non-believers (that aren't even related to him) in his army and just tells the religious people to pray harder. Shireen isn't even anywhere near his army in the book as she's at the wall with her mom and Melisandre.

It's going to be 100% different in the book. Shireen will get burned, but not by Stannis.
---

Hey, those slavers weren't breaking any laws. Meanwhile Stannis outlawed other religions and his subjects had the audacity to still practice them. Point Stannis, don't break the law.

Really though you are just describing why people like Stannis. He IS right, lawfully, and seeing him become corrupted and stoop to evil lengths to uphold the rightful law is the entire appeal. And even his worst actions are clearly explained.

Plus, he has Davos vouching for him and if you don't root for whatever team Davos is on you're basically a monster.
---

Hes clinging to a right to rule just like Dany, and people hate Dany for the same nice lawful character does evil things to upload her rightful claim path. You dont get a free pass on your terrible actions just because theyre clearly explained. Hes a hypocrite, he only clings to the law if it benefits him. If he caught anyone else summoning a shadow baby demon to murder their own kin hed execute them in a heartbeat. Stannis is sacrificing his subjects to an ancient evil he barely believes in for ultimate power like some old school D&D villain.