Game of Thrones - The Discussion! p 83 season 7 rumours[SPOILERS]

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Korinov**

Asherian Command wrote:
Minus the fight between Ned Stark and the Sword of the Morning.

You mean the SwordS of the Morning?

It's funny because the Dawn described in the books (a greatsword) is actually an efficient weapon at dealing with multiple opponents at once, while hollywood dual wielding with one-handed medieval longswords is incredibly stupid. The fight was silly, if the Stark party had barely any fighting experience they would have killed Dayne in five seconds... in fact Ned could have backstabbed him right after killing the other kingsguard guy.

I never ask choreographies to be entirely realistic. I do ask them to be well done and at least slightly believable. GoT has been falling behind in that department for a while. Dayne is supposed to be pretty much the best swordsman in the seven kingdoms and yet the only thing he does is waving two swords around in a flashy way, while his own movements look incredibly robotic and clumsy. That fight was painful to watch for me.

**Asherian Command**

Korinov wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Minus the fight between Ned Stark and the Sword of the Morning.

You mean the SwordS of the Morning?

It's funny because the Dawn described in the books (a greatsword) is actually an efficient weapon at dealing with multiple opponents at once, while hollywood dual wielding with one-handed medieval longswords is incredibly stupid. The fight was silly, if the Stark party had barely any fighting experience they would have killed Dayne in five seconds... in fact Ned could have backstabbed him right after killing the other kingsguard guy.

I never ask choreographies to be entirely realistic. I do ask them to be well done and at least slightly believable. GoT has been falling behind in that department for a while. Dayne is supposed to be pretty much the best swordsman in the seven kingdoms and yet the only thing he does is waving two swords around in a flashy way, while his own movements look incredibly robotic and clumsy. That fight was painful to watch for me.

Erm... No it isn't

If you want to complain, complain about how a fething longsword somehow breached ring mail and pierced four layers of armor. or that he bloody puts a sword into BLOODY DIRT. I Get it though dramatic effect. The sword fighting in the show has been actually making sense if you want to see flashy combat, then you should look at other media, as very few media accurately represents true combat. As it is exceptionally dangerous for both fighters.

Dual wielding did actually happen especially when facing multiple opponents in DUELS. Duels are an exception in most cases when it comes to dual wielding. In most cases no, there is no good reason to use another weapon unless you are extremely talented. And we can see this by the sword of the morning basically owning ned stark until he got stabbed in the back.

In battle scenarios. No you wouldn't use two weapons. That would be detrimental to your survival, as a shield is quite important on the battlefield instead of wielding another weapon. In this instance dual wielding ACTUALLY makes sense.

As only very skilled warriors can dual wield well and correctly. One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed about the tower of joy fight was how most of the deaths were neck blows instead of stabbing through plate armor or mail armor. (Which is PRETTY difficult to do in pitch battle).

But many HEMA people have said to me that it is possible and there are people in the world currently who can use two swords better than one sword.

**Korinov**

Asherian Command wrote:
Erm... No it isn't

It is. Virtually every greatsword treatise I know focuses quite heavily on techniques meant to fight against several opponents at once, it's the same for Iberian (Godinho and Figueyredo's montante) or Italian (Alfieri's spadone) traditions. There are techniques for fighting in several scenarios, from a narrow alley to a wide street or even an open field, against opponents armed with shields, etc.

complain about how a fething longsword somehow breached ring mail and pierced four layers of armor.

Only four layers of armor? It pierces through what looks to be boiled leather, then ringmail and the padded armor (probably a light gambeson of sorts) beneath. Then a guy's torso. Then another three layers of armor again

Not to mention doing such a thing in a fight against multiple opponents is virtually suicide, as it's easy to get your sword stuck if you thrust it through something so brutally.

very few media accurately represents true combat. As it is exceptionally dangerous for both fighters.

It's not really so dangerous if the people involved know what they're doing. GoT has actually delivered nice swordfighting scenes through its run. In example Tyrion's trial by combat in the first season, between Bronn and the Vale knight. Although they exaggerated quite a bit the armor weight (plate armor is heavy yeah, that's why you need to become used to it and train with it and all that, while the Vale knight was almost hilariously slow), the fight looks convincing, and Bronn actually fights like a professional and ruthless mercenary.

In the last seasons though, quality of choreographies has drastically gone down. I don't know if it comes from a desire to cut costs so they don't bother with hiring competent advisors anymore, I read something about that Dorne fight looking so terrible because they hired nobody to teach the actresses how to use their weapons.

Dual wielding did actually happen especially when facing multiple opponents in DUELS. Duels are an exception in most cases when it comes to dual wielding. In most cases no, there is no good reason to use another weapon unless you are extremely talented. And we can see this by the sword of the morning basically owning ned stark until he got stabbed in the back.

Care to cite a source? The only dual wielding I know that was widely practised was the sword + dagger combo, and usually with rapier + parrying dagger in the XVI-XVII centuries. Sword plus dagger makes sense, because the dagger is mostly a defensive weapon, and being short, it doesn't get in the way of your main offensive weapon. You don't need to be extremely talented in order to become a proficient rapier + dagger fencer, it's mostly a matter of practice, and I'm talking from experience here.

Some treatises mention dual-wielding as something that can be done in very specific circunstances. A example would be defending a friend or a lady from a group of muggers, you get your friend/lady behind you then take a mostly defensive stance, swinging your blades wide in a coordinated way, in order to describe wide arcs that should dissuade the opposition from getting close. It was done with rapier-like swords, not medieval swords though, you wouldn't be able to keep the act for long swinging two heavy weapons around. It's different with a greatsword because two-handed swords rely on quite different body balances, postures and movements.

Other treatises dismiss dual-wielding outright (outside of sword + dagger), calling it flamboyant and foolish, nice for a theatrical spectacle but useless in a real fight.

One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed about the tower of joy fight was how most of the deaths were neck blows instead of stabbing through plate armor or mail armor.

Fair point there.

But many HEMA people have said to me that it is possible and there are people in the world currently who can use two swords better than one sword.

I don't know what kind of HEMA people you've talked for. Among european historical martial arts practicioners, rapier + dagger is certainly a thing. Dual-wielding however... well I don't know if someone out there has been working on some specific techniques, but it would be odd.

**Asherian Command**

Korinov, if you notice, the sword that he was using was alot shorter than the main sword he wielded. He was using an arming sword and a long sword (arming swords are very small.) In a classical sense it would be extremely hard to block several attacks (IE 4) attackers from attacking you. And according to that video it just wasn't common. And my argument is for the sake of that fight (the tower of joy) a 7 on 2 fight, already favoring ned starks group, but Arthur Dayne is shown to be an extremely compentent swordsmen (IE being able to draw from his left side with his left arm. That is extremely skillful.

We haven't seen a giant fight in a while.

And are really going to say the beginning had better sword fights?

Do you remember the jamie and ned stark fight? That one was absolute rubbish. Jamie or the Actor doesn't even know how to use a sword correctly, he looks terrible as he fights, and all his sword strikes are very slow,

But I think some of the fights are not that bad. They aren't Jamie Lannister fights which are horribly choreographed (or basically the worst in the series in my honest opinion).

We haven't had a pitched battle in.... four episodes?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Azreal13 wrote:
Miltos Unspellablesurname was in Thronecast this week. It struck me as odd to have a guest actor so far removed from the current story. Now it seems entirely deliberate...

Seems like Syrios return was either spoiled on purpose or the still was accidentally leaked and they thought "Feth it, let's roll with t".

**Asherian Command**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Miltos Unspellablesurname was in Thronecast this week. It struck me as odd to have a guest actor so far removed from the current story. Now it seems entirely deliberate...

Seems like Syrios return was either spoiled on purpose or the still was accidentally leaked and they thought "Feth it, let's roll with t".

It certainly sounds like it.

I do hope it is true, I want to see some actual good sword fights.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I miss his one liners most.

**Asherian Command**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I miss his one liners most.

I think everyone does... ALSO

Found this really cool theory on reddit about arya

Ahem this is pretty long, and by far the ONLY one so far that I believe is reasonable.

Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/4ng4fc/spoilers_extended_lady_crane_is_not_what_we_think/

OK after thinking a bit more about it, I have a prediction to add to this. It's a bit long and has a lot of analysis, so I hope people don't mind I gave it it's own post. I think watching the show again, it's unlikely that Arya is knowingly working with Jaqen to draw the Waif out. But I do think Arya's test was not what we think it was. Please accept my latest tinfoil;
Jaqen was testing both Arya and The Waif here. Arya passed her test.
The assassination was not the real test. In fact the assassination was not a real job at all - because Lady Crane is a Faceless Man. She would have survived whether the poison was drunk or not, after all she had the antidote. Note Crane is by far and away the best actor in the troupe. Of course she is, the Faceless are the best actors in the world.
Jaqen says to Arya before the job that "A girl is not ready"; he knows fair well she's not ready to carry out proper FM assassinations. But why did he send her to kill a woman who just happened to be playing the role of Cersei Lannister, in a play about the events of her life? Coincidence? I think not.
When watching the show we see Arya's emotional response. Her last failure was failing to give up her revenge list, so really what she must do to become no one is to give up her hatred, and need for revenge. What's important here is Arya's reaction to the play. Shortly after poisoning Lady Crane's drink, something odd happens - Lady Crane stops Arya and questions her. Four things happen -
Lady Crane gives her a brief background story, nothing suspicious there, but this is also what the FM do when they play their "game".
Arya responds to Lady Crane's portrayal of Cersei - this is where Arya really passes her test -
LC:"How would you change it?" Arya:"..The queen loves her son. More than anything. And he was taken from her before she could say goodbye. She wouldn't just.. cry; she would be angry. She would want to kill the person who did this to her."
She empathises with Cersei's loss. The effect the play had on her was not to further hate her enemies, but to understand how Cersei would feel when losing her son. She responded objectively - her judgement wasn't clouded by hatred. She even sounds like she's contrasting it with the loss of her own father. You can see the turning point in the previous scene - When "Joffrey" dies, Arya is laughing about it while the crowd throw her glances of disdain. The scene is pretty funny, but obviously is intended to be tragic. When Lady Crane says her lines, however, Arya's face changes. She stops laughing. She understands Cersei's loss. When the scene ends, she is the first to clap.
The next two things are what personally clinched it for me; * Lady Crane asks Arya if she likes pretending to be other people. She seems confident when she says this, like she knows Arya is not what she seems. * Just before that though - she asks one, very important question of Arya;
LC: "What is your name?"
Lady Crane isn't just asking innocuous questions. She is playing The Game Of Faces. She starts with her own story, then ends with the same question Jaqen asks of Arya. Obviously Arya has no idea, so simply answers "Mercy".
Jaqen also tested The Waif here though - knowing Arya would fudge the actual assassination part, he wanted to see how The Waif reacted. She expressed a desire to dispatch Arya, and in this, she failed. A girl has no desires. When The Waif contronts him, Jaqen says "Shame. A girl had many gifts". He is disappointed in not Arya, but The Waif. Her eagerness to kill is at odds with what it means to truly be no one. His request to make it quick is not fondness for Arya - it is a warning - one the Waif has predictably ignored when she went for the gut, and not the heart or throat.
When Arya finally dispatches The Waif I think we'll see Jaqen appear. He will inform Arya she passed her test. She will then go out into the wider world - joining the mummers under her new mentor - Lady Crane.

There have been alot of crazy theories.

But I find it interesting how my speculations have been proved true so far...

Jamie Scene with Blackfish (happened)
Sansa saying no to LF (happened)
Now all I am waiting for is:

These might happen for all I know so I am spoilering them and if any of these are true, A win for me!

Spoiler:

Also for fun:

Warning Language: (Wait GOT is for adults.... So what you are doing here kids!?!?!?)

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Jorah touched Daario's manhood? Please let that be true.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Asherian Command wrote:
Korinov, if you notice, the sword that he was using was alot shorter than the main sword he wielded. He was using an arming sword and a long sword (arming swords are very small.) In a classical sense it would be extremely hard to block several attacks (IE 4) attackers from attacking you. And according to that video it just wasn't common. And my argument is for the sake of that fight (the tower of joy) a 7 on 2 fight, already favoring ned starks group, but Arthur Dayne is shown to be an extremely compentent swordsmen (IE being able to draw from his left side with his left arm. That is extremely skillful.

I loved the Tower of Joy fight as well. It was well choreographed, quick, and brutal... and yes, some suspension of disbelief is required (though in a show about dragons and ice zombies, this shouldn't have to be said). It's also a good lesson that just slashing someone isn't an effective way to keep them from fighting back!

**Korinov**

Asherian Command wrote:
Korinov, if you notice, the sword that he was using was alot shorter than the main sword he wielded. He was using an arming sword and a long sword (arming swords are very small.) In a classical sense it would be extremely hard to block several attacks (IE 4) attackers from attacking you. And according to that video it just wasn't common. And my argument is for the sake of that fight (the tower of joy) a 7 on 2 fight, already favoring ned starks group, but Arthur Dayne is shown to be an extremely compentent swordsmen (IE being able to draw from his left side with his left arm. That is extremely skillful.

Yes, the sword in his left hand is slightly shorter than the one on his right. It's still too long, too impractical. About being able to draw from his left side with his left arm... err I'm not that impressed honestly. It's something that can be expected from someone who carries a blade on his left hip.

And are really going to say the beginning had better sword fights?

Do you remember the jamie and ned stark fight? That one was absolute rubbish. Jamie or the Actor doesn't even know how to use a sword correctly, he looks terrible as he fights, and all his sword strikes are very slow,

But I think some of the fights are not that bad. They aren't Jamie Lannister fights which are horribly choreographed (or basically the worst in the series in my honest opinion).

I agree there's been a problem with Jaime Lannister from the beginning. He's supposed to be one hell of a swordsman, while in truth most of his fight scenes have been average at best. He has never given the feeling of being a specially proficient swordsman. Even if the fights are pure fancy choreography, there are ways to make a fencer look elegant and proficient, mostly by the mere way he moves. They should have worked on that more with Coster-Waldau, but not him alone, in the very few fighting scenes Selmy got he didn't look like anything special either.

Gregor Clegane was even worse. Ironically his short fight against his brother in the first season was ok, it gave away the feeling of a really brutal clash between brutal characters, and at the same time both guys looked like they knew how to swing a sword. It was convincing. Then we go two or three seasons later, I don't remember, and after two recasts, the new Gregor Clegane is slow and clumsy to a ridiculous extreme. Martin already fethed up with his whole "wields a greatsword with one hand lol", which is simply not possible, it's not a matter of arm strenght, a greatsword's handle is just too long to be comfortably held with a single hand, unless you have hands five times larger than a regular human being (which Clegane doesn't have).

In any case back to the ToJ scene: Dawn is described as a greatsword in the books. Greatswords are good against multiple opponents (they provide extra range to keep enemies at bay, they have enough weight and cutting power to make severe injuries out of relatively minor hits, it's relatively easy to combine slashing moves and thrusts, and a greatsword in quick movement also provides a nice psychological deterrent to enemies, which helps to keep them checked). So they needed to change nothing, but they did, because reasons. Also the original ToJ fight from the books is supposed to be 7 vs. 3, which is still a severe disadvantage for the kingsguard, but not as brutal as what the show provided.

I also don't understand why the lightly armoured Howland Reed is the one to go first charging head on, while the guys carrying shields wait at the back of the group. Cultural northern fighting tactics, I guess.

**Mr Morden**

Without going too far off topic - dual wielding with Katanas is possible - and they are not short. It is hard though- we have only done a bit with two Boken and that was tricky.

**Alpharius**

That's probably enough about dual wielding swords and fighting with them - please open up a separate topic on that if you wish to discuss it further.

thanks!

**CthuluIsSpy**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Jorah touched Daario's manhood? Please let that be true.

And many Fangirls Squeed that day.

Anyway, is anyone looking forward to Sandor going Rambo on the Brotherhood?
"they drew first blood, not me"

**Mr Morden**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Jorah touched Daario's manhood? Please let that be true.

And many Fangirls Squeed that day.

Anyway, is anyone looking forward to Sandor going Rambo on the Brotherhood?
"they drew first blood, not me"

Nah more intersted in his brother against the Faith Militant

**CthuluIsSpy**

What would that be? Terminator? Bane? He is a big guy (for you)

Also, aren't the brotherhood supposed to be relatively benevolent, unless you are a Lannister or a Frey?

**Mr Morden**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What would that be? Terminator? Bane? He is a big guy (for you)

Also, aren't the brotherhood supposed to be relatively benevolent, unless you are a Lannister or a Frey?

What? I just think the Faith Militant need a bit of a bashing

Arn;t the Brotherhood just disposed warriors - not an unknown thing in medievil wars. As Sandor said the Pilgrims had food, drink, women and few weapons. You donlt last long without them in such a time.

**Asherian Command**

I don't know if you guys like leaks.... BUT LEAK AHEAD

From a very trustworthy source

IF you want to have it spoiled open it.

Spoiler:

But anyway I think it is pretty interesting but the Brotherhood should be fascinating to see.

**Mr Morden**

Thanks - must admit i had to google both of them

Be cool if we have Syrio - he was fun.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Mr Morden wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What would that be? Terminator? Bane? He is a big guy (for you)

Also, aren't the brotherhood supposed to be relatively benevolent, unless you are a Lannister or a Frey?

What? I just think the Faith Militant need a bit of a bashing

Arn;t the Brotherhood just disposed warriors - not an unknown thing in medievil wars. As Sandor said the Pilgrims had food, drink, women and few weapons. You donlt last long without them in such a time.

Just making references to movies

huh, I thought the book painted them as sort of Robin Hood bunch of bandits, ex soldiers who deserted because they didn't like the way Lannister soldiers treated the common folk.
Might be mistaken though.

**Asherian Command**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What would that be? Terminator? Bane? He is a big guy (for you)

Also, aren't the brotherhood supposed to be relatively benevolent, unless you are a Lannister or a Frey?

What? I just think the Faith Militant need a bit of a bashing

Arn;t the Brotherhood just disposed warriors - not an unknown thing in medievil wars. As Sandor said the Pilgrims had food, drink, women and few weapons. You donlt last long without them in such a time.

Just making references to movies
huh, I thought the book painted them as sort of Robin Hood bunch of bandits, ex soldiers who deserted because they didn't like the way Lannister soldiers treated the common folk.
Might be mistaken though.

Actually you are correct,

George RR Martin gained alot of inspiration from Robin Hood's original tale. They 'protected' the common people sometimes.

But I think we will see something pretty interesting in the next episode

**Mr Morden**

Looking on Google

"That's what we are: ghosts. Waiting for you in the dark. You can't see us, but we see you. No matter whose cloak you wear: Lannister, Stark, Baratheon, you prey on the weak, the Brotherhood Without Banners will hunt you down."

Although the Brotherhood claims to protect the smallfolk, they sometimes rob the same people they are supposed to protect, as they did to the Old woman prisoner. She told bitterly that Beric "took two of my chickens and gave me a bit of paper with a mark on it. Can I eat a bit of raggy old paper, I ask you? Will it give me eggs?". The Brotherhood members that encountered Arya, Gendry and Hot Pie intended to treat them similarly: take their horses and pay with a paper. To justify their acts, they claim that they will pay after the war is over, and that they can make better use of those items than their previous owners by fighting for the good of the realm. Even if the Brotherhood intends to honor its obligations, it is not much of consolation to the poor people they rob. Following the Red Wedding, the Brotherhood have fallen low, and are no different to regular outlaws. Under a new leader, they target participants of the Red Wedding, particularly the Freys, and hang them.

Of course we did not actually see them kill the Pilgrims so it could have been others - or they may be a splinter group. Plus they were quoting the Lord of Light so he might have told them to kill the priest of a rival god.

**Asherian Command**

Mr Morden wrote:
Looking on Google

"That's what we are: ghosts. Waiting for you in the dark. You can't see us, but we see you. No matter whose cloak you wear: Lannister, Stark, Baratheon, you prey on the weak, the Brotherhood Without Banners will hunt you down."

Although the Brotherhood claims to protect the smallfolk, they sometimes rob the same people they are supposed to protect, as they did to the Old woman prisoner. She told bitterly that Beric "took two of my chickens and gave me a bit of paper with a mark on it. Can I eat a bit of raggy old paper, I ask you? Will it give me eggs?". The Brotherhood members that encountered Arya, Gendry and Hot Pie intended to treat them similarly: take their horses and pay with a paper. To justify their acts, they claim that they will pay after the war is over, and that they can make better use of those items than their previous owners by fighting for the good of the realm. Even if the Brotherhood intends to honor its obligations, it is not much of consolation to the poor people they rob. Following the Red Wedding, the Brotherhood have fallen low, and are no different to regular outlaws. Under a new leader, they target participants of the Red Wedding, particularly the Freys, and hang them.

Of course we did not actually see them kill the Pilgrims so it could have been others - or they may be a splinter group. Plus they were quoting the Lord of Light so he might have told them to kill the priest of a rival god.

Sounds about right. Brotherhood only serve those who believe in the red god.

**cincydooley**

Alpharius wrote:
That's probably enough about dual wielding swords and fighting with them - please open up a separate topic on that if you wish to discuss it further.

thanks!

Thank you merciful god.

That gak was getting to be a little much.

Only 25 more hours. It's crazy how much what I look forward to in a week revolves around Thrones.

**djones520**

Asherian Command wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Looking on Google

"That's what we are: ghosts. Waiting for you in the dark. You can't see us, but we see you. No matter whose cloak you wear: Lannister, Stark, Baratheon, you prey on the weak, the Brotherhood Without Banners will hunt you down."

Although the Brotherhood claims to protect the smallfolk, they sometimes rob the same people they are supposed to protect, as they did to the Old woman prisoner. She told bitterly that Beric "took two of my chickens and gave me a bit of paper with a mark on it. Can I eat a bit of raggy old paper, I ask you? Will it give me eggs?". The Brotherhood members that encountered Arya, Gendry and Hot Pie intended to treat them similarly: take their horses and pay with a paper. To justify their acts, they claim that they will pay after the war is over, and that they can make better use of those items than their previous owners by fighting for the good of the realm. Even if the Brotherhood intends to honor its obligations, it is not much of consolation to the poor people they rob. Following the Red Wedding, the Brotherhood have fallen low, and are no different to regular outlaws. Under a new leader, they target participants of the Red Wedding, particularly the Freys, and hang them.

Of course we did not actually see them kill the Pilgrims so it could have been others - or they may be a splinter group. Plus they were quoting the Lord of Light so he might have told them to kill the priest of a rival god.

Sounds about right. Brotherhood only serve those who believe in the red god.

Thoros is their spiritual guide though, and when did he ever become a man to slaughter the innocent?

**Yodhrin**

djones520 wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Looking on Google

"That's what we are: ghosts. Waiting for you in the dark. You can't see us, but we see you. No matter whose cloak you wear: Lannister, Stark, Baratheon, you prey on the weak, the Brotherhood Without Banners will hunt you down."

Although the Brotherhood claims to protect the smallfolk, they sometimes rob the same people they are supposed to protect, as they did to the Old woman prisoner. She told bitterly that Beric "took two of my chickens and gave me a bit of paper with a mark on it. Can I eat a bit of raggy old paper, I ask you? Will it give me eggs?". The Brotherhood members that encountered Arya, Gendry and Hot Pie intended to treat them similarly: take their horses and pay with a paper. To justify their acts, they claim that they will pay after the war is over, and that they can make better use of those items than their previous owners by fighting for the good of the realm. Even if the Brotherhood intends to honor its obligations, it is not much of consolation to the poor people they rob. Following the Red Wedding, the Brotherhood have fallen low, and are no different to regular outlaws. Under a new leader, they target participants of the Red Wedding, particularly the Freys, and hang them.

Of course we did not actually see them kill the Pilgrims so it could have been others - or they may be a splinter group. Plus they were quoting the Lord of Light so he might have told them to kill the priest of a rival god.

Sounds about right. Brotherhood only serve those who believe in the red god.

Thoros is their spiritual guide though, and when did he ever become a man to slaughter the innocent?

I expect that if You Know Who really isn't going to be on the TV show, they'll fudge it by rolling her violent vengeance streak into Dondarrion's character, explained by him having died & revived a few more times off screen between appearances and that having unbalanced him, then they can have plenty of "Thoros torn between loyalty to his friend and the reality his friend has become a bloodthirsty maniac, and it's Thoros' fault" scenes. Or they could just make the Brotherhood a less sympathetic/justifiable/grey organisation for the show and turn them into proper baddies.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Thats lame...You-Know-Who was a very dark twist and a moment of twisted catharsis for fans of a certain Noble House in the books...I'll be disappointed if the character really has been cut from the show.

**Mr Morden**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats lame...You-Know-Who was a very dark twist and a moment of twisted catharsis for fans of a certain Noble House in the books...I'll be disappointed if the character really has been cut from the show.

Is you know who

Spoiler:

if so

Spoiler:

if not who is it?

**Alpharius**

cincydooley wrote:

Only 25 more hours. It's crazy how much what I look forward to in a week revolves around Thrones.

Definitely agree with that sentiment!

We really look forward to 9PM EST Sunday night here.

Of course, there's only 3 episodes left this season!

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Of course it is. Who else could I possibly be talking about in relation to the Brotherhood?

And yes, I agree that the character has been under utilized so far, but thats only because a lot of the events involving the character have been "off-screen" so to speak. We only see the character in two chapters IIRC, one chapter that involves an encounter with a POV character and again in an epilogue chapter.

Far from being forgotten, we're getting a lot of setup for some major gak to come in the next book. We'll see a lot more of this person in the Winds of Winter. And I think it'll make for a perfect Season finale cliffhanger.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you think the internet lost its gak when Robb Stark was killed, or Eddard, or Tywin Lannister, or Jon Snow, or when Jon Snow was resurrected, imagine the reaction this will cause. This show is all about the shock value and WTF moments. You can't get a better WTF than this - especially when you see the state of this character and how much darker the character has become.

Not using LSH is a wasted opportunity.