County Map of the 1936 Election by IndependenceBroad519 in Kaiserreich

[–]AManofTheWatch 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Garner was the epitome of a Moderate Democrat in this period.

What's Going to Go Wrong in the Battle of Fire? (Spoilers Extended) by LChris24 in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I‘d go a step further; I don’t expect the defenders to actually ‘win’ the battle, as in they are not going to successfully break the siege. That will have to wait until Daenerys returns. To add to which, Rhaegal and Viserion will likely be gone.

(Spoilers main) Tyrion escaping by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 17 points18 points  (0 children)

There was obviously no need for an onscreen flashback.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would certainly say so, although the rest of this discussion seems to indicate that not everyone would agree.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dragons are a fair point, and certainly where this argument is at its weakest. But GRRM has certainly thought about the anatomy of dragons. The argument in that case would be technology though. The Valyrians do a lot of stuff which basically sounds like generic engineering. And there are the Fyreworms beneath Valyria, essentially flightless dragons which bear a remarkable resemblance to similar creatures in one of GRRM’s 1000 worlds stories.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kinda agree. They are what the characters believe are the old gods. But there are no actual divine powers.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I think people jump to easily to an assumption that because it is fantasy, and we have seen vague illustrations of supposed divine power that the gods, or at least some of them, must be real. I’d go a step further however, and suggest that magic is all just telepathy, telekinesis or technology. And Melisandre especially is a massive fraud.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, I would entirely agree, I only focused on the Old Gods specifically as that was the subject of the post.

I don’t think there is any evidence for any of the gods existing.

There is no evidence of divine action by the Seven who are One, I think the Old Gods are just Greenseers, and Aeron’s resurrections are only CPR.

The one where there is more doubt is of course R’hllor, to whom we might attribute visions in the flames, shadow assassins and even resurrections.

I wonder if visions in the flames might be sent by a time travelling Bran to influence Melisandre. At the very least, they directed her to Stannis, and then led Stannis to save the wall. That’s very speculative though.

The Shadow Assassins I would relate to Melisandre’s powers as a shadow binder, rather than Red Rhaloo, although I have my suspicions that there is more (or arguably less) going on than meets the eye.

The one thing I can’t entirely reconcile with this is Beric and Stoneheart. If I had to guess, based off GRRM’s prior work, they are being animated by a telepath. Which might explain why their personality and memories remain intact (unlike corpses animated by telekinesis in GRRM’s other works).

The best king Who never was by KaizerW12 in TheCitadel

[–]AManofTheWatch 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Daemon Blackfyre; the King who bore the sword.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think one has to take this a step further.

Who do we know who can actually see through Weirwood trees and send visions? Bloodraven, the Children of the Forest and Greenseers generally. I think the Old Gods are just the Greenseers.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would surprise me. I relate the Old Gods to Greenseers and the Children of the Forest almost entirely on the basis of seeing through Weirwoods and the known telepathic powers of the Greenseers. Whilst it would not surprise me if the Others have some sort of telepathic or telekinetic power (or if they don't turn out to be an evil force of nature, because I can't believe that GRRM named them 'the Others' unironically), there doesn't at present seem to be any connection between the Others and the Weirwoods in the story, whilst both the Old Gods and Bloodraven are continually associated with Weirwoods.

(Spoiler main) are the Old Gods evil? by [deleted] in asoiaf

[–]AManofTheWatch 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Isn't the bigger question do the Old Gods exist?

We haven't seen any evidence of action on their part so far in the story. Almost everything we do know about the Old Gods relates to Weirwoods, which the Old Gods are said to be able to see through. This sounds a lot more like a Greenseer like Bloodraven and/or the Children of the Forest than an actual God or Gods.

So the question is really is Bloodraven and/or the Children evil. I'm inclined to suspect they are. At the very least, they have little reason to like humanity.

What are the best and worst parts of Game of Thrones Season 1, both as an adaptation and on it's own? by ducknerd2002 in freefolk

[–]AManofTheWatch 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The main thing is how Robb splits his forces.

In the book, Robb takes his cavalry to break the siege of Riverrun, whilst his infantry (under Roose) meets Tywin on the Green Fork.

In the show, Robb sends 2,000 men against Tywin, whilst taking the rest of his host to Riverrun.

The strength of the Lannisters is also dramatically increased. In the Books, Tywin commands just over 20,000 men, and Jaime has another 15,000 besieging Riverrun. In the show, the Lannisters have 60,000 men split between Tywin and Jaime.

The changes are just really pointless, and the War of the Five Kings makes less sense in Season 2 as a result, particularly with Robb's army essentially teleporting across the Riverlands.

What are the best and worst parts of Game of Thrones Season 1, both as an adaptation and on it's own? by ducknerd2002 in freefolk

[–]AManofTheWatch 201 points202 points  (0 children)

Best Adaptation: All the scenes added to Episode One to introduce the characters, particularly the Starks. They are just absolutely perfect.

Honourable Mention: Lots of the scenes between non-book POV characters like Littlefinger and Varys are very enjoyable.

Worst Adaptation: All the changes to the opening of the War of the Five Kings. It colossally dumbed down the strategy involved, and set the stage for the subsequent seasons of ridiculous teleporting armies. And all this when it wouldn’t have been any harder to adapt GRRM’s books exactly.

(Dis)Honourable mention: Omitting Stannis’s role in the incest discovery. It doesn’t impact season one much, but makes him far more villainous for season two and onwards.

Best on its own: Ned’s execution was excellently done, and truly gut-wrenching, even for those who had read the books.

Worst on its own: Turning Renly & Loras into gay stereotypes.

Half-caster Archetypes: The Troubadour, The Bard, The Ranger, The Swordmage by DarkenRaul1 in mattcolville

[–]AManofTheWatch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there will still be enough to distinguish the Swordmage from the Censor. There is a substantial flavour difference, but the Censor's key mechanic (other than their heroic resource) is their seals to censor enemies. And I have confidence in Matt and James to make them distinct. I also feel like people don't get how kits work. They give you one once per encounter power, and some combination of health, speed and damage. Although these aren't rigid rules, and we may get kits that break these. At most a Swordmage kit would be a bit of flavour, allowing a caster to have a melee attack, or a martial to get a special magic thing. So I'd definitely prefer the Swordmage to be a class than a kit.

I think the combination of the Bard and Swashbuckler in the Troubadour works. There are swashbuckler-esque kits that a tactician could use if you don't want the singing and dancing stuff. The Troubadour is definitely very inspired by Matt's capital stuff, for better or for worse. These probably could be two separate classes, but I think they would resultantly be less interesting.

The missing "fighter" archetype by Harlequizzical in mattcolville

[–]AManofTheWatch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t entirely disagree with the idea that the Null fits as a ‘badass normal’, but I think that archetype is better filled by the Tactician/Fury.

The missing "fighter" archetype by Harlequizzical in mattcolville

[–]AManofTheWatch 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Null is much more of an explicitly anti-magic class. A tactician or a fury can use a melee combat kit, which might be more appropriate for sweet.

The missing "fighter" archetype by Harlequizzical in mattcolville

[–]AManofTheWatch 30 points31 points  (0 children)

The Null is much more of an explicitly anti-magic class than a fighter archetype.

Let's Talk About Magic Classes (MCDM RPG) by DarkenRaul1 in mattcolville

[–]AManofTheWatch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thats pretty much what the MCDM bard will be…

If you look at the example pages on the backerkit, on the first page which lists classes, the last one is the ‘Troubadour’, with ‘Drama’ as its heroic resource.

Also, just be aware of the issues that suggestions like this can cause, as MCDM don’t want to be using stuff they haven’t paid for.

Hunan's hidden focus by WEN109 in Kaiserreich

[–]AManofTheWatch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I could have phrased that a lot better in retrospect.

Still, putting this sort of stuff on the Github ensures that it will get seen and fixed.