Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Caz]

valar memeis

[TD1]

Bruh, no Dune spoilers in here plz, I still need to read those books.   

Just wait until D&D sees its next opportunity for a book-to-screen adaptation....

[nenjin]

I doubt that. The Curse of Montezuma ain't got shit on trying to put Dune to the big screen.

[Deus Asmoth]

I think that was the point though, and the main reason anyone WOULD agree.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"The best leader is the one who doesn't want it." and all that jazz. Hell, that arguably why Robert was originally King, and did a fair job at it for as long as he lasted and for all his flaws. He never really wanted all that responsibility. He fought the mad king and when it was all over there was a choice to be made and he was the one most people trusted not to be an asshat about it. He just ended up with a overly ambitious, cheating wife out of the deal. Bran's basically the same and they've made sure the same fate can't befall him by making it an elected position rather than inherited.

Robert was kind of an awful king though. The Seven Kingdoms was at peace while he was alive, yes, but it was also racking up ludicrous amounts of debt because no one was bothered looking into Littlefinger's finances. The realm was only functioning when the series started because Tywin was willing to keep lending that Crown money, but that couldn't continue forever.

[NRDL]

To be fair, Robert was also constantly ignoring his duties as a king because of his hedonism and apathy. We don't really know the extent of Bran's apathy, but I doubt he's going to be throwing expensive tourney after tourney, or do any of the other reckless shit Robert did. For rather obvious reasons.

[Trekkin]

To be fair, Robert was also constantly ignoring his duties as a king because of his hedonism and apathy. We don't really know the extent of Bran's apathy, but I doubt he's going to be throwing expensive tourney after tourney, or do any of the other reckless shit Robert did. For rather obvious reasons.

Which came first, though, the hedonism or the misrule? I'm inclined to think Robert's bad habits were a coping mechanism to deal with a job he really didn't want.

Bran may not throw tournaments or spawn bastards, but King Bran of House "Just as Planned" warging his way around the world for fun and curiosity isn't necessarily a better example for the people.

[NRDL]

Do the people really need the king to be anything apart from not destructive? The Hand is inevitably the one who makes changes, and since it's Tyrion doing that he's not likely going to curtail the rights of the small folk more.

Bran listens to reason, and if Tyrion or somebody else brings forth an idea he'll actually consider it and make a decision, drawing on literally all of history to help him make said decision. He has magic powers that allow him to suss out and deal with any sort of deception, it's gonna be extremely difficult to assassinate him considering he also has at least two genuinely competent Kingsguard on top of his aforementioned magical abilities, and he's young.

All good points for him and the realm, really. At most, as you've said, his strongest personal desires are curiosity. If something interests him, he'll warg or greenseer his way into seeing it. Hardly the worst pastime.

[Trekkin]

Do the people really need the king to be anything apart from not destructive? The Hand is inevitably the one who makes changes, and since it's Tyrion doing that he's not likely going to curtail the rights of the small folk more.

Well, Robert wasn't actively malicious, and it could even be argued he wanted to be a good king. He just didn't want to rule, which is a problem in a monarchy; apart from their governmental role, the monarch is a psychological focusing point for the people. They're a way to put a human face on the country, and even when the monarch is entirely relictual there's still value to that. When the king stops seeming human or saying anything or being visibly the king, that's how you get people stepping into speak for him and interpret things, which is a short hop to, well, the Sparrows.
   All the bullshit with tournaments and ermine capes and pageantry is mostly there to make the king look good, yes, but making the king look good helps keep people from trying to usurp power when no one's looking. Holding court and throwing festivals, on the other hand, are to make the king look human, which helps keep people trying to bring their problems to the attention of the monarchy and/or griping about the king instead of revolting. People can be foolish in ways that encourage the populace to whine and power through it in ways countries can't.
   With Bran, sure he's not malicious or destructive, but he's also not human. Who knows if his decrees are for the good of the realm as it is or for some greater good that only he can (fore)see? What else is there to do with that uncertainty but to worship him and hope his grand plan includes your happiness? Even if he's personally committed to being a good king, the image he presents -- and that will be all 99% of Westeros ever sees -- encourages theocracy. We've seen how that goes.

[nenjin]

https://youtu.be/v-kmpmz9Yns

Not only are the memes decent, one of them is salient to this argument.

Say Bran knows there's going to be a war. A bad one. His job as the ruler is to protect the realm, so he brutally suppresses everyone responsible for the war, before they've even thought about getting in to it perhaps. Or maybe he has them killed in their cribs since, to his eye, it will do less damage than letting them grow as people and become interconnected with others.

So he orders his knights to go in to the countryside and murder some number of people. He says he does this out of foreknowledge and that people have to trust and obey him. It's not dissimilar to Dany being utterly convinced she knows what's right and required to achieve a better world. Only Bran has/had the benefit of plot powers. But how long would people believe that? How many atrocities would people be willing to commit because they trust he both knows what the future will be and he's choosing a course of action in the best interests of the realm/humanity? What if the wars he's trying to prevent are spawned exactly because people either don't trust his prophetic powers or resent him manipulating their lives to a future they cannot know? What if the wars he's trying to prevent exist solely because of him?

Muad'dib, man. Muad'dib.

[NRDL]

Is there even any point to telling the small folk he has psychic powers? You could have anybody without status or power killed in Westeros for any number of reasons, no need for anyone to know about future crime.

The people in Westeros have always been shown to be completely uncaring who is king or in charge, so long as they're protected, and their families of food. Bran may not win a lot of goodwill out of charisma or anything like that, but instituting measures to improve the lives of the small folk on the whole can only be a good thing PR wise.

[Trekkin]

Muad'dib, man. Muad'dib.

Worse still, he's Muad'dib without terrible purpose. There is no Kralizec(and thus no Secher Nbiw) to anchor and motivate his prescience with anything approaching a moral imperative.

About the only thing worse than Bran intervening all the time is him throwing up his hands and rolling off to go be a squirrel because, ultimately, nothing they can do is better than doing nothing.

[Kagus]

I'd just like to point out that Bran is also very useful for regular bowel movements.

[Arx]

Tyrion
small folk

Ahue

[Kot]

*insert dick joke*

[zombat]

Another Animal House style ending montage
https://youtu.be/SnRRT3Qj_gY

Didn't someone here say they were going to do one with Sansa dying from choking on a cracker?