|
|
Post by rufff1 on Apr 19, 2019 12:18:53 GMT
Dolorous Edd says, if I recall, he grew up in some place like Craster’s keep, which is not some small hovel a poor peasant would live in. The place is big enough to house Craster’s wives and many brothers. So apparently They were poor but still petty nobility with a large but poor place to live in. Karstarks are mentioned because they are a major house with a nonbastard ancestor. Again, we are told all the Reynes and Gardeners are dead when they still have kin living through the bastards. Darklyns are similar as well, all the lordly ones die and we don’t get to learn of the branches until Brienne goes there. Other Arryns should have baronies as well; being a lord doesn’t make you rich. Oh and on Galladon; Tarths were always Tarths with evenstar being a title, but check the CoA; Sun on male side and Moon on female. So possibly a union Morne men and a Tarth woman. No it wasn't Craster's house, that was a random house in Whitetree. The quote is: "There were no furnishings, no sign that people had lived here but for some ashes beneath the smoke hole in the roof. "What a dismal place to live," he said. "I was born in a house much like this," declared Dolorous Edd. "Those were my enchanted years. Later I fell on hard times." A nest of dry straw bedding filled one corner of the room. Edd looked at it with longing. "I'd give all the gold in Casterly Rock to sleep in a bed again." " On the Cassels I think the argument would hold if they were a house we only meet a few times, but given the role played by the Cassels throughout the books I think something would have been said at some point. Tarth is an interesting thought, so you're saying the moon is the Tarth and the sun is the day - ie Morne (morning). My interpretation was always that evening is when the sun and moon meet, so that is why both were there, but your suggestion is certainly interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by foxwillow on Apr 19, 2019 15:02:53 GMT
I think the distinction ruff made earlier is a big one. Real-world "cadet" branches of families and in-game are different. The junior/cadet thing is important. No matter what head-canon we think of, in-game mechanics make cadet houses not of their family any longer. When I played as Locke for 250 years, I gave half my lands to the only son of one of my characters - a cadet branch'd bastard of house "Icemark". He was "not of my dynasty." And the game ended and I had to choose to play as him and I hated the fake CoA but there was no way to get the land back to the Lockes. They weren't even heirs. I had to console it. Whereas "junior branches" work exactly as they should in-game without any distinction. If you give your 3rd cousin of the same house a holding, his kids are his heirs, not you. That "branch" and title will naturally grow on its own. But you're still the same house, still have strong ally ties and still boost each other prestige, and in the event of major family deaths you can still inherit each others' land. The same doesn't happen with cadets in-game. I'm not gonna seriously read through the "Stark cadet" stuff, but imagine actual Starks with land in holdings not far from one another who don't (in-game mechanics-wise) act related or loyal to each other. That would be hugely immersion-breaking. As for the Medrick thing -- again, ya'lls head canon game is fun and all but I see some super big stretches. Giving important, well-known canon characters (Manderlys) an extra kid (bastard or not) or relative seems incredibly weird based on how very little we know. And it's not uncommon (real world and ASOIAF) for those loyal and in-service to a lordly family or municipality to have arms that reflect the origins of that nobility. (Hugh of the Vale uses a blue and white moon sigil, but no one has ever seriously said let's make him an Arryn bastard. His arms just represent where he's from and who he protected." It's possible that "Medrick" has direct Manderly or Woolfield blood. But it's also "possible" that it was his great-great-great-great-(times-forty)-grandfather that had that blood. Literally all we know about the guy is his sigil and where his loyalties lie. We can and should round him out from there (give him a name, put him in a court, etc) but any advocacy for direct family ties is a weird shot in the dark  |
|
|
|
Post by lordcorvocrowlover on Apr 20, 2019 6:00:45 GMT
I think the distinction ruff made earlier is a big one. Real-world "cadet" branches of families and in-game are different. The junior/cadet thing is important. No matter what head-canon we think of, in-game mechanics make cadet houses not of their family any longer. When I played as Locke for 250 years, I gave half my lands to the only son of one of my characters - a cadet branch'd bastard of house "Icemark". He was "not of my dynasty." And the game ended and I had to choose to play as him and I hated the fake CoA but there was no way to get the land back to the Lockes. They weren't even heirs. I had to console it. Whereas "junior branches" work exactly as they should in-game without any distinction. If you give your 3rd cousin of the same house a holding, his kids are his heirs, not you. That "branch" and title will naturally grow on its own. But you're still the same house, still have strong ally ties and still boost each other prestige, and in the event of major family deaths you can still inherit each others' land. The same doesn't happen with cadets in-game. I'm not gonna seriously read through the "Stark cadet" stuff, but imagine actual Starks with land in holdings not far from one another who don't (in-game mechanics-wise) act related or loyal to each other. That would be hugely immersion-breaking. As for the Medrick thing -- again, ya'lls head canon game is fun and all but I see some super big stretches. Giving important, well-known canon characters (Manderlys) an extra kid (bastard or not) or relative seems incredibly weird based on how very little we know. And it's not uncommon (real world and ASOIAF) for those loyal and in-service to a lordly family or municipality to have arms that reflect the origins of that nobility. (Hugh of the Vale uses a blue and white moon sigil, but no one has ever seriously said let's make him an Arryn bastard. His arms just represent where he's from and who he protected." It's possible that "Medrick" has direct Manderly or Woolfield blood. But it's also "possible" that it was his great-great-great-great-(times-forty)-grandfather that had that blood. Literally all we know about the guy is his sigil and where his loyalties lie. We can and should round him out from there (give him a name, put him in a court, etc) but any advocacy for direct family ties is a weird shot in the dark When Robb is in desperate need of heirs neither he nor Cat looked at Karstarks or Starks in Barrowton, WH or any other place. Robb wanted Jon, Cat suggested Templeton, Corbray Waynwood members descended from a distant aunt married to As LF pointed out, Arryns have branches throughout the Vale with GT ones being the richest and yet rhey look at Harry HARDYNG for an heir and not those Arryns. When Hornwood succession crisis arises they do not look for a Hornwood split of from the main branch some hundred years back, they consider going for the closest relatives with different family names. All these candidatws take on the name of the lord/lady whose lands they have inherited So it’s exactly how in universe succession works and since in the mod a person can also take the name of an ancestor whose seat they have inheted there really is nothing wrong with Cadets being different houses. If anything, cadet houses should be more prevalent in the game to show how much the branches havr diverged and a closer relative under a different name is better positiobed than a distant one with the same name. |
|
|
|
Post by foxwillow on Apr 20, 2019 13:51:54 GMT
When Robb is in desperate need of heirs neither he nor Cat looked at Karstarks or Starks in Barrowton, WH or any other place. Robb wanted Jon, Cat suggested Templeton, Corbray Waynwood members descended from a distant aunt married to As LF pointed out, Arryns have branches throughout the Vale with GT ones being the richest and yet rhey look at Harry HARDYNG for an heir and not those Arryns. When Hornwood succession crisis arises they do not look for a Hornwood split of from the main branch some hundred years back, they consider going for the closest relatives with different family names. All these candidatws take on the name of the lord/lady whose lands they have inherited So it’s exactly how in universe succession works and since in the mod a person can also take the name of an ancestor whose seat they have inheted there really is nothing wrong with Cadets being different houses. If anything, cadet houses should be more prevalent in the game to show how much the branches havr diverged and a closer relative under a different name is better positiobed than a distant one with the same name. i'm not really sure how any of that has much to do with my general stance of "let's not make up sons for canon characters," but ok streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetches. there just aren't starks in barrowton or white harbor. martin said there may be starks there 16 years ago, never expanded on it, and cat or robb would have absolutely named them if they existed. this scene did two things -- established the scarcity of the starks while reinforcing cat's hate for jon's existence. it has less to do with inheritance laws and more to do with -- if brandon had bastards (which are so far unnamed, non-existing characters), none of which was from barbrey or acknowledged... cat would have held steadfast in her logic and found any other weird connection to try and find someone to claim as an heir who wasn't a bastard. if -- and it's all hypothetical because it isn't the case -- but if brandon had a known son in barrowton, cat could never support him as an heir because robb would turn it around and say "if that bastard is okay, why isn't jon?" cat's only play to enforce her disdain is to find the closest family tie through legitimacy, which is kind of the point of how obscure and ridiculous the Templeton suggestion is. also, are we just skipping over the whole "political intrigue" thing? the turmoil of succession has a ton to do with support, wars, and the seizing of craved power. the default and easy standard transition is -- closest (male) family member by blood of dynasty. claiming otherwise (if that's what you're doing...) seems odd. that's without factoring in others' ambitions, affiliations, supports, feuds, promises... etc etc. i'm also not sure you're following what i'm saying about game mechanics and real-world and asoiaf differentiations. or, maybe you're saying ideally the game itself did cadet houses differently -- which I agree with. but current CK2 game mechanics means our mod shouldn't be spitting out cadets left and right because it will kill way too many claims and potential inheritances. and one of the things I have loved about ASOIAF is specifically the sigil and heraldry system, which is way different from the real world when the vast majority of noble families and characters keep the same coat of arms for thousands of years. there's a strong sense of consistency and lineage that diverges from our own history. confusion about cadets aside, though... i'm not sure what any of that discussion really has to do with anyone assuming the parentage of a character whose entire existence is "unnamed dude had a mermaidy-sigil and said 'you gotta go through us' that one time."
|
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Apr 20, 2019 15:13:24 GMT
When Robb is in desperate need of heirs neither he nor Cat looked at Karstarks or Starks in Barrowton, WH or any other place. Robb wanted Jon, Cat suggested Templeton, Corbray Waynwood members descended from a distant aunt married to As LF pointed out, Arryns have branches throughout the Vale with GT ones being the richest and yet rhey look at Harry HARDYNG for an heir and not those Arryns. When Hornwood succession crisis arises they do not look for a Hornwood split of from the main branch some hundred years back, they consider going for the closest relatives with different family names. All these candidatws take on the name of the lord/lady whose lands they have inherited So it’s exactly how in universe succession works and since in the mod a person can also take the name of an ancestor whose seat they have inheted there really is nothing wrong with Cadets being different houses. If anything, cadet houses should be more prevalent in the game to show how much the branches havr diverged and a closer relative under a different name is better positiobed than a distant one with the same name. i'm not really sure how any of that has much to do with my general stance of "let's not make up sons for canon characters," but ok streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetches. there just aren't starks in barrowton or white harbor. martin said there may be starks there 16 years ago, never expanded on it, and cat or robb would have absolutely named them if they existed. this scene did two things -- established the scarcity of the starks while reinforcing cat's hate for jon's existence. it has less to do with inheritance laws and more to do with -- if brandon had bastards (which are so far unnamed, non-existing characters), none of which was from barbrey or acknowledged... cat would have held steadfast in her logic and found any other weird connection to try and find someone to claim as an heir who wasn't a bastard. if -- and it's all hypothetical because it isn't the case -- but if brandon had a known son in barrowton, cat could never support him as an heir because robb would turn it around and say "if that bastard is okay, why isn't jon?" cat's only play to enforce her disdain is to find the closest family tie through legitimacy, which is kind of the point of how obscure and ridiculous the Templeton suggestion is. also, are we just skipping over the whole "political intrigue" thing? the turmoil of succession has a ton to do with support, wars, and the seizing of craved power. the default and easy standard transition is -- closest (male) family member by blood of dynasty. claiming otherwise (if that's what you're doing...) seems odd. that's without factoring in others' ambitions, affiliations, supports, feuds, promises... etc etc. i'm also not sure you're following what i'm saying about game mechanics and real-world and asoiaf differentiations. or, maybe you're saying ideally the game itself did cadet houses differently -- which I agree with. but current CK2 game mechanics means our mod shouldn't be spitting out cadets left and right because it will kill way too many claims and potential inheritances. and one of the things I have loved about ASOIAF is specifically the sigil and heraldry system, which is way different from the real world when the vast majority of noble families and characters keep the same coat of arms for thousands of years. there's a strong sense of consistency and lineage that diverges from our own history. confusion about cadets aside, though... i'm not sure what any of that discussion really has to do with anyone assuming the parentage of a character whose entire existence is "unnamed dude had a mermaidy-sigil and said 'you gotta go through us' that one time."
I don't think the Starks in Barrowton are close relations at all - they may have even split off before the conquest or be descended from bastards such as Torrhen (King who knelt's brother) or Lonny Snow, I think they exist in the same way that there are Lannets and Lannisters in Lannisport, arryns in Gulltown and elsewhere and Bollings and Wensingtons in the Stormlands, ie they exist but are super distant and there are lower down the succession than other noble houses who have more recently intermarried with the main line - ie if the Starks died out the Royces, Umbers, Templetons, etc would all be able to press their own claims before the Starks of White Harbour. Frankly I doubt Cat even knows about them, after all she leaves out Branda Stark (married into House Rogers) when she goes through succession candidates, and who would even know who their husband's 6th cousin or something was lol? Plus we repeatedly see characters who come from a side line so remote the main line has forgotten they even exist - the Brunes, the Tolletts etc. I do think adding a really distantly descended branch of the Starks in WH and Barrowton would be accurate - the mod has incorporated stuff with less canon basis - MUSH for example - and it is weird that for the 8000 year history of the Starks they have produced one cadet house, one extinct cadet house and 5 members of the main house - there's pedigree collapse and then there's that lol |
|
|
|
Post by lordcorvocrowlover on Apr 20, 2019 15:22:31 GMT
It’s not just the Starks though; I’ve given another example in Arryns; all those Arryns, even the wealthy Gulltown onea are not the heirs despite carrying the name and instead Harry HARDYNG is the heir. So would be claims through relation hundreds of years back is really not the way Westerosi inheritance works, at least it usually isn’t since we see a few succession crisis throughout the series with none solved with installing a cousin that’s descenees feom an uncle who lived 200 years ago. No claims are made through that and if you are related closely enough (child/geandchild of a sibling) you get a claim to the title anyway.
As for adding non-Canon characters, to yje families od canon ones, there are hundreds of them already and Silvery mermaid guy wouldn’t be something unseen. He could just be attached to the family sometime before the earliest start date or as the son of an already non canon Manderly woman who is not in the main line.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxwillow on Apr 20, 2019 16:03:23 GMT
I don't think the Starks in Barrowton are close relations at all - they may have even split off before the conquest or be descended from bastards such as Torrhen (King who knelt's brother) or Lonny Snow, I think they exist in the same way that there are Lannets and Lannisters in Lannisport, arryns in Gulltown and elsewhere and Bollings and Wensingtons in the Stormlands, ie they exist but are super distant and there are lower down the succession than other noble houses who have more recently intermarried with the main line - ie if the Starks died out the Royces, Umbers, Templetons, etc would all be able to press their own claims before the Starks of White Harbour. Frankly I doubt Cat even knows about them, after all she leaves out Branda Stark (married into House Rogers) when she goes through succession candidates, and who would even know who their husband's 6th cousin or something was lol? Plus we repeatedly see characters who come from a side line so remote the main line has forgotten they even exist - the Brunes, the Tolletts etc. I do think adding a really distantly descended branch of the Starks in WH and Barrowton would be accurate - the mod has incorporated stuff with less canon basis - MUSH for example - and it is weird that for the 8000 year history of the Starks they have produced one cadet house, one extinct cadet house and 5 members of the main house - there's pedigree collapse and then there's that lol Yep, generally agreed. They may or may not even be "Starks" at all since we have zero characters to go on. It's really all an aside that isn't worth any of us taking seriously, since the characters, if they even exist, are not named or mentioned in any way. There'd be a lot of weirdness in adding WH and Barrowton Starks. Even if they were CK2 cadets -- then they aren't even the same family and there's kind of no point, especially if we follow that theory and, for example, BH Starks would share 0.05% blood or less with current Winterfell Starks. GRRM has given us nothing to go on so it's kind of a weird area. We don't really know if they're even ancient, Barrowton Starks may not be ancient or Starks at all, but the unacknowledged Snows Brandon left behind. |
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Apr 20, 2019 16:13:03 GMT
I don't think the Starks in Barrowton are close relations at all - they may have even split off before the conquest or be descended from bastards such as Torrhen (King who knelt's brother) or Lonny Snow, I think they exist in the same way that there are Lannets and Lannisters in Lannisport, arryns in Gulltown and elsewhere and Bollings and Wensingtons in the Stormlands, ie they exist but are super distant and there are lower down the succession than other noble houses who have more recently intermarried with the main line - ie if the Starks died out the Royces, Umbers, Templetons, etc would all be able to press their own claims before the Starks of White Harbour. Frankly I doubt Cat even knows about them, after all she leaves out Branda Stark (married into House Rogers) when she goes through succession candidates, and who would even know who their husband's 6th cousin or something was lol? Plus we repeatedly see characters who come from a side line so remote the main line has forgotten they even exist - the Brunes, the Tolletts etc. I do think adding a really distantly descended branch of the Starks in WH and Barrowton would be accurate - the mod has incorporated stuff with less canon basis - MUSH for example - and it is weird that for the 8000 year history of the Starks they have produced one cadet house, one extinct cadet house and 5 members of the main house - there's pedigree collapse and then there's that lol Yep, generally agreed. They may or may not even be "Starks" at all since we have zero characters to go on. It's really all an aside that isn't worth any of us taking seriously, since the characters, if they even exist, are not named or mentioned in any way. There'd be a lot of weirdness in adding WH and Barrowton Starks. Even if they were CK2 cadets -- then they aren't even the same family and there's kind of no point, especially if we follow that theory and, for example, BH Starks would share 0.05% blood or less with current Winterfell Starks. GRRM has given us nothing to go on so it's kind of a weird area. We don't really know if they're even ancient, Barrowton Starks may not be ancient or Starks at all, but the unacknowledged Snows Brandon left behind. Yeah I complete get where you're coming from - and I assume that's also why there aren't more Arryn branches. Still the idea of landless Stark cadets from several generations back intrigues me and its something I may add to MBS - given your skill at COA design don't suppose you have any thoughts on what a Barrowton or WH stark sigil could look like? |
|
|
|
Post by foxwillow on Apr 20, 2019 16:39:25 GMT
It’s not just the Starks though; I’ve given another example in Arryns; all those Arryns, even the wealthy Gulltown onea are not the heirs despite carrying the name and instead Harry HARDYNG is the heir. So would be claims through relation hundreds of years back is really not the way Westerosi inheritance works, at least it usually isn’t since we see a few succession crisis throughout the series with none solved with installing a cousin that’s descenees feom an uncle who lived 200 years ago. No claims are made through that and if you are related closely enough (child/geandchild of a sibling) you get a claim to the title anyway. As for adding non-Canon characters, to yje families od canon ones, there are hundreds of them already and Silvery mermaid guy wouldn’t be something unseen. He could just be attached to the family sometime before the earliest start date or as the son of an already non canon Manderly woman who is not in the main line. With Arryn we're bringing in the machinations of LF and political intrigue inherently though. Arryn and Arryn 200 years removed might be the better default claimant and heir. "This one thing happened" doesn't eradicate our spotty knowledge of the 10,000 years of Westerosi inheritance. When it comes to heirs, I said it once and I will I guess say it again: There's going to be fogginess in who's the best claimant in a lot of cases. Hell, each region of Westeros kind of deals with tumultuous inheritance differently. Also, everyone doesn't agree. There's wars for a reason. We, and ASOIAF rulers and schemers, can gauge people's claims and merits and relationships. CK2 mechanics cannot. But that's why there's factions and such to simulate that... If an instance similar to Arryn arises, Harry Hardyng is probably not going to pop up under Rob Arryn as his heir. Also everything is relative and situational in our world and Westeros. Games need mechanics and actuality doesn't have mechanics. I don't think anyone would have made a serious fuss in-world if Rob Arryn's heir was his closest dynastic male family member. Harry Hardyng as a close-ish cousin isn't at all scandalous, either, though. Hundreds or even thousands of years of separation (which we can't comprehend, but is possible in ASOIAF) is an obvious cause for the nobles to say "wait a minute." I'm not really sure we're actually even discussing the same thing. All I am saying for sure is that I don't think "Medrick" should be the direct son of a Manderly or Woolfield, since there's not any real reason to do that. People can head-canon all they want, and a distant relation seems okay but it really wouldn't serve much real purpose. He should probably just be a commander at court (or something similar). The heir selection process of the Vale probably shouldn't be a part of the discussion on a nameless, fatherless, motherless, personality-less character. |
|
|
|
Post by foxwillow on Apr 20, 2019 16:40:15 GMT
Yep, generally agreed. They may or may not even be "Starks" at all since we have zero characters to go on. It's really all an aside that isn't worth any of us taking seriously, since the characters, if they even exist, are not named or mentioned in any way. There'd be a lot of weirdness in adding WH and Barrowton Starks. Even if they were CK2 cadets -- then they aren't even the same family and there's kind of no point, especially if we follow that theory and, for example, BH Starks would share 0.05% blood or less with current Winterfell Starks. GRRM has given us nothing to go on so it's kind of a weird area. We don't really know if they're even ancient, Barrowton Starks may not be ancient or Starks at all, but the unacknowledged Snows Brandon left behind. Yeah I complete get where you're coming from - and I assume that's also why there aren't more Arryn branches. Still the idea of landless Stark cadets from several generations back intrigues me and its something I may add to MBS - given your skill at COA design don't suppose you have any thoughts on what a Barrowton or WH stark sigil could look like? Buddy I can kick out fricken thousands of House names and CoAs for ya lol |
|
|
|
Post by rufff1 on Apr 20, 2019 16:52:49 GMT
Yeah I complete get where you're coming from - and I assume that's also why there aren't more Arryn branches. Still the idea of landless Stark cadets from several generations back intrigues me and its something I may add to MBS - given your skill at COA design don't suppose you have any thoughts on what a Barrowton or WH stark sigil could look like? Buddy I can kick out fricken thousands of House names and CoAs for ya lol Sweet - just so its easier for people to tell what they are I'm probably gonna stick to Stark of White Harbour and Stark of Barrowton but COA suggestions would be sweet  |
|
