Ramsay got off way too easily. - Game of Thrones (2011) Discussion

[–] CarterBlunt (1030) 4 years ago

No, that is pointless. If you were Ramsey, you would literally be Ramsey. The only point of punishment is to change someone's behavior. If you're just gonna kill them anyway, the punishment was useless, and only poisons your own soul and reveals you as the person who needs to be punished next, because you are just as sadistic. You just needed the right victim.

reply

[–] JBran (1583) 4 years ago

Well i don’t believe in souls but i did say it would make our heroes look bad so yes i know.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1030) 4 years ago

I don't believe in souls either, but I believe you would twist your psychology into something dark and corrupt by doing something as extreme as torturing someone to death.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Sansa did turn into something fairly dark by the end, her experiences definitely made her as ruthless as all hell.

But she'd probably been worse, if she'd somehow managed to professionally torture Ramsay to death, instead of improvising. You don't want a person who's as ruthless as hell considering professional torture to be an option.

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 4 years ago

I agree with this as far as torturing and being the torturer.
But I do think his death was fitting. ...his own dogs.

reply

[–] gater (199) 4 years ago

You're right - he tortured Theon for months? years maybe -

Stannis's sweet little girl got worse.

reply

[–] JBran (1583) 4 years ago

She sure did, poor Shireen.

reply

[–] gater (199) 4 years ago

That was the low point of the series for me - although Dany torching the city was pretty bad too.

reply

[–] Sandman81 (1501) 4 years ago

Torturing conquered foes wasn't the Stark way of doing things. That was more of a Bolton, and maybe a Lannister thing to do. The Starks were back in charge of the North and Winterfell, and the Bolton's were dead. That's all that mattered to them.

And getting eaten alive by his own dogs was a pretty painful and gruesome death. At the very least it made Sansa smile.

reply

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 4 years ago

Getting eaten alive by dogs is a bad way to go. While its not drawn out, its certainly not quick like getting your get chopped off or something.

reply

[–] JBran (1583) 4 years ago

I don’t buy the Stark way of things. In the first episode i hated Ned for beheading an innocent man who got scared of the White Walkers.

reply

[–] Sandman81 (1501) 4 years ago

He got so scared that he somehow got south of the Wall and kept right on going. Didn't make any attempt to return to Castle Black or even East Watch to report what he saw. He was a deserted and thus execution was justified.

Kind of surprising that Ned would be the one to do it. Since the Night's Watch was kind of its own entity, shouldn't Commander Mormont, or maybe 1st Rider Benjon Stark be the ones to do it?

reply

[–] JBran (1583) 4 years ago

Nah you saw that he was terrified why the hell would you go back to the place that terrified you. And he did report it, he was the only one that lived. He told people. If they actually listened, and didn’t kill him, they could have been better prepared. Screw Ned.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Ned was enforcing the law, which was: Kill all deserters from the Night's Watch. He didn't do it out of cruelty or arrogance, he thought it was his duty to enforce the Law laid down by his ancestors, and he was acting in the best interests of the North, and of Westeros. And BTW in the books it was made clear that Ned didn't do his own beheading because he liked killing people, he didn't, he hated it. He just wasn't willing to foist the job onto someone else, he thought that if he had to sentence a man to death he'd damn well better be willing to take responsibility for carrying it out, no matter how much the process disturbed him.

But yeah, you're absolutely right, he should have listened to the guy's reasons and taken them seriously. Ned was wrong about a lot of things, and ignoring that guy was just the first one.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Unfortunately, Sansa didn't have Ramsay's staff of professional torturers and flayers at her disposal to give him the extended and creative death he deserved, as they'd all been killed or hanged, or they'd run away.

So she had to make do with what she had to hand, and the dogs were a pretty bad way to go. Worse than anything Jon would have okayed.

reply

[–] JBran (1583) 4 years ago

He was tied up i don’t think torture is a talent when they can’t move.

reply

[–] JBran (1583) 4 years ago

True about Jon though yeah.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

IMHO in addition to having limited resources at her disposal, she also had to work comparatively fast. If she tried anything really elaborate and extended, Jon would have called a stop to it, or just run Ramsay through with his sword to put him out of his suffering.

As it was, I think Sansa did a very good job of putting Ramsay to an absolutely horrible death, one that (unlike Joffrey's death) he understood was a horrific payback for his crimes - and she did it with limited materials, and no help except someone to tie him up and put him in the spot of her choice. Yes, that was worth a little smile of self-congratulation.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

Noice...

reply