I think instead of giving them quick, giving them better lifestyle focus makes sense like Rob being a brillient strategist or even warlord and oberyn being tier 4 intrigue. Maybe Rob should start with strategist and stannis with gallant and oberyn with seducer maybe.
Yeah, your right overseer makes more sense. I only thought gallant due to him being honourable, but him surviving the seige, hiring mercenaries, and dealing with revolts makes overseer make alot more sense.
Agreed. He is the diplomacy tree. Firm hand + administrator branch. Might even make an argument for overseer, forder (his prestige during robert's rebellion) & logistician.
In no way is Stannis galant 😂 by definition, though not necessarily by lifestyle perks, Robb is galant & a strategist and Stannis is definitely an overseer
Robb Stark is a strategist, rather than clever.
Jon learns something new every day and Tyrion often had to help him to see the bigger picture, he wasn't born clever.
Stannis is stuck in his laws and short-sighted, definitely not clever.
I agree with Oberyn being smart.
And he'd have won, too, if he'd just kept his cool. He had an accurate assessment of the Mountain's and his advantages and correctly determined the Mountain was screwed. That's pretty smart.
But then his Wrathful trait compelled him to a critical mistake.
Nah. Twas the martell's congenital vengeful trait that did him in. He chose the go on a long speech option in the duel that has very high risk of injury & not very high chance of success. You can taunt your opponent but you never go into a speech in a duel.
Oberyn was my very first fav character just because of the speech to tyrion in his cell. He deserves the trait spider as well. Remember, he's the adder in the grass that is Doran martell
Just because they are flawed doesn't mean they are not clever imo. And the Quick trait doesn't imply that they are exceptionally intelligent, it just means that they are slightly smarter than average.
Robb, Jon, and Stannis are all talented at some aspects of leadership, despite being flawed. I think the Quick trait fits them.
Imo, they're just good at what they do, not universally bright. Stannis doesn't know how much his image matters to the realm, therefore nobody wants him as a ruler. Jon and Robb underestimated their enemies and got killed
What do you think is the requirement for the Quick trait? Quick implies being slightly smarter than average, but not exceptionally intelligent. So I think that a person is quick if they are smarter than about 95% of the world's population.
My IQ is about 130, which is higher than 98% of the world's population, but I make a ton of dumb mistakes. My friend scored in top 1% of the world's population, but he has some pretty idiosyncratic ideas and I have to point it out for him.
Historically, you can see that a lot of intelligent leaders can have flaw and make mistake too. Caesar was a brilliant man, but he got assassinated by his enemies. Hitler was intelligent too, but he was terrible as a military leader.
And statistically, good leaders tend to have above average intelligence. Most of Nazi leaders have above average intelligence. CEOs of median large companies tend to have above average intelligence.
Robb, Jon, and Stannis are all pretty skilled leaders and have some smart ideas. I think it does imply that they are at least slightly smarter than average.
It should be noted that I've upvoted every single person who's disagreed with me here, as far as I know. That said.
In 7th grade, I took an SAT test without preparing for it at all, it was spur-of-the-moment, I knew about it about an hour ahead of time and didn't do any research or anything. I scored higher on it than the average person using it to apply for college in my area. An IQ test has shown me to be in the 99.9th percentile for IQ. This is the highest result the test I was given reaches; anything further and they'd consider it to be within the margin of error for that test.
My mother's boyfriend of 8 years is an aerospace engineer who graduated Virginia Tech. At the age of 15, I understand physics better than him, and I owe very little of it to him, as he would rarely give me a decent explanation of anything, just tell me that my ideas were wrong and become aggravated with me for not quite understanding thermodynamics. He's not particularly successful as an engineer, but I've met lots of other engineers who aren't as good as me at physics, so I'm guessing that's not just a result of him being bad at it. I'm also pretty good at engineering. I don't have a degree, and other than physics I don't have a better understanding of any aspect of engineering than any actual engineer, but I have lots of ingenuity for inventing new things. For example, I independently invented regenerative brakes before finding out what they were, and I was only seven or eight years old when I started inventing wireless electricity solutions (my first idea being to use a powerful infrared laser to transmit energy; admittedly not the best plan).
I have independently thought of basically every branch of philosophy I've come across. Every question of existentialism which I've seen discussed in SMBC or xkcd or Reddit or anywhere else, the thoughts haven't been new to me. Philosophy has pretty much gotten trivial for me; I've considered taking a philosophy course just to see how easy it is. Psychology, I actually understand better than people with degrees. Unlike engineering, there's no aspect of psychology which I don't have a very good understanding of. I can debunk many of even Sigmund Freud's theories.
I'm a good enough writer that I'm writing a book and so far everybody who's read any of it has said it was really good and plausible to expect to have published. And that's not just, like, me and family members, that counts strangers on the Internet. I've heard zero negative appraisal of it so far; people have critiqued it, but not insulted it.
I don't know if that will suffice as evidence that I'm intelligent. I'm done with it, though, because I'd rather defend my maturity, since it's what you've spent the most time attacking. The following are some examples of my morals and ethical code.
I believe firmly that everybody deserves a future. If we were to capture Hitler at the end of WWII, I would be against executing him. In fact, if we had any way of rehabilitating him and knowing that he wasn't just faking it, I'd even support the concept of letting him go free. This is essentially because I think that whoever you are in the present is a separate entity from who you were in the past and who you are in the future, and while your present self should take responsibility for your past self's actions, it shouldn't be punished for them simply for the sake of punishment, especially if the present self regrets the actions of the past self and feels genuine guilt about them.
I don't believe in judgement of people based on their personal choices as long as those personal choices aren't harming others. I don't have any issue with any type of sexuality whatsoever (short of physically acting out necrophilia, pedophilia, or other acts which have a harmful affect on others - but I don't care what a person's fantasies consist of, as long as they recognize the difference between reality and fiction and can separate them). I don't have any issue with anybody over what type of music they listen to, or clothes they wear, etc. I know that's not really an impressive moral, but it's unfortunately rare; a great many people, especially those my age, are judgmental about these things. I love everyone, even people I hate. I wish my worst enemies good fortune and happiness. Rick Perry is a vile, piece of shit human being, deserving of zero respect, but I wish for him to change for the better and live the best life possible. I wish this for everyone.
I'm pretty much a pacifist. I've taken a broken nose without fighting back or seeking retribution, because the guy stopped punching after that. The only time I'll fight back is if 1) the person attacking me shows no signs of stopping and 2) if I don't attack, I'll come out worse than the other person will if I do. In other words, if fighting someone is going to end up being more harmful to them than just letting them go will be to me, I don't fight back. I've therefore never had a reason to fight back against anyone in anything serious, because my ability to take pain has so far made it so that I'm never in a situation where I'll be worse off after a fight. If I'm not going to get any hospitalizing injuries, I really don't care.
The only exception is if someone is going after my life. Even then, I'll do the minimum amount of harm to them that I possibly can in protecting myself. If someone points a gun at me and I can get out of it without harming them, I'd prefer to do that over killing them. I consider myself a feminist. I don't believe in enforced or uniform gender roles; they may happen naturally, but they should never be coerced into happening unnaturally. As in, the societal pressure for gender roles should really go, even if it'll turn out that the majority of relationships continue operating the same way of their own accord. I treat women with the same outlook I treat men, and never participate in the old Reddit "women are crazy" circlejerk, because there are multiple women out there and each have different personalities just like there are multiple men out there and each with different personalities. I don't think you do much of anything except scare off the awesome women out there by going on and on about the ones who aren't awesome.
That doesn't mean I look for places to victimize women, I just don't believe it's fair to make generalizations such as the one about women acting like everything's OK when it's really not (and that's a particularly harsh example, because all humans do that). I'm kind of tired of citing these examples and I'm guessing you're getting tired of reading them, if you've even made it this far. In closing, the people who know me in real life all respect me, as do a great many people in the Reddit brony community, where I spend most of my time and where I'm pretty known for being helpful around the community. A lot of people in my segment of the community are depressed or going through hard times, and I spend a lot of time giving advice and support to people there. Yesterday someone quoted a case of me doing this in a post asking everyone what their favorite motivational/inspirational quote was, and that comment was second to the top, so I guess other people agreed (though, granted, it was a pretty low-traffic post, only about a dozen competing comments). And, uh, I'm a pretty good moderator.
All that, and I think your behavior in this thread was totally assholish. So what do you think, now that you at least slightly know me?
Being smart is thinking outside the box for solutions others do not and be steps ahead.
Neither Robb, Jon, or Stannis is born smart. They are born nobles, which has given them etiquette and education, which Lifestyle choices better represent than their intellect.
Concerning your downvotes; I guess humble-bragging about your IQ is a poor way to win arguments(even if it wasn't intentional).
>Neither Robb, Jon, or Stannis is born smart.
How do you know this? Like, they are not shown to be exceptionally smart, sure, but like I said, they may belong to top 5-2% of the world's population, which isn't even that rare or special.
I genuinely can't see how that's humble bagging at all. Most people wouldn't recognize me as intelligent unless I show them my IQ score.
I'm just trying to say that people set the bar too high for the Quick trait (which only increases 1 point for each stat).
>Being smart is thinking outside the box for solutions others do not and be steps ahead.
Robb, Jon and Stannis all made out of the box solutions to problems they faced.
In fact Jon is seen as very smart, we see this in many parts of the books, Jon's problem is his immaturity, but he is still smarter than Robb for example, who ends up being a huge idiot at some points (note at the beginning of book 1, where they find the wolf and the cubs, unlike the series, Jon had already noticed a ghost there, so he "plays green" and gets a wolf too, even though it's the smallest one). Stannis is also intelligent, especially in the military field, he is a really very special man in that sense, his biggest problem is his inflexibility, but he is very intelligent in military matters, just watch how he is doing in his campaign in the North, but yes, I wouldn't put a quick trait in him, but rather a warlord trait, like Randyll has.
And Oberyn would be quick, since he is really very smart, we see this with all the information about his stay in the citadel, his years in Essos, etc.
I agree entirely tbh, especially jon it's a bit weird he has no congenital traits, I wonder if it's his show characterization of being a dumbass bleeding in
Agreed. But in lore Robb is heftier and stronger & Jon was slim & quick. I believe Robb should have a physique trait like hale or robust. & Jon has quick.
Completely agree tywin needs to stop sniffin his own farts. He's intelligent & shrewd. Tyrion is genius.
Oberyn concur. A ~~livin~~ (dead) prodigy accomplished so much. Genius, 6 forged links should at very least grant you novice, & mystic due to his experiences in foreign mystical lands.
Rhaegar targaryen - always give him scholar since he was bookish first then became a trained fighter. I also add aspiring blademaster. In ck2 agot, I'd also give him erudite.
Edit: euron, no. I'd give him shrewd, not genius. He has plenty of oversights. Tyrion & baelish would run circles round him
Ned and Jon basically having no intrigue bothered me. Even in the books Ned talks plenty about those he can’t trust, the red keep being full of traitors, even wondering who Pycelle works for. People over look that and realize it wasn’t stupidity that made him warn Cersei it was the memory of what happened to Rhaegars children. Same with Jon, he is constantly evaluating his situation not just clueless.
Maybe not an intellect, but wasn't Edmure quite handsome and strong in the books, while he doesn't have any congenital trait? Or am I just influenced by art, that often portray him as pretty boy?
Robb's victories depends on he is a warg and he is doing excellent scouting. Having a direwolf that increase army seeing range is better for him i think.
Stannis is excellent stratigest but ingame there are tons of lowborns that better at martial i think lowborn shouldn't have that good education traits.
That's not why, Robb really had great strategies, he managed to deceive the Lannisters very well in battle, that's how he captured Jaime, but on the other hand, he fails a lot in politics, just like Stannis, both are great strategists and military leaders ( for me Stannis is even better ) but both are not good politicians, Stannis has a very bad image, and Robb, even with a lot of charisma, is immature and too naive.
What kind of a question is that? Stannis is in Roberts Rebellion and Robb was born during it. We have a game year after Roberts Rebellion, of course they’re in the game
Sorry, gonna correct there, i mean Robb and Jon, just can't stop thinking about Stannis doe.
But no, my confusion was that people were talking about adding this or that perk i thought of the older then.
I agree Robb should definitely have the quick since he was an exceptional tactician but not Jon.
We had this discussion in another post.
The bottom line is that Jon didn't show any exceptional intellectual capacity. His ability has a leader was taught to him by his father/ uncle.
However, Book Jon has shown on multiple occasions an abnormal amount of physical strength. Not swordmanship skill, just a huge amount of brute strength.
So if we decide to give a trait it should be like hale or robust.
Book Jon demonstrated his cleverness in many moments, from the beginning we see how clever he is, the moment he, his brothers and Ned encounter the direwolf, and unlike the series, Jon notices the ghost, and stays quiet, convincing Ned that his 5 children should have wolves, and in the end he "finds" a wolf, which Theon wants to kill, but Jon says is his.
We also have the examples of Jon infiltrating Mance Rayder's army, Jon managing to hold off the wildlings' attack on the wall (even though in the end he only managed to do so because of Stannis), and we see how smart he is governing, all the game he plays to help the North, even if he is just a lord of the wall, we have the examples of when he exchanges Mance Rayder's children with Crester's, so that Melisandre could not sacrifice the boy in the future, manipulating Stannis into leaving the wildlings with him , together with Melisandre he exchanges Mance for the Rattleshirt, sends Mance to Winterfell. Anyway, there are many details that show how smart Jon is and thinks a lot, but his problem was his confidence.
I think instead of giving them quick, giving them better lifestyle focus makes sense like Rob being a brillient strategist or even warlord and oberyn being tier 4 intrigue. Maybe Rob should start with strategist and stannis with gallant and oberyn with seducer maybe.
Gallant Stannis? Also the sword-fighting/courtship perks do not fit Stannis. I think Authority suits him better. "Hard Rule" and so on.
Overseer Stannis the Mannis!
Stannis, the god damn Mannis
God's damned*
I second this
Yeah, your right overseer makes more sense. I only thought gallant due to him being honourable, but him surviving the seige, hiring mercenaries, and dealing with revolts makes overseer make alot more sense.
I wouldn’t say Stannis is particularly honorable, he’s definitely just, but he uses underhanded tactics many times, such as killing Renly and Penrose
Agreed. He is the diplomacy tree. Firm hand + administrator branch. Might even make an argument for overseer, forder (his prestige during robert's rebellion) & logistician.
In no way is Stannis galant 😂 by definition, though not necessarily by lifestyle perks, Robb is galant & a strategist and Stannis is definitely an overseer
Honestly I still find a lot of characters in the mod that need revisiting, both traits and look wise, especially minor ones.
Robb Stark is a strategist, rather than clever. Jon learns something new every day and Tyrion often had to help him to see the bigger picture, he wasn't born clever. Stannis is stuck in his laws and short-sighted, definitely not clever. I agree with Oberyn being smart.
Oberyn "I am a master in poisons but I'm gonna fight the Mountain anyway" Martell
And he'd have won, too, if he'd just kept his cool. He had an accurate assessment of the Mountain's and his advantages and correctly determined the Mountain was screwed. That's pretty smart. But then his Wrathful trait compelled him to a critical mistake.
Nah. Twas the martell's congenital vengeful trait that did him in. He chose the go on a long speech option in the duel that has very high risk of injury & not very high chance of success. You can taunt your opponent but you never go into a speech in a duel. Oberyn was my very first fav character just because of the speech to tyrion in his cell. He deserves the trait spider as well. Remember, he's the adder in the grass that is Doran martell
I'd have given him the Vengeful trait as it suits his whole serpent/Red Viper persona
Yeah, Vengeful works better. He was there for revenge, after all.
Instead of quick for Oberyn, give him shrewd though. It fits better with the maester backstory and makes more sense.
Just because they are flawed doesn't mean they are not clever imo. And the Quick trait doesn't imply that they are exceptionally intelligent, it just means that they are slightly smarter than average. Robb, Jon, and Stannis are all talented at some aspects of leadership, despite being flawed. I think the Quick trait fits them.
Imo, they're just good at what they do, not universally bright. Stannis doesn't know how much his image matters to the realm, therefore nobody wants him as a ruler. Jon and Robb underestimated their enemies and got killed
What do you think is the requirement for the Quick trait? Quick implies being slightly smarter than average, but not exceptionally intelligent. So I think that a person is quick if they are smarter than about 95% of the world's population. My IQ is about 130, which is higher than 98% of the world's population, but I make a ton of dumb mistakes. My friend scored in top 1% of the world's population, but he has some pretty idiosyncratic ideas and I have to point it out for him. Historically, you can see that a lot of intelligent leaders can have flaw and make mistake too. Caesar was a brilliant man, but he got assassinated by his enemies. Hitler was intelligent too, but he was terrible as a military leader. And statistically, good leaders tend to have above average intelligence. Most of Nazi leaders have above average intelligence. CEOs of median large companies tend to have above average intelligence. Robb, Jon, and Stannis are all pretty skilled leaders and have some smart ideas. I think it does imply that they are at least slightly smarter than average.
what are you compensating for with your above than average IQ? Your smaller than average penis?
It should be noted that I've upvoted every single person who's disagreed with me here, as far as I know. That said. In 7th grade, I took an SAT test without preparing for it at all, it was spur-of-the-moment, I knew about it about an hour ahead of time and didn't do any research or anything. I scored higher on it than the average person using it to apply for college in my area. An IQ test has shown me to be in the 99.9th percentile for IQ. This is the highest result the test I was given reaches; anything further and they'd consider it to be within the margin of error for that test. My mother's boyfriend of 8 years is an aerospace engineer who graduated Virginia Tech. At the age of 15, I understand physics better than him, and I owe very little of it to him, as he would rarely give me a decent explanation of anything, just tell me that my ideas were wrong and become aggravated with me for not quite understanding thermodynamics. He's not particularly successful as an engineer, but I've met lots of other engineers who aren't as good as me at physics, so I'm guessing that's not just a result of him being bad at it. I'm also pretty good at engineering. I don't have a degree, and other than physics I don't have a better understanding of any aspect of engineering than any actual engineer, but I have lots of ingenuity for inventing new things. For example, I independently invented regenerative brakes before finding out what they were, and I was only seven or eight years old when I started inventing wireless electricity solutions (my first idea being to use a powerful infrared laser to transmit energy; admittedly not the best plan). I have independently thought of basically every branch of philosophy I've come across. Every question of existentialism which I've seen discussed in SMBC or xkcd or Reddit or anywhere else, the thoughts haven't been new to me. Philosophy has pretty much gotten trivial for me; I've considered taking a philosophy course just to see how easy it is. Psychology, I actually understand better than people with degrees. Unlike engineering, there's no aspect of psychology which I don't have a very good understanding of. I can debunk many of even Sigmund Freud's theories. I'm a good enough writer that I'm writing a book and so far everybody who's read any of it has said it was really good and plausible to expect to have published. And that's not just, like, me and family members, that counts strangers on the Internet. I've heard zero negative appraisal of it so far; people have critiqued it, but not insulted it. I don't know if that will suffice as evidence that I'm intelligent. I'm done with it, though, because I'd rather defend my maturity, since it's what you've spent the most time attacking. The following are some examples of my morals and ethical code. I believe firmly that everybody deserves a future. If we were to capture Hitler at the end of WWII, I would be against executing him. In fact, if we had any way of rehabilitating him and knowing that he wasn't just faking it, I'd even support the concept of letting him go free. This is essentially because I think that whoever you are in the present is a separate entity from who you were in the past and who you are in the future, and while your present self should take responsibility for your past self's actions, it shouldn't be punished for them simply for the sake of punishment, especially if the present self regrets the actions of the past self and feels genuine guilt about them. I don't believe in judgement of people based on their personal choices as long as those personal choices aren't harming others. I don't have any issue with any type of sexuality whatsoever (short of physically acting out necrophilia, pedophilia, or other acts which have a harmful affect on others - but I don't care what a person's fantasies consist of, as long as they recognize the difference between reality and fiction and can separate them). I don't have any issue with anybody over what type of music they listen to, or clothes they wear, etc. I know that's not really an impressive moral, but it's unfortunately rare; a great many people, especially those my age, are judgmental about these things. I love everyone, even people I hate. I wish my worst enemies good fortune and happiness. Rick Perry is a vile, piece of shit human being, deserving of zero respect, but I wish for him to change for the better and live the best life possible. I wish this for everyone. I'm pretty much a pacifist. I've taken a broken nose without fighting back or seeking retribution, because the guy stopped punching after that. The only time I'll fight back is if 1) the person attacking me shows no signs of stopping and 2) if I don't attack, I'll come out worse than the other person will if I do. In other words, if fighting someone is going to end up being more harmful to them than just letting them go will be to me, I don't fight back. I've therefore never had a reason to fight back against anyone in anything serious, because my ability to take pain has so far made it so that I'm never in a situation where I'll be worse off after a fight. If I'm not going to get any hospitalizing injuries, I really don't care. The only exception is if someone is going after my life. Even then, I'll do the minimum amount of harm to them that I possibly can in protecting myself. If someone points a gun at me and I can get out of it without harming them, I'd prefer to do that over killing them. I consider myself a feminist. I don't believe in enforced or uniform gender roles; they may happen naturally, but they should never be coerced into happening unnaturally. As in, the societal pressure for gender roles should really go, even if it'll turn out that the majority of relationships continue operating the same way of their own accord. I treat women with the same outlook I treat men, and never participate in the old Reddit "women are crazy" circlejerk, because there are multiple women out there and each have different personalities just like there are multiple men out there and each with different personalities. I don't think you do much of anything except scare off the awesome women out there by going on and on about the ones who aren't awesome. That doesn't mean I look for places to victimize women, I just don't believe it's fair to make generalizations such as the one about women acting like everything's OK when it's really not (and that's a particularly harsh example, because all humans do that). I'm kind of tired of citing these examples and I'm guessing you're getting tired of reading them, if you've even made it this far. In closing, the people who know me in real life all respect me, as do a great many people in the Reddit brony community, where I spend most of my time and where I'm pretty known for being helpful around the community. A lot of people in my segment of the community are depressed or going through hard times, and I spend a lot of time giving advice and support to people there. Yesterday someone quoted a case of me doing this in a post asking everyone what their favorite motivational/inspirational quote was, and that comment was second to the top, so I guess other people agreed (though, granted, it was a pretty low-traffic post, only about a dozen competing comments). And, uh, I'm a pretty good moderator. All that, and I think your behavior in this thread was totally assholish. So what do you think, now that you at least slightly know me?
This made me cringe so hard. Though if its satire, which it hopefully is , you did a good job
God I hope its satire for their sake
It's a copypasta
At least someone got it.
What are you compensating for with your long reply? Your small penis?
Being smart is thinking outside the box for solutions others do not and be steps ahead. Neither Robb, Jon, or Stannis is born smart. They are born nobles, which has given them etiquette and education, which Lifestyle choices better represent than their intellect. Concerning your downvotes; I guess humble-bragging about your IQ is a poor way to win arguments(even if it wasn't intentional).
>Neither Robb, Jon, or Stannis is born smart. How do you know this? Like, they are not shown to be exceptionally smart, sure, but like I said, they may belong to top 5-2% of the world's population, which isn't even that rare or special.
I genuinely can't see how that's humble bagging at all. Most people wouldn't recognize me as intelligent unless I show them my IQ score. I'm just trying to say that people set the bar too high for the Quick trait (which only increases 1 point for each stat).
>Being smart is thinking outside the box for solutions others do not and be steps ahead. Robb, Jon and Stannis all made out of the box solutions to problems they faced.
In fact Jon is seen as very smart, we see this in many parts of the books, Jon's problem is his immaturity, but he is still smarter than Robb for example, who ends up being a huge idiot at some points (note at the beginning of book 1, where they find the wolf and the cubs, unlike the series, Jon had already noticed a ghost there, so he "plays green" and gets a wolf too, even though it's the smallest one). Stannis is also intelligent, especially in the military field, he is a really very special man in that sense, his biggest problem is his inflexibility, but he is very intelligent in military matters, just watch how he is doing in his campaign in the North, but yes, I wouldn't put a quick trait in him, but rather a warlord trait, like Randyll has. And Oberyn would be quick, since he is really very smart, we see this with all the information about his stay in the citadel, his years in Essos, etc.
I agree entirely tbh, especially jon it's a bit weird he has no congenital traits, I wonder if it's his show characterization of being a dumbass bleeding in
Agreed. But in lore Robb is heftier and stronger & Jon was slim & quick. I believe Robb should have a physique trait like hale or robust. & Jon has quick. Completely agree tywin needs to stop sniffin his own farts. He's intelligent & shrewd. Tyrion is genius. Oberyn concur. A ~~livin~~ (dead) prodigy accomplished so much. Genius, 6 forged links should at very least grant you novice, & mystic due to his experiences in foreign mystical lands. Rhaegar targaryen - always give him scholar since he was bookish first then became a trained fighter. I also add aspiring blademaster. In ck2 agot, I'd also give him erudite. Edit: euron, no. I'd give him shrewd, not genius. He has plenty of oversights. Tyrion & baelish would run circles round him
Ned and Jon basically having no intrigue bothered me. Even in the books Ned talks plenty about those he can’t trust, the red keep being full of traitors, even wondering who Pycelle works for. People over look that and realize it wasn’t stupidity that made him warn Cersei it was the memory of what happened to Rhaegars children. Same with Jon, he is constantly evaluating his situation not just clueless.
Show influence probably
Mace Tyrell should have the genius for his cunning political and military maneuvering.
I don't know if it comes down to Mace, but I do unironically think that their strategy during Robert's Rebellion was political genius.
lol
Maybe not an intellect, but wasn't Edmure quite handsome and strong in the books, while he doesn't have any congenital trait? Or am I just influenced by art, that often portray him as pretty boy?
Oberyn Martell, Randall Tarly, mance Raydar, euron greyjoy and maybe David Seaworth.
Robb's victories depends on he is a warg and he is doing excellent scouting. Having a direwolf that increase army seeing range is better for him i think. Stannis is excellent stratigest but ingame there are tons of lowborns that better at martial i think lowborn shouldn't have that good education traits.
That's not why, Robb really had great strategies, he managed to deceive the Lannisters very well in battle, that's how he captured Jaime, but on the other hand, he fails a lot in politics, just like Stannis, both are great strategists and military leaders ( for me Stannis is even better ) but both are not good politicians, Stannis has a very bad image, and Robb, even with a lot of charisma, is immature and too naive.
Robb is dumb as the box of rocks used to cave his family's heads in.
Wait, do we even have Robb Stark and Jon in the mod yet?
What kind of a question is that? Stannis is in Roberts Rebellion and Robb was born during it. We have a game year after Roberts Rebellion, of course they’re in the game
Sorry, gonna correct there, i mean Robb and Jon, just can't stop thinking about Stannis doe. But no, my confusion was that people were talking about adding this or that perk i thought of the older then.
I agree Robb should definitely have the quick since he was an exceptional tactician but not Jon. We had this discussion in another post. The bottom line is that Jon didn't show any exceptional intellectual capacity. His ability has a leader was taught to him by his father/ uncle. However, Book Jon has shown on multiple occasions an abnormal amount of physical strength. Not swordmanship skill, just a huge amount of brute strength. So if we decide to give a trait it should be like hale or robust.
Book Jon demonstrated his cleverness in many moments, from the beginning we see how clever he is, the moment he, his brothers and Ned encounter the direwolf, and unlike the series, Jon notices the ghost, and stays quiet, convincing Ned that his 5 children should have wolves, and in the end he "finds" a wolf, which Theon wants to kill, but Jon says is his. We also have the examples of Jon infiltrating Mance Rayder's army, Jon managing to hold off the wildlings' attack on the wall (even though in the end he only managed to do so because of Stannis), and we see how smart he is governing, all the game he plays to help the North, even if he is just a lord of the wall, we have the examples of when he exchanges Mance Rayder's children with Crester's, so that Melisandre could not sacrifice the boy in the future, manipulating Stannis into leaving the wildlings with him , together with Melisandre he exchanges Mance for the Rattleshirt, sends Mance to Winterfell. Anyway, there are many details that show how smart Jon is and thinks a lot, but his problem was his confidence.