Does Not Illustrate: The Oath Breaker

I still think twenty minutes qualifies as an instant pull.

Well, my argument in defensive of that image is that what on earth could possibly demonstrate that trope on it's own?

I will agree that this image, completely on its own, with no context at all, does not really mean anything. But neither does the extremely vast majority of any other images for a character type that is not explicitly rooted in their physical appearance.

Without adding a speech bubble saying “Har har, I just broke my oath and shall now be haunted and or forever branded by my misdeed.” I’m not really sure what could sum this trope up more bluntly.

Whomever added the page quote assumable did so for the reason that Jamie is a reasonably well know (and even more now thanks to HBO) example of this trope. Whether he is the best example is of course subjective. I added the image because, A) it complimented the quote and B) I felt that within the context, it was not unrealistic to assume people would understand that it was depicting an oath breaker actively breaking his oath, which it is.

Could it be clarified further? Yes. I’m sure someone could come up with a caption that makes it as subtle as a bison standing on your bed. But I’m not really sure how “A smug man in armor holding a bloody sword while standing over the dead body of an old man before a throne” on a page entitled “The Oath Breaker” with a page quote from someone saying “I'm the bloody Kingslayer, remember?” could really be misinterpreted as anything else. It’s not like he’s there to discuss dinner plans for Sunday.

Edit: Also, after reading over the rules/guidelines, I’d argue that as laid forth here the image in question◊ is at worst “Not Actually JAFAAC” – albeit a captionless one. Whereas this related example◊ would be a True JAFAAC, as it really does add zero illustrative value.

Or, if you prefer to have it smaller, and more direct, I fixed it◊.

edited 3rd Apr '12 2:49:58 AM by Panicintrinsica

Seconded. It would be really good if we can find something else, but knights traditionally are known to take many oaths of honour and such. This one has just killed a second knight for no obvious reason and not in war. On a page called The Oath-Breaker, it is alright, though there are probably better. I like how the armour communicates having taken oaths and such without text needed.

... I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense here.

You make more sense than the post I was about to write.

On a page called The Oath-Breaker, you're not expecting the person on the picture to have followed an oath to kill someone.

Right, well, in an attempt to actually fix it, I will now propose the image, now slightly smaller and with the accompany caption. "He’s not called Kingslayer for nothing."

Granted, it’s a horrible caption, but I’m sure someone can improve on it.

Or, if someone has a better image that somehow manages to explicitly illustrate someone first breaking an oath and then being stigmatized by that act, I’ll be the first one to support it.

Of course we could just go with no image, but that's a cop-out; I'm now determined to make this work just because if it's difficulty.

edited 3rd Apr '12 3:10:38 AM by Panicintrinsica

I've replaced the image, because as noted in this post, it is a "cat-5" image, and such images require a vote for consensus before they can be pulled. No such consensus has been demonstrated in this thread. Cat-6 is an insta-pull, cat-5 is not.

edited 3rd Apr '12 7:14:49 AM by Spark9

Added a caption to clarify the image slightly.

I'm not even sure it's a Cat 5 image; I think it's between that and Cat 3. Not Cat 4, though, since that's "no image".

Clock is set.

Clock's up; locking for inactivity/lack of consensus. No action is to be taken based on this thread.