Another Game of Thrones thought (because like everyone else, I'm watching the end of the era with great interest.)

Ok, this one's about Sansa Stark. We're way past the books as published, so the show has to stand on this point.

I'm intrigued by the contrast the show poses between Sansa and Ned Stark. Recall, in the first episode of the show (and in the first book), Ned executes a deserter from the Night's Watch. In the doing, he tells the boys that he who passes the sentence should be willing to execute it.

In contrast, as the show portrays it, by the time we get to Ramsay Bolton and Petyr Bailish, Sansa does her killing at a remove. The dogs in the first case, Arya in the second.

Now, I'm not arguing why this occurs. It's pretty evident why, given Sansa's personal story. There are many arguments about how this choice fits, pretty much all of them useful and defensible on some level.

What I'm interested in is this: are the storywriters going to leave this as purely a contrast?

And I wouldn't disagree; Sansa is Sansa and Ned is Ned and leaving this obvious story arc as is, no explanation, can stand on its own.

However, this contrast can also be used. If it's a contrast, but one with possibility to be resolved in some way? Now that would be an interesting choice, as well. That's usually the way of it, in the classic tragedy sense, isn't it? And Ned's choices mattered: he paid for them. Will Sansa's matter in a similar way? Or are the writers headed for a different path.

Again, this contrast doesn't have to be anything except a pure character statement. At the same time, it can be a fulcrum to pivot around, in the way the story goes. Which one would you choose?