Salafi Stannis Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 So, Stannis gets a lot of shit for using shadow baby assassins, but why? Would it be better if he sent an actual assassin to kill his enemies? Would that somehow be more honourable? What would you do, if, out of nowhere, pops up this incredibly easy way of solving a problem, ie, killing rebel leaders (which is fair game) without risking anybody's life (except maybe his own, but I doubt that's what's gotten people angry), would you say no, and if so, why? Because it has the terrible "M" word attached to it (magic)? How are shadow babies any different to dragons, when they're both magic? The only difference is one kills only one person, and the other has the power to kill hundreds of thousands. And even if you equally disapprove of the use of dragons and shadow babies, still, why do you disapprove of shadow babies, because of the aforementioned reasons, or for some other reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Because they're eviiiiiiil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lyman Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 It is the inability to defend oneself. A normal assassin still has the chance to fail as we've seen on multiple occasions. Even faceless men should not be considered perfect. A dragon can also be killed and sometimes just the presence of one can be enough to subdue ones enemy. See Torrhen Stark and Ronnel Arryn. A shadow baby, have a 100% success rate (If you can defend against one, nothing has been said of it.) They can bypass any security measures and nothing can stop their blades. I think its almost viewed as cheating and completely honorless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Shadow Babies are by definition dishonorable because they attack form the shadows and do not fight face to face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassidyaj Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Also, shadow babies are an unknown thing. People often do not like what they can't understand and aren't used to. And I think that the Faith (the Seven) would frown upon things like this as I am pretty sure that they are like the Citadel in wanting to sweep any thoughts of magic under the rug.Mel has no problem with them. She believes that they are a good thing because they are working for her (and so for the Red God in a sense). But it does lack honor to kill an unarmed foe and Renly never stood a chance against it. I am assuming that Penrose never did either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOT A TARG I SWEAR Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Shadow Babies are by definition dishonorable because they attack form the shadows and do not fight face to face First off that's a bizarrely specific definition of honor. Second, most assassins are also going to attack in a similar manner I'd imagine, it's just shadow babies will have an easier time of it cause they kind of bring their own, so are you just against all assassination attempts in general? Are you against the particular manner in which Joffrey was dispatched? Would you say a surprise attack of another army at night is dishonorable? Personally I don't see anything awful in an assassination like that in this story that will inevitably forego a lot of fighting. If there is really good reason to believe magic like that will corrupt everybody or something in some manner then that would be an argument against it, but all we kind of know is that it weakened Stannis, which is fine, considering he is among the biggest benefactors of its use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Renly had the single strongest force assembled in the War of the Five Kings. When Stannis murdered him that army split up between him and Joffrey, so the argument that Renly's assassination somehow shortened the war is false. In all likelihood he would've won rather quickly if left to his devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 First off that's a bizarrely specific definition of honor. Second, most assassins are also going to attack in a similar manner I'd imagine, it's just shadow babies will have an easier time of it cause they kind of bring their own, so are you just against all assassination attempts in general? Are you against the particular manner in which Joffrey was dispatched? Would you say a surprise attack of another army at night is dishonorable? Personally I don't see anything awful in an assassination like that in this story that will inevitably forego a lot of fighting. If there is really good reason to believe magic like that will corrupt everybody or something in some manner then that would be an argument against it, but all we kind of know is that it weakened Stannis, which is fine, considering he is among the biggest benefactors of its use.Hits the nail on the headWhy is it dishonorable to let thousands of people die because a man wanted power, going so far as to dishonorably usurp his brother's or nephews thronr when by all rights he owes him or them allegiance?Dishonour sows more of the same in war; he backed Stannis into a corner and forced him into killing renly(which he wasn't even aware he was doing btw). You're basically saying Stannis' only way to retain his manhood or any sense of honor was to die and take thousands with him. Renly has about as much right to rule as Cersei does, and I'm a fan of Renly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOT A TARG I SWEAR Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Renly had the single strongest force assembled in the War of the Five Kings. When Stannis murdered him that army split up between him and Joffrey, so the argument that Renly's assassination somehow shortened the war is false. In all likelihood he would've won rather quickly if left to his devices. It shortened the part of the war that was all but guaranteed to happen the next day. I don't think all that many people thought of the possibility that LF would swoop in and set up an alliance like that. In these feudal wars I'm generally all for such assassination attempts. Better the nobles/leaders who are generally going to war primarily for their own benefits get singled out and killed rather than what will usually be more prolonged affairs killing thousands and thousands of commoners that really don't benefit that much and are usually forced into the affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batbob45 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Shadow babies can be use for good like cleaning up room, saving Ned's life, or babysitting little kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illyrio+varys forever Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 It is the inability to defend oneself. A normal assassin still has the chance to fail as we've seen on multiple occasions. Even faceless men should not be considered perfect. A dragon can also be killed and sometimes just the presence of one can be enough to subdue ones enemy. See Torrhen Stark and Ronnel Arryn. A shadow baby, have a 100% success rate (If you can defend against one, nothing has been said of it.) They can bypass any security measures and nothing can stop their blades. I think its almost viewed as cheating and completely honorless. a FM is perfect, as LF said If we’d sent a Faceless Man after her, she’d be as good as buried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raving Stark the Mad Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Using an assassin to kill is dubious enough. It's not exactly chivalrous or honorable combat, eh? Using an assassin to kill your brother is doubly dubious. Using some sort of black magic assassin to kill your brother is triply dubious, especially a black magic assassin created by an act that is by it's nature supposed to be related to the creation of life, or pleasure, or love. Stannis/Mel hit the quadrella of perversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lyman Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 a FM is perfect, as LF said Do you believe everything Littlefigner says? They are still human, and something can still happen. Very high success rate, but I can't imagine they have a 100% kill rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon2908 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 I was upset because one is unable to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC_Lymond Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Using an assassin to kill is dubious enough. It's not exactly chivalrous or honorable combat, eh? Using an assassin to kill your brother is doubly dubious. Using some sort of black magic assassin to kill your brother is triply dubious, especially a black magic assassin created by an act that is by it's nature supposed to be related to the creation of life, or pleasure, or love. Stannis/Mel hit the quadrella of perversion. exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Its war, men die. Compared to other tactics used in war, more specifically this war, its absolutely nothing. Pillage rape and murder the Riverlands (Tywin), pillage rape and murder the Westerlands (Robb), pillage rape and murder the North (Balon), starve Kings Landing (Renly), the Red Wedding (most of the horrible characters), its actually nothing in the sense of what it should have achieved had the user of said spell marched on Kings Landing straight away. While Davos' reaction to it is a perfectly natural one, much like the humans reaction to animated Wights, the worst stuff done in this series has been by men to other men in order to achieve their power without any use of magic. Fact is is Stannis' shadowstrikes and leech bombings appear to be much more precise targeted attacks on what holds his enemies together than the hatchet jobs attempted elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jojen Weed Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 exactly Using an assassin to kill is dubious enough. It's not exactly chivalrous or honorable combat, eh? Using an assassin to kill your brother is doubly dubious. Using some sort of black magic assassin to kill your brother is triply dubious, especially a black magic assassin created by an act that is by it's nature supposed to be related to the creation of life, or pleasure, or love. Stannis/Mel hit the quadrella of perversion. Usurping the throne just because is also dubious, what was Stannis supposed to do? go off and die and take thousands with him? instead he killed one rebel and traitor, good job Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeStallion Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Why is it honorable to kill a thousand man in battle, less honorable to kill a dozen at a dinner, and even more evil to kill one person with a shadow baby. Honor be damned. Shadow babies: use 'em or lose 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raving Stark the Mad Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Usurping the throne just because is also dubious, what was Stannis supposed to do? go off and die and take thousands with him? instead he killed one rebel and traitor, good job Stannis. Why is it honorable to kill a thousand man in battle, less honorable to kill a dozen at a dinner, and even more evil to kill one person with a shadow baby. Honor be damned. Shadow babies: use 'em or lose 'em. Once more the debate revolves around the question of whether the ends justify the means. Tywin vs Ned. Who wins in the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb2518 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 They age you up by about 10 years. That's really the only drawback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.