What's so bad about shadow babies?

[Forelver]

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.

This is how I feel too. Using something joyful and loving like having a baby to murder someone seemed really twisted to me.

[dragonsrule]

A non-magical assassin would also be dishonorable, remember the comments about how using poison is wrong. Ofcourse, lots of characters in the books do dishonorable things, but Stannis is written as the kind of character who wouldn't, so its more shocking when he does it.

[George48]

It's because we have internalised a LOT of high-fantasy cliches including those regarding magic and honour.

This is why shadowbabies are evil for some while they have no issues with dragons, Beric's resurrection ("it's done for justice and they are fighting evil") or other things.

IMO you can think it's bad but only if you apply your standards to everything else (either all other magic or all other ruthless war strategies)

[OrangeStallion]

Once more the debate revolves around the question of whether the ends justify the means. Tywin vs Ned. Who wins in the end?

I'm really upset you didn't include my use 'em or lose 'em comment. I worked hard for a whole three seconds coming up with it.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I'm really upset you didn't include my use 'em or lose 'em comment. I worked hard for a whole three seconds coming up with it.

My bad. Fixed.

[OrangeStallion]

My bad. Fixed.

:cool4: you're a real bro

[Diregirl]

Shadow babies can be use for good like cleaning up room, saving Ned's life, or babysitting little kids

*LOL

I'd actually empoy some if it weren't for the messy production process. :-(

Seriously though, using shadowbabies is just unfair and I'm sure somewhere in the chivalric code there is a small footnote saying so. Your opponent should always have a sporting chance to survive, but it seems you can't defend yourself against shadow babies.

[RoamingRonin]

I give him grief for his choice of targets. Using them is detrimental to his health, though.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

To the OP, the reason it's dishonorable is because it's an invincible weapon.

Brienne tells the tale of the hero of tarth to crabbe. Supposedly the maiden fell in love wih him and gave him a magic sword which could win any battle. But, he only used it a few times.

When questioned about why he is such an idiot not to use this weapon, Brienne replies "Honor. Honor is the reason."

So you can argue Brienne is stupid or naive, like nick crabbe did, and many will agree. Yet there is a sense that it is broadly considered dishonorable to kill your opponent in an unfair way.

You can justify them on utilitarian grounds sure, but you'd still be dishonorable to do it.

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.

So you support the red wedding? Interesting.

[SeanF]

Does the use of of shadow assassins have wider adverse consequences? It's hard to believe that whichever god, demon, power etc. Melisandre invokes to bind shadows to her will is benign.

Likewise, when she burns people alive to get the favour of R'hllor (or when Dany burns Mirri alive to hatch dragon eggs). Should we just think of these things as necessary evils, or are Mel and Dany doing something that's really evil and destructive?

[Gibzit]

I don't care about the shadow babies, I care about stannis killing his own brother, and getting away with it too (if it wasn't for that meddeling brienne).

Imagine how many people could have been saved if renly won, how easily the lannisters head would roll off their bodies, but they still live, because of shadow babies.

[Stannis's Lawyer]

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.

So if a huge dragon like Balerion flew high above an enemy army and torched the king, would that be evil?

[Ser Baldrick]

Using assassins in general is a dishonorable way to win a war. If Tywin used a shadow baby, no one would bat an eye. He's the kind of lord who unleashes the Mountain on innocent smallfolk. Stannis, however, makes righteous claims to be the most honorable lord who ever cut off his best friend's fingers. A fair fought battle in the field would have been honorable, but Stannis knows he woulda gotten crushed. After all, right of conquest is widely recognized as legitimate and Renly could have very well succeeded under those terms. So Stannis did the dirty and sent a shadow baby.

And I think that's Martin's point. Be wary of people who claim to be unfailingly honorable. They might not use that cheat code in their back pocket as long as they're winning. But once their back's against the wall, LOOK OUT!

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

Once more the debate revolves around the question of whether the ends justify the means. Tywin vs Ned. Who wins in the end?

In this case, yes it does. He killed exactly 2 people, both of which he gave opportunities to surrender peacefully and both had the capacities to choose on their own volition whether to engage with Stannis and his claim. Neither Stannis, Renly, or the Castellan were willing to compromise. Renly intended to go into battle the next day, instead he didn't make it, oh well.

Not everybody is going to have equal amounts of soldiers, money and supplies. I have no problem with characters using mystical means to defend themselves so long as there isn't good evidence that by doing so you are strengthening some evil supernatural force in the world or something. The only lingering effect that we've seen so far is that the person who benefited from the assassins is now weakened.

That sounds like the morally superior option to most of the wars that have ever been fought. Instead of countless people forced into the conflict being hurt, the countryside being ravaged, the only ones heavily effected from this are the ones with the most agency and control.

[OrangeStallion]

In this case, yes it does. He killed exactly 2 people, both of which he gave opportunities to surrender peacefully and both had the capacities to choose on their own volition whether to engage with Stannis and his claim. Neither Stannis, Renly, or the Castellan were willing to compromise. Renly intended to go into battle the next day, instead he didn't make it, oh well.

Not everybody is going to have equal amounts of soldiers, money and supplies. I have no problem with characters using mystical means to defend themselves so long as there isn't good evidence that by doing so you are strengthening some evil supernatural force in the world or something. The only lingering effect that we've seen so far is that the person who benefited from the assassins is now weakened.

That sounds like the morally superior option to most of the wars that have ever been fought. Instead of countless people forced into the conflict being hurt, the countryside being ravaged, the only ones heavily effected from this are the ones with the most agency and control.

Totally agree.

People tend to cast a blind eye towards the small folk and soldiers who have no choice but to fight for their liege lord. Supporting events such as the Red Wedding only matters as to which side you're on.

Why is Daenerys winning her unsullied in Astapor for trickery not condemned, where many more than just the masters who trained the unsullied were slaughtered, but everyone loses their shit because the Red Wedding happened?

Have some objectivity. Using the shadow baby was an advantage Stannis had. He gave renly and penrose the opportunity to treat, and then he had them disposed of, one death each as opposed to thousands. Stannis won with efficiency and minimal loss of life.

I say throwing soldiers, who have no choice but to fight for their lord (nothing short of slavery), to their deaths for your own petty squabbles is far worse.

[morgan1213]

They age you up by about 10 years. That's really the only drawback.

Agreed. Haha. And I wasn't even gunning for Stannis. He lost my vote when he leeched Robb into the flames. But, he has my grudging support since the Wall.

My kids really messed up my keys :(

[Stannis's Lawyer]

Using assassins in general is a dishonorable way to win a war. If Tywin used a shadow baby, no one would bat an eye. He's the kind of lord who unleashes the Mountain on innocent smallfolk. Stannis, however, makes righteous claims to be the most honorable lord who ever cut off his best friend's fingers. A fair fought battle in the field would have been honorable, but Stannis knows he woulda gotten crushed. After all, right of conquest is widely recognized as legitimate and Renly could have very well succeeded under those terms. So Stannis did the dirty and sent a shadow baby.

And I think that's Martin's point. Be wary of people who claim to be unfailingly honorable. They might not use that cheat code in their back pocket as long as they're winning. But once their back's against the wall, LOOK OUT!

Utter bullshit. Stannis does not claims to be 'unfailingly honorable' or even normally honorable. Davos, not Stannis, claims he is the most honorable man in Westeros when trying to stop Salladhor Saan from defecting.

[Batbob45]

at least, Shadow babies don't do the sick stuff that Ramsey does

[Dorian Martell]

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.

1st, no it is not. Face to face single combat is the height of honor. As is hosts clashing on an open field under their banners.

2nd, so what if they attack in a similar fashion. Assassination is by definition dishonorable. Shadow baby, poison or ninja or otherwise. and yes, surprise night attacks, scorched earth, raping and pillaging, all of that is quite dishonorable.

As for you not having a problem with any of that, that's OK. Being honor-less in the modern world has few if any drawbacks.

As for magic corrupting, well, that is a drawback, but a just honorable man foregoing honor to make up for a total lack of forces seems to indicate that the corruption has already started with the foregoing of said honor

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

1st, no it is not. Face to face single combat is the height of honor. As is hosts clashing on an open field under their banners.

2nd, so what if they attack in a similar fashion. Assassination is by definition dishonorable. Shadow baby, poison or ninja or otherwise. and yes, surprise night attacks, scorched earth, raping and pillaging, all of that is quite dishonorable.

As for you not having a problem with any of that, that's OK. Being honor-less in the modern world has few if any drawbacks.

As for magic corrupting, well, that is a drawback, but a just honorable man foregoing honor to make up for a total lack of forces seems to indicate that the corruption has already started with the foregoing of said honor

You've yet to even give a meaningful definition of honor, all you've done is tell us a few things you think it's not besides single combat face to face being it's "height". How are you determining what's honorable and what's not? I'm sure all the different cultures have fairly different honor codes. The Dornish don't seem to find any lack of honor in guerilla warfare. Wildlings don't seem to mind using some of those other tactics. Are you just basing your opinion on Andal honor codes?

Honor just seems like a goofy metric to base anything on. It's just a vague tradition based morality code mixing with cultures.

Don't you see ridiculous aspects of open field warfare clashing with things that one would think would be honorable when you look at things like going into battle against a foe with far less people and capable equipment? Isn't that just bullying?