370 replies to this topic

[Saer]

The dragons were hatched through blood magic, but they're alive now, fairly independent creatures.
I don't see how killing people with shadow-babies is intrinsically worse than killing them with a sword.

[butterbumps!]

Faint, on 07 July 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

Aren't you a little concerned that your theory is undermined by the fact that dragons co-existed with humans in Westeros for over a century under the Targaryens without disaster and nary an incident? What do you imagine about these particular dragons will distinguish them from their predecessors?

I don't know how that undermines anything.  6,000 years of dragons used for destruction and oppression > 100 years of "nary an incident" that we know of, followed by another 50 years or so with incidents.  

I guess my question to you is this:  Let's assume that dragons are indeed the great savior of the world in terms of the Battle for the Dawn.  What do you see playing out?   Dany takes 3 dragons to the wall, kills the others, then the entire realm is so grateful they hand her the throne and give her dragons the Purple Heart or something, and that there is no further moral imperative about whether dragons ought to be owned by humans?

[kissdbyfire]

LuisDantas, on 06 July 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

I am not at all glad that Stannis killed them.  In fact, it damns him hopelessly that he did so in a treacherous way.  It would be slightly worse if he had sent some sort of conventional assassin instead of a living shadow, because at least he is sort of punishing himself by giving up his life force.

His only hope for an honorable killing of Renly or Penrose would be honest warfare, giving both a chance to surrender and paying the iron price.  But he lacked the means, which is why everyone was so surprised that he even went to Storm's End.

I wouldn't like his killing Renly or Penrose by strength of arms, to be sure; but I would have a whole lot more respect for him if he did, or even if he tried and failed.

I assume you’re referring to the shadowbaby that killed Renly, and I infer you believe Stannis knew exactly what was going to happen?

[LuisDantas]

Yes.  Plausible deniability does not fly as a defense for Stannis, for at least two very good reasons.  

1) He is an experienced battle commander and ought to know better than to seek an avoidable challenge where he is outnumbered four-to-one just because; and

2) He then goes on to order Davos to give Melisandre a ride to Cortnay Penrose's tower.  What reasons could he possibly have to do so, unless he has at least a general notion that Melisandre is killing people with sorcery on his behalf?

It is quite a stretch to claim that he believes Melisandre is simply seeing the future and guiding him accordingly.  As Davos himself thinks in that chapter, it is troubling that the future apparently needs active help to happen.

We could push things and speculate that perhaps Melisandre told Stannis that she really wanted to be close to Penrose at the time of his death for whatever reason.  It is even believable.  But Stannis isn't nearly naive enough to not even suspect that she meant to murder Penrose herself, don't you think?  And once he realizes that she has a fair chance of being Penrose's murderer, why would he fail to suspect that she was Renly's as well?

[kissdbyfire]

LuisDantas, on 07 July 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Yes.  Plausible deniability does not fly as a defense for Stannis, for at least two very good reasons.  

1) He is an experienced battle commander and ought to know better than to seek an avoidable challenge where he is outnumbered four-to-one just because; and

2) He then goes on to order Davos to give Melisandre a ride to Cortnay Penrose's tower.  What reasons could he possibly have to do so, unless he has at least a general notion that Melisandre is killing people with sorcery on his behalf?

It is quite a stretch to claim that he believes Melisandre is simply seeing the future and guiding him accordingly.  As Davos himself thinks in that chapter, it is troubling that the future apparently needs active help to happen.

We could push things and speculate that perhaps Melisandre told Stannis that she really wanted to be close to Penrose at the time of his death for whatever reason.  It is even believable.  But Stannis isn't nearly naive enough to not even suspect that she meant to murder Penrose herself, don't you think?  And once he realizes that she has a fair chance of being Penrose's murderer, why would he fail to suspect that she was Renly's as well?

We could argue everything you said in finer detail. I think you make good points, and with some I agree to a point. But for now, I'd like to know your take on how much you think Stannis knew before and after Renly's  death, but before Penrose's.

[LuisDantas]

I think he knew full well that Melisandre would kill Renly, but is lying to himself and to Davos on the matter.

In a way it is like his decision to support Robert's Rebellion against Aerys; he had a choice and made it, but doesn't feel all that confortable admiting it because it can't be clearly expressed and defined in terms of it being his duty.  Stannis is like that, relutant to admit that he has choices.  While he is not big on duty itself, he does have a strong attachment to his self-image as a man of duty.

There is a slight chance that he believed that Melisandre simply saw the future death of Renly, but I very much doubt it.  For one thing, that would bring the question of whether and how much it would be possible to change that future.  I don't know about you, but the vibe I got from that meeting where Renly offered a peach to Stannis was that Stannis felt very much like he could choose to spare or slay Renly as he saw fit.  Besides, he felt fully adapted to giving Davos the orders to send Melisandre to kill Cortnay Penrose, and I see Stannis as someone very transparent with his feelings and very much slow at forgetting and forgiving; no way he was shocked and surprised to realize that he had to actually send Melisandre to kill Penrose.

Less likely of all is that he honestly expected to defeat Renly with such a severe numerical disadvantage.  Surely he did not expect Melisandre to safely offset a disadvantage of fifteen thousand men?  I honestly think there is a greater possibility that Stannis simply has something of a death wish and just wanted to do something, anything at all, to get out of the powerless situation he found himself in at Dragonstone.

Edited by LuisDantas, 07 July 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[Lykos]

Quote

"The day I need military counsel from a Lysene brigand is the day I put off my crown and take the black." The king made a fist.
"Are you here to serve me, smuggler? Or to vex me with arguments?"
"I am yours," Davos said.
"Then hear me. Ser Cortnay's lieutenant is cousin to the Fossoways. Lord Meadows, a green boy of twenty. Should some ill chance strike down Penrose, command of Storm's End would pass to this stripling, and his cousins believe he would accept my terms and yield up the castle."
"I remember another stripling who was given command of Storm's End. He could not have been much more than twenty."
"Lord Meadows is not as stonehead stubborn as I was."
"Stubborn or craven, what does it matter? Ser Cortnay Penrose seemed hale and hearty to me."
"So did my brother, the day before his death. The night is dark and full of terrors, Davos."
Davos Seaworth felt the small hairs rising on the back of his neck. "My lord, I do not understand you."
"I do not require your understanding. Only your service. Ser Cortnay will be dead within the day.  Melisandre has seen it in the flames of the future. His death and the manner of it. He will not die in knightly combat, needless to say."

..."Her flames do not lie. She saw Renly's doom as well. On Dragonstone she saw it, and told Selyse. Lord Velaryon and your friend Salladhor Saan would have had me sail against Joffrey, but Melisandre told me that if I went to Storm's End, I would win the best part of my brother's power, and she was right."
"B-but," Davos stammered, "Lord Renly only came here because you had laid siege to the castle. He was marching toward King's Landing before, against the Lannisters, he would have-"

... "Was, would have, what is that? He did what he did. He came here with his banners and his peaches, to his doom . . . and it was well for me he did. Melisandre saw another day in her flames as well. A morrow where Renly rode out of the south in his green armor to smash my host beneath the walls of King's Landing. Had I met my brother there, it might have been me who died in place of him."
"Or you might have joined your strength to his to bring down the Lannisters," Davos protested. "Why not that? If she saw two futures, well . . . both cannot be true."  King Stannis pointed a finger. "There you err, Onion Knight. Some lights cast more than one shadow.

...could it be that Ser Cortnay seeks for a way to yield with honor? Even if it means his own life? "
A troubled look crossed the king's face like a passing cloud. "More like he plans some treachery. There will be no combat of champions. Ser Cortnay was dead before he ever threw that glove. The flames do not lie, Davos."
Yet they require me to make them true, he thought. It had been a long time since Davos Seaworth felt so sad.

Clash, Chapter 42 Davos.

I believe Stannis has a hard time of convincing himself that these deaths are the inevitable will of a god that means him well, and he admitts that he uses Melisandre´s power.
I agree that this is Stannis darkest moment.  I am with Davos and his friend Salladhor Saan on this, as, I think, I´ve stated in previous posts.  I also dislike Stannis´ practise of burning criminals, he sentenced to death, alive.

But I think most lords in Westeros would use magic, if it was available to them.  That´s why I brought up Tarly and the warlocks before.

Edited by Lykos, 07 July 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[LuisDantas]

Oh, I agree.  They would and they will.  Direwolves and Dragons as well.

[Faint]

butterbumps!, on 07 July 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

What do you see playing out?   Dany takes 3 dragons to the wall, kills the others, then the entire realm is so grateful they hand her the throne and give her dragons the Purple Heart or something, and that there is no further moral imperative about whether dragons ought to be owned by humans?

Many things can happen. Maybe they'll die in the process. Maybe they'll die as the years go by due to how little is known about them in the present. Maybe Tyrion is enough of a dragon expert that they will thrive as they did in the days of old.

I think there is a very good chance that at least one or two, if not all three, die during the events of the series, though. It just seems right given the coming apocalyptic setting.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Night Gathers, on 07 July 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

Can't really bother reading through the whole thread, but I skimmed through some passages about warging. Just wondering, if humans can warg other beings, wouldn't the other beings be able to control humans? Summer warging Bran for instance.

I guess an argument could be made for that, but I personally believe warging is an ability forged through blood magic, and I don't think the 'other beings' -which I am assuming are animals- can preform blood magic like humans.

butterbumps!, on 07 July 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

I don't know how that undermines anything.  6,000 years of dragons used for destruction and oppression > 100 years of "nary an incident" that we know of, followed by another 50 years or so with incidents.  

I guess my question to you is this:  Let's assume that dragons are indeed the great savior of the world in terms of the Battle for the Dawn.  What do you see playing out?   Dany takes 3 dragons to the wall, kills the others, then the entire realm is so grateful they hand her the throne and give her dragons the Purple Heart or something, and that there is no further moral imperative about whether dragons ought to be owned by humans?

I know this was meant for Faint, but I want to comment about how this pertains to me and my beliefs.

I don't believe dragons are "the great saviors of the world in terms of the Battle for the Dawn."

I only believe they were/will be a instrument used by "the savior" to battle the Others.

[Lady Storm]

Lady Tippy Wolfsbane, on 07 July 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

I guess an argument could be made for that, but I personally believe warging is an ability forged through blood magic, and I don't think the 'other beings' -which I am assuming are animals- can preform blood magic like humans.

Hmmm... So how did the Stark children get it? And if it was a gift received long ago by blood magic, how come Ned isn't a warg? (I'm really interested in the topic, not trying to be smug or something)

[Raerin]

Lady Storm, on 07 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Hmmm... So how did the Stark children get it? And if it was a gift received long ago by blood magic, how come Ned isn't a warg? (I'm really interested in the topic, not trying to be smug or something)

I agree with Lady Tippy Wolfsbane that warging, and generally magic of 'ice', is fueled by blood. I wondered why the tradition of blood sacrifices was so crucial to the religion of the First Men and that seems to be the only logical explanation, if there is any such a reason, of course. There are hints everywhere: old stories about using blood while so-called magical constructions were being erected, the remains found in the CotF lair, or First Men abundantly pleasing gods with blood. Besides, the belief in old gods seems to be strongly inspired by Celtic religion from our world, especially druid rites which were mainly involved with blood sacrifices as offerings keeping the lifecycle going on.
Perhaps, as it has been noted, cleaning Ice from blood by Eddard in the godswood functioned as an equivalent of those sacrifices, catalyzing the hidden abilities of the Stark children. Maybe Ned was too old and too developed to acquire a warging ability, as it seems to be adapted in a quite early stage of life.

[Winter's Knight]

Lady Storm, on 07 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Hmmm... So how did the Stark children get it? And if it was a gift received long ago by blood magic, how come Ned isn't a warg? (I'm really interested in the topic, not trying to be smug or something)

Possibly because until quite recently, magic was dead in the world?

[jarl the climber]

Apple Martini, on 05 July 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

My point (which I thought was pretty clear but I guess not) is that you don't see people rooting for Bran to warg humans or Stannis to make a shadowbaby army the way some people want Dany to burn anyone who looks at her sideways with dragons. There's a very real pattern here that some dark magic is OK and should be encouraged — Dany destroying human beings and cities with her dragons — while other dark magic is evil and denotes poor character — Bran warging Hodor and Stannis using shadowbabies. It's a double standard.

I actually think that Thyrion will arrive back at the Wall sometime in the last book or the end of the next one. He will meet Melisandre, and discovering a religion he can practice with his cock, will actually create an army of shadowbabies with her.

I've tried to shift through this thread a little, has anyone mentioned the plan Stannis had to sacrifice Edric Storm to hatch a dragon egg or revive the stone dragon or whatever the hell the plan was? What Dany succeded in doing might spur him to actually try this again somehow.

[S N Black]

I am not sure Stannis is fully aware of at that Melisandre is doing with her powers. (Of course, I am only a part oft he way through DWD). Dany, on the other hand, I see her encounters with magic as an embracing of identity, and coming into her own.  Magic seems to be high cost, as an earlier poster said, and not necessarily good or evil.  Of course, some magic is slanted towards certain uses, such as the shadow assassins, and warging.

[Lady Storm]

Winter, on 07 July 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Possibly because until quite recently, magic was dead in the world?

So it's a gift given to all Starks but works only when magic is around, kind of like a cell phone without a provider? But how come the wildlings have wargs? How old was Varamyr?

Raerin, on 07 July 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

Perhaps, as it has been noted, cleaning Ice from blood by Eddard in the godswood functioned as an equivalent of those sacrifices, catalyzing the hidden abilities of the Stark children. Maybe Ned was too old and too developed to acquire a warging ability, as it seems to be adapted in a quite early stage of life.

But Robb and Jon aren't that young, and Rickon seems to have no control over Shaggy. And why would the Gods give the gift to his children, and not another type of gift to him? And why would they give it to a boy who's not his child (assuming R+L=J)?

[Winter's Knight]

Lady Storm, on 07 July 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

So it's a gift given to all Starks but works only when magic is around, kind of like a cell phone without a provider? But how come the wildlings have wargs? How old was Varamyr?

Perhaps there are "centers" of magic that function all the time-like the Land of Always Winter and Asshai?
The closer a person is, the more likely they are to develop a gift like warging.
And when magic starts getting stronger, like right now, the gift spreads further than the usual, narrow range?

Or perhaps, in normal times, the Wall contains it?

[jarl the climber]

Lady Storm, on 07 July 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

So it's a gift given to all Starks but works only when magic is around, kind of like a cell phone without a provider? But how come the wildlings have wargs? How old was Varamyr?



But Robb and Jon aren't that young, and Rickon seems to have no control over Shaggy. And why would the Gods give the gift to his children, and not another type of gift to him? And why would they give it to a boy who's not his child (assuming R+L=J)?

The Dwarf Woman that Arya encounterd at High Heart? on two occasion refered to her as a blood child, not sure what the signifigance of this is. It could indicate that a blood sacrifice was made for the Starks kids to have their powers perhaps without their knowledge.

[Lady Storm]

Winter, on 07 July 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Perhaps there are "centers" of magic that function all the time-like the Land of Always Winter and Asshai?
The closer a person is, the more likely they are to develop a gift like warging.
And when magic starts getting stronger, like right now, the gift spreads further than the usual, narrow range?

Or perhaps, in normal times, the Wall contains it?

That would actually make  a lot of sense, since people with magic seem to be around before the general time the magic started to become stronger.
(Although I'd still like to find out what makes the Stark + Targ children so special)

jarl the climber, on 07 July 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

The Dwarf Woman that Arya encounterd at High Heart? on two occasion refered to her as a blood child, not sure what the signifigance of this is. It could indicate that a blood sacrifice was made for the Starks kids to have their powers perhaps without their knowledge.

Good catch. Perhaps BR? Although I can only guess why he would give it to Bran, not so much the others.

[Winter's Knight]

Lady Storm, on 07 July 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

That would actually make  a lot of sense, since people with magic seem to be around before the general time the magic started to become stronger.
(Although I'd still like to find out what makes the Stark + Targ children so special)

Targs and by extension Valyrians associated with sorcery before the Doom.
And the Starks of old made blood sacrifices to the weirwood tree.Perhaps when magic is weak, the Wall is enough to contain it-remember that even direwolves  had not been seen for ages.

So when the Others start stirring, direwolves start slipping through the Wall.

Maybe it's not a case of magic growing stronger but the Wall growing weaker? Perhaps there was always magic in Essos and it's only Westoros where it was absent.