Jump to content

Dragons. Good or bad?


LordImp

Recommended Posts

A lot of mixed opinions when it comes to the dragons. Are they natural and intelligent creatures or are they terrible unnatural monsters?

The Others kills everything on their path and leaves a frozen wasteland behind. The dragons can also kill everything and leaves a burnt wasteland behind. Are they any better than the Others?

The dragons can be controlled by humans though but imagine the mad king or Ramsay with a dragon. We might see the horror of dragons if Euron gets one. 

Some claim dragons came from the Shadowlands , this area is now inhospitable to humans. Same with Valyria. A pattern that shows us the results of dragons?

We also have Septon Barth who claimed dragons was a result of crossbreeding fire wyrms and wyverns. So they are unatural creatures who don't belong in this world? 

If the Others are indeed created by the COTF then they are both unatural corrupted creatures?

But again dragons will be a important tool in destroying the dead army.

So are the dragons good or bad news? Are they a part of the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're bad. Just look at all the damage they did when the Targaryens had them. The idea that they deter violence has merit but that only works if they themselves are not controlled by someone initiating violence. It's another example of "who watches the watchman".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i have one,then no dragons aren't bad but a good show of power and a weapon of mass destruction thats loyal to me,now if i don't have a dragon then they are a menace that's far too dangerous to be allowed to live and a terrible weapon bound to someone else upsetting the balance of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say we have two kingdoms/regions/countries at war and both sides have roughly the same number 35-50k army,now one side pillages in the other side's territory and battles on open field are indecisive,but one sides gets a dragon that would allow them to sneak up on the enemy army and either scatter it or destroy completly their by preventing years of a long war and suffering for the smallfolk on one hand thats good for their smallfolk but on the other they just burned a  bunch of people who were conscripted and had to fight them.

 

It's all up to the viewpoint :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dragons are (domesticated) animals. They are about as bad as any such. They are not weapons. And they are also not ice demons creating zombies to kill the living. The average wild dragon doesn't trouble you if you stay out of its reach. And you can do that. You don't have to live on Dragonstone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The dragons are (domesticated) animals. They are about as bad as any such. They are not weapons. And they are also not ice demons creating zombies to kill the living. The average wild dragon doesn't trouble you if you stay out of its reach. And you can do that. You don't have to live on Dragonstone.

Lol stay out of its reach? Even assuming Drogon didn't kill and eat the little girl -- and I am genuinely unsure if it happened or was staged -- we see Drogon hunt and devour people's horses and livestock. I'd say that is troublesome. The fact the dragons can range hundreds of miles in a day (see Aegon flying to DS and back in under 24 hours) kind of puts a kibosh on being able to avoid them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Lol stay out of its reach? Even assuming Drogon didn't kill and eat the little girl -- and I am genuinely unsure if it happened or was staged -- we see Drogon hunt and devour people's horses and livestock. I'd say that is troublesome. The fact the dragons can range hundreds of miles in a day (see Aegon flying to DS and back in under 24 hours) kind of puts a kibosh on being able to avoid them. 

Well, life is dangerous, you know. It is up to you as a rational human being to decide where you want to live. If you chose to live close to the lair of a dragon or the lair of tiger you won't get any pity or compassion from me. That is dangerous, and you know that.

And while there are hints that dragons also prey on humans they are certainly not their customary diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, life is dangerous, you know. It is up to you as a rational human being to decide where you want to live. If you chose to live close to the lair of a dragon or the lair of tiger you won't get any pity or compassion from me. That is dangerous, and you know that.

And while there are hints that dragons also prey on humans they are certainly not their customary diet.

The small folk don't really have a choice where to live. They lack the means and wherewithal to leave the lands of their lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The small folk don't really have a choice where to live. They lack the means and wherewithal to leave the lands of their lord.

Well, then the smallfolk should rise up and depose those lords, no?

Aside from that - there is no reason to believe that any Westerosi were ever in danger from wild dragons throughout the Targaryen reign. The three wild dragons on Dragonstone did not prey on humans as far as we know. Sheepstealer preyed on sheep, Grey Ghost on fish, and the Cannibal on dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dragons are good from the view that they help make these books so enjoyable to read.  For me, part of that appeal is the mystery of these creatures.  We know that they are magical and that they are somehow influencing or being influenced by the return of magic (or the increase in magic maybe).  In addition to their influence on magic they are also sometimes massive companions (pets?) to people which allow their powers of flight and the ability to spew fire to be used as weapons of mass destruction.  Now you could argue that the people wielding the WMD might be using them to defeat evil enemies and thus make the world more good but you could just as easily argue that the ends don't justify the means and that any individual or nation willing to use WMDs is bad.  We don't know how the dragons came into existence so we can't know if they have a good or bad purpose but they do appear to be in the possession of one of the good guys in the story at this point so for now that makes the dragons good I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between them and the Others I would say they are not that bad and even a necessary evil to defeat the Others and keep the continent united. Unlike the Others they are not actively trying to wipe out humanity and bring about the end of civilization as we know it. No doubt they are powerful tools of destruction but in essence they themselves are no different from any other animal who just want to have enough to eat and reproduce. Now I agree in the wrong hands they would cause a great deal of pain and suffering to the people. But then even someone as bad as Aerys can only do so much damage with them but I doubt even he would use them to burn all of Westeros to the ground just for the sake of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragon's are only evil if you can assign them moral agency.  So, the question becomes: do they have moral agency?

If they are as intelligent as dogs, well, then its hard to say that they're really good or evil.  If they're closer to human intelligence, then you can make an argument that they are good or evil.  But then you have the problem of treating a group of sapient beings are identically moral and examining the nature v nurture debate.

I would like to twist the question around: Are people good or bad, and should they be trusted with the power of dragons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...