Dragons. Good or bad?

[Dragonsbone]

This is what George RR Martin has to say about Dragons:

Interview in 2011 with Volture Magazine: 

"Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only [Daenerys Targaryen, one of the series’ heroines] has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

If the author himself says that they are the equivalent of WMD in this medievil world, then there is no room for speculation. He specifically explains what he tries to mirror with them. And He has stated this several times. Yes a Dragon obviously is not as destructive as an atomic bomb. But this is literature. It does not have to be understood literally. It is the essence, the context and the message that matters.

The Dragons represent in a way the power shift within Westeros. Whoever has them, rules over the others since it gives the owner an unbalanced advantage. That is the same with WMD. The countries who have them basically rule the world. No one dares to attack them, since that would basically mean the end of the world as we know. A Dragon can of course not be compared to a military airplane or a fighting jet, since nearly every country in the world has some. Either their one  (most of the countries) or through military aliances (e.g. the NATO). Fighting Jets are the equivalent of spears and swords in a world like Westeros. Whoever has more and the better ones has an advantage, but they are not a game changer like WMD or Dragons.

If Westeros would be a world of Ants, living under the garden in a neighbourhood in the Suburbs of Los Angeles, then the ant who somehow has the power over a bladderwort, would be the equivalent of Daenerys with the dragons, or a country with WMD's. Of course a Bladderwort has not the same power of destruction as an atomic bomb. But in this world of the ants, it has the same power effect. 

[Ser Petyr Parker]

To me, dragons seem much like other fire-related elements of Planetos, and fire in general: potentially a force for good, but hard to control, terrible, merciless, destructive and greedy.

The red priests can do good things, but are also extremely dark. They like to burn people alive, and the shadow babies Mel spawns appear to be the epitome of "dark" magic. I also think the Dusky Woman's reaction to Moqorro is telling.
The Brotherhood Without Banners and Lady Stoneheart are ostensibly helping the smallfolk and eliminating outlaws and murderers, but they've become very quick to sentence people to cruel deaths, aren't too bothered if a few innocents get hanged along with the guilty, and Stoneheart herself is clearly driven by hatred and a desire for revenge, not justice. Mercy is not in their repertoire.
Even wildfire: To the Lannisters and citizens of King's Landing, wildfire was their saviour. To Stannis's fleet, it was a terrible enemy. But the wildfire was originally intended to burn King's Landing, and as much as the citizens of the city would have been glad to see their attackers destroyed, I doubt many of them would have been less than horrified by the sights and sounds of all those people burning.

[Regular John Umber]

53 minutes ago, Dragonsbone said:

This is what George RR Martin has to say about Dragons:

Interview in 2011 with Volture Magazine: 

"Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only [Daenerys Targaryen, one of the series’ heroines] has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

If the author himself says that they are the equivalent of WMD in this medievil world, then there is no room for speculation. He specifically explains what he tries to mirror with them. And He has stated this several times. Yes a Dragon obviously is not as destructive as an atomic bomb. But this is literature. It does not have to be understood literally. It is the essence, the context and the message that matters.

The Dragons represent in a way the power shift within Westeros. Whoever has them, rules over the others since it gives the owner an unbalanced advantage. That is the same with WMD. The countries who have them basically rule the world. No one dares to attack them, since that would basically mean the end of the world as we know. A Dragon can of course not be compared to a military airplane or a fighting jet, since nearly every country in the world has some. Either their one  (most of the countries) or through military aliances (e.g. the NATO). Fighting Jets are the equivalent of spears and swords in a world like Westeros. Whoever has more and the better ones has an advantage, but they are not a game changer like WMD or Dragons.

If Westeros would be a world of Ants, living under the garden in a neighbourhood in the Suburbs of Los Angeles, then the ant who somehow has the power over a bladderwort, would be the equivalent of Daenerys with the dragons, or a country with WMD's. Of course a Bladderwort has not the same power of destruction as an atomic bomb. But in this world of the ants, it has the same power effect. 

 

 

Yes, this, exactly.

[Hodor the Articulate]

23 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Yes. A toddler and the best boxer in the world can both throw a punch, but they do not do it as dangerously or efficiently. That's about the same scale, though if anything it might be understated.

But then the question becomes: how many people does a creature have to kill to be considered "bad"? It seems to me, if killing is morally wrong, quantity shouldn't matter.

1 hour ago, Dragonsbone said:

This is what George RR Martin has to say about Dragons:

Interview in 2011 with Volture Magazine: 

"Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only [Daenerys Targaryen, one of the series’ heroines] has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

If the author himself says that they are the equivalent of WMD in this medievil world, then there is no room for speculation. He specifically explains what he tries to mirror with them. And He has stated this several times. Yes a Dragon obviously is not as destructive as an atomic bomb. But this is literature. It does not have to be understood literally. It is the essence, the context and the message that matters.

<snip>

In the context in which the author describes, yes, the Dragons are WMDs. But the analogy doesn't extend to all contexts, and it's not relevant to the topic of this thread. WMDs are designed for one purpose: to destroy, whereas dragons are more than just tools.

[Dragonsbone]

1 minute ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But then the question becomes: how many people does a creature have to kill to be considered "bad"? It seems to me, if killing is morally wrong, quantity shouldn't matter.

In the context in which the author describes, yes, the Dragons are WMDs. But the analogy doesn't extend to all contexts, and it's not relevant to the topic of this thread. WMDs are designed for one purpose: to destroy, whereas dragons are more than just tools.

I already stated it in another coment that. I already said that those are living creatures and using terms like "good" or "bad" does not hold up to them. This post was to make clear that the Author indeed intended them to be, as a weapon, comperable to WMD.

[Universal Sword Donor]

29 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But then the question becomes: how many people does a creature have to kill to be considered "bad"? It seems to me, if killing is morally wrong, quantity shouldn't matter.

Okay Stalin.

 "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

To treat killing differently based on quantity is foolhardy at best.

[Hodor the Articulate]

36 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Okay Stalin.

 "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

To treat killing differently based on quantity is foolhardy at best.

Huh? You were the one who brought scale into this. I was arguing that dragons are no more or less "bad" than a warhorse, remember?

[Universal Sword Donor]

23 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Huh? You were the one who brought scale into this. I was arguing that dragons are no more or less "bad" than a warhorse, remember?

And you'd be wrong. A warhorse being brought in comparison to a dragon? That's f*cking scale right there.

In addition to it being an awful point, it's a more awful point.

[DominusNovus]

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

And you'd be wrong. A warhorse being brought in comparison to a dragon? That's f*cking scale right there.

In addition to it being an awful point, it's a more awful point.

Is a lion that eats a hundred people more evil than a lion that eats one person?

[Universal Sword Donor]

12 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Is a lion that eats a hundred people more evil than a lion that eats one person?

It's not more evil, it's more dangerous. If that is a difficult concept to wrestle with, forego the wrestling and just accept it.

[DominusNovus]

19 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It's not more evil, it's more dangerous. If that is a difficult concept to wrestle with, forego the wrestling and just accept it.

Not difficult at all. I'm on team "you need to have moral agency to be good or evil." I figure having a real world example can help people relate to the idea that dragons, if they're at a dog level of intelligence, can't be evil, just dangerous.

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Not difficult at all. I'm on team "you need to have moral agency to be good or evil." I figure having a real world example can help people relate to the idea that dragons, if they're at a dog level of intelligence, can't be evil, just dangerous.

A cannon that can load and fire itself? There's no real world example and nukes are the closest. There is literally nothing in the world that can fly itself and decide to murder things on a scale a dragon can. You know what maybe a million asian hornets? People poo pooing the nukular missile/bomb comparison are being petulant. It's not a 1:1 but all things considered it's the most accurate. I have yet to see someone come up with a better one.

Right now we've gotten horses, lances, a sword, and a war horse. Fucking stellar work people

[DominusNovus]

2 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

A cannon that can load and fire itself? There's no real world example and nukes are the closest. There is literally nothing in the world that can fly itself and decide to murder things on a scale a dragon can. You know what maybe a million asian hornets? People poo pooing the nukular missile/bomb comparison are being petulant. It's not a 1:1 but all things considered it's the most accurate. I have yet to see someone come up with a better one.

Right now we've gotten horses, lances, a sword, and a war horse. Fucking stellar work people

I'm not entirely sure where we're in disagreement.

Lets step out of fantasy and into near future scifi. Suppose a drone with an AI equivalent to a dog's intelligence. Said drone is armed with nuclear missiles. Is the drone evil, or just dangerous?

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

I'm not entirely sure where we're in disagreement.

Lets step out of fantasy and into near future scifi. Suppose a drone with an AI equivalent to a dog's intelligence. Said drone is armed with nuclear missiles. Is the drone evil, or just dangerous?

Dangerous but if all it does is murder people, would anyone disagree with the evil moniker? 

Just because something might not understand evil doesn't mean people won't consider it so. If you're a WoT fan, just think of the Finn

[DominusNovus]

32 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Dangerous but if all it does is murder people, would anyone disagree with the evil moniker? 

Just because something might not understand evil doesn't mean people won't consider it so. If you're a WoT fan, just think of the Finn

I would disagree with such a moniker. There are people that might consider it evil, but I'd say they're wrong.

[Universal Sword Donor]

29 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

I would disagree with such a moniker. There are people that might consider it evil, but I'd say they're wrong.

If you saw a dragon do nothing but murder your family, eat them, and then follow up with your village? Ruling out a relatively primitive society who believes in tree gods, a lord of light, a death god, and the seven and believe in magic calling a living (potential) killing machine evil is a stretch.

We as the readers might disagree but the people in story would overwhelmingly call it evil. In text giants and dragons are considered evil.

[DominusNovus]

18 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

If you saw a dragon do nothing but murder your family, eat them, and then follow up with your village? Ruling out a relatively primitive society who believes in tree gods, a lord of light, a death god, and the seven and believe in magic calling a living (potential) killing machine evil is a stretch.

We as the readers might disagree but the people in story would overwhelmingly call it evil. In text giants and dragons are considered evil.

Why would I think it was evil, assuming I knew that it was not intelligent? Call me weird, but I'm fully capable of distinguishing between evil and dangerous and I think most people are able to as well. Thats why you don't hear too many people calling hurrcanes evil.

[Universal Sword Donor]

13 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Why would I think it was evil, assuming I knew that it was not intelligent? Call me weird, but I'm fully capable of distinguishing between evil and dangerous and I think most people are able to as well. Thats why you don't hear too many people calling hurrcanes evil.

Sigh.

Never mind. Ignore distinguishing between us as readers and the primitive society who believes in magic. No distinction need be made people! Fiction and Non-Fiction Unite!

[Dragonsbone]

I don't want to ruin this discussion guys, but I think it will lead to nowhere. The question of what is evil and what is good is a long yet unsolvable philosophical question. Sure it won't be solved here, since it is a very complex question with a lot of variables like society organisation, maturity of a society, educational level, technological level, scientificall level and religion, just to name a few. And sure as hell not applicable in a fantasybook with only a thin surface (compared to the real world) like ASOIAF.

[Aegon VII]

7 hours ago, Dragonsbone said:

This is what George RR Martin has to say about Dragons:

Interview in 2011 with Volture Magazine: 

"Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only [Daenerys Targaryen, one of the series’ heroines] has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. But is that sufficient? These are the kind of issues I’m trying to explore. The United States right now has the ability to destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but that doesn’t mean we can achieve specific geopolitical goals. Power is more subtle than that. You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

If the author himself says that they are the equivalent of WMD in this medievil world, then there is no room for speculation. He specifically explains what he tries to mirror with them. And He has stated this several times. Yes a Dragon obviously is not as destructive as an atomic bomb. But this is literature. It does not have to be understood literally. It is the essence, the context and the message that matters.

The Dragons represent in a way the power shift within Westeros. Whoever has them, rules over the others since it gives the owner an unbalanced advantage. That is the same with WMD. The countries who have them basically rule the world. No one dares to attack them, since that would basically mean the end of the world as we know. A Dragon can of course not be compared to a military airplane or a fighting jet, since nearly every country in the world has some. Either their one  (most of the countries) or through military aliances (e.g. the NATO). Fighting Jets are the equivalent of spears and swords in a world like Westeros. Whoever has more and the better ones has an advantage, but they are not a game changer like WMD or Dragons.

If Westeros would be a world of Ants, living under the garden in a neighbourhood in the Suburbs of Los Angeles, then the ant who somehow has the power over a bladderwort, would be the equivalent of Daenerys with the dragons, or a country with WMD's. Of course a Bladderwort has not the same power of destruction as an atomic bomb. But in this world of the ants, it has the same power effect. 

Thank you! I was about to post this and one of his other quotes so I'm glad at least this one has been brought up. To say grrm did not make dragons a parallel for nukes is simply wrong. Here's another quote:

The dragons are the ultimate weapon in the world of Ice and Fire. They’re controlled by only a few people. You can win wars with them, win battles with them, but that doesn’t mean you can govern successfully with them—build a successful society and culture. In that sense, they are like nuclear weapons. Like right now, you see President Obama and Congress and NATO all wrestling with what to do about ISIS in the Middle East. One thing no one mentions is nuclear weapons. We could wipe them off the map tomorrow if we wanted to use our dragons. Still, when do you do that? Do you ever do that? What are the moral ramifications? What does that do to you?