falcotron

How does "magic blood" work?

137 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It could just be an accident of history. Just as it seems to be in Bran (and possibly Euron).

Really? 5 kids out of 5 (and 6 if you count the cousin) born w/ the gift of skinchanging and it's just a freaky coincidence? LOL

And yes, I know you were talking about greenseers but it's the same principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, falcotron said:

Do we actually know this? We get lots of counterexamples about the power of the "blood of the dragon"—Viserys, Quentyn, the dragonseeds… The one exception is Dany hatching her dragons, but it's clear that this is a unique, one-time only thing that may have nothing to do with her ancestry.

I didn't say I know all the magical properties of 'the blood of the dragon' nor do I say it alone was what enabled Dany to hatch the dragon eggs. I'm sure her ancestry was part of the ingredients or prerequisites for that powerful spell but hardly all that was necessary.

And in relation to the dragonriding thing it is quite clear that the Targaryens were (and are) capable of becoming dragonriders the way they did because of their blood. Whether that's the only way to pull that off remains to be seen.

But there are no 'counter examples' to the magic of dragonlord blood in the story since nobody ever said every person who has the blood of the dragon can become a dragonrider. Some might not. And some people being descended from dragonlords might not look the part nor even know that's the case. That should be the case for all the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards - or the bastards of such bastards. Commoners seldom know who they great-grandparents were.

You could make a case that Hugh and Nettles (Ulf definitely had Targaryen blood) have no dragonlord blood if they came from any place but Dragonstone. If one of them had been a wildling or a Summer Islander, or an Ibbenese it could make sense. But not the way it is.

In addition, we know that the ability to have prophetic dreams about the future is also a trait that's passed down in the Targaryen bloodline. It is so dominant that both the Blackfyres and apparently also the Tolands (perhaps through the Martells?) inherited that trait. 

Not all seers/prophets have to be descended from a magical bloodline, but the Targaryens represent one such bloodline.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

But it's not just people in Westeros. Melisandre's magic using king's blood works.

Melisandre uses dragonlord blood for her magics - Stannis' blood, the blood of Rhaelle Targaryen, Aegon V, Alyssa Velaryon, and (perhaps) Aerion Targaryen. And she uses the blood of Edric Storm who basically has the same blood as Stannis (although the whole leeches thing is just a scam).

But it is quite clear that this isn't even necessary. Melisandre indicates to Davos his semen and life force could produce shadow demons, too, just as Mirri Maz Duur's non-royal, non-dragonlord blood could hatch three dragon eggs (or at least help with that). Blood magic and blood sacrifices can work if the spell is done in the right way. 

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

Of course all of those kings have Targaryen blood. Maybe she's completely wrong about Stannis having power by being a king (or by being Robert's brother) but he happens to have power anyway because his grandmother is a Targ. So she may be repeating the same mistake in wanting Jon's blood thinking it's powerful because he's Robb's brother-in-law but it's actually powerful than she expected because he's Rhaegar's son. That would fit with Mel's story pretty well, I suppose.

It is pretty clear that Mel actually knows what makes Stannis' blood special is his Targaryen blood. She never says that but Aemon's interpretations of her statements make it clear.

Mel clearly realizes that there is something in Jon but as of yet there are no hints that she thinks he is more special than, say, Davos whose blood and semen could have also helped her plans.

The idea that Mel is as stupid as to think that wearing a crown makes anyone 'special' is ridiculous. She herself makes it quite clear in ASoS that she doesn't care about Stannis' entire kingship thing. She fights a larger battle.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

But it would be the only example in the books of Targaryen blood actually being special, which makes it no more plausible than king's blood being special, so why assume that?

See above. Targaryen blood (or in a broader sense - dragonlord blood) is the only blood that is confirmed to be special. 

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

And meanwhile, there are plenty of other fantasy stories where mass belief, or sacred oaths, have some kind of magical power. And this is a story where rituals definitely matter. Thoros doesn't raise the dead whenever he lifts his arms, it's only when he performs the ritual that legendarily brought people back. And the fact that Valyria was able to perform all kinds of wondrous magics implies that repeatable rituals actually are part of the process.

Sure, magic can be learned, but not every type of magic. And there are prices attached to all of that. Mel tells us that and Arya's and Bran's stories show us this. And some types of magic are more easily learned if you have 'magical blood'. Dany could work a very powerful spell in AGoT not because she trained decades in Asshai, etc. but because 'her blood' and 'destiny' helped her connect the dots.

And, no, there is no reason to believe that the kiss ever brought anyone back. It might be that this whole thing once worked that way but as far as Thoros knows this kiss is part of the funeral rites of the red priests.

I think the kiss of life is a very special type of fire magic that was originally invented by the dragonlords to bring back their own (fallen) dead. If that's true it might explain why it only works of people who have at least a drop of dragonlord blood - and why it might even work better on people with a lot of dragonlord blood like Jon Snow.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

It's not scientific or D&D-like in that you can't do chemistry on a ritual, like "What happens if I change this word", and you can't sit down and research how to cause some new effect you want—but it is repeatable: the same ritual will either do the same thing, or nothing.

I agree with that in principle since there is ample evidence for that - two shadow assassins being born, the Faceless Men perfecting the art of stealing and wearing faces, the kiss of life, etc. - but there might also be certain singular spells that cannot be repeated.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

So, why is it implausible that 1000 people swearing a sacred oath to you as a king could have some effect, but perfectly reasonable that having 1/10th of Aegon's genes could?

Because the idea that magic is something that cares about political offices and titles is pretty much ridiculous. At least in this setting. Being a king has an impact on individuals and how they are perceived by others, sure, but it doesn't change you on an ontological level. Or rather - it doesn't seem to do that in the framework of this story. People certainly believe that an 'anointed king' is set apart from a normal man even more than the Targaryen dynasty is set apart from 'lesser men' - Ned and Cregan Stark being abhorred by the way the kings they were fighting were killed is ample evidence for that - but the author does not believe in shitty medieval ideology of that sort. He is not a monarchist or an elitist. He certainly thinks that men and women are born equal.

To make the case that being a king sets the king and his (extended?) family magically apart from 'normal people' we would actually need evidence for this. But then kings would actually be 'special magical people' from the moment they become kings - which they clearly are not. There aren't any sorcerer-kings in this story, nor is there any indication that being a king helps you learn or work magic more easier.

George writes about people, not offices. Some people are special because of their bloodlines, others because of who and what they are, and others still because of what they go through. And others still are special because of all those things.

And in the blood magic department the important point always seems to be the fact that a blood sacrifice really has to be a sacrifice. If you give up something you love you might get what you want - Stannis gave his life force in his semen and thus saw two people dead he wanted dead, Dany gave up Viserys, Rhaego, and Drogo (and killed Mirri) and got three dragons in return, the mythical Azor Ahai killed his beloved Nissa Nissa and got a burning sword in return, people hiring the Faceless Men to kill for them give up things they that are important for them, Melisandre gave up a lot to learn her magics in Asshai, etc.

The idea that 'magic' or 'the gods' care about the rank, status, and bloodline of a person you (cruelly) kill to get something doesn't make any sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The Starks are never described in the series as having 'special blood' of the same kind as the Targaryen do, so any theories in that direction are mostly baseless speculation. We don't even know whether something like being a skinchanger or greenseer is something that only occurs within certain bloodlines. If it did it is very odd indeed that there are no Stark skinchangers or greenseers ever mentioned in recorded history.

Well, it is clear that you think the Targaryens are the elite of the elite and that this story is all about replanting that elite (but the elite don't plant trees). Man, you should have heard how aghast GRRM was when he first misunderstood my Targ birth order question and he thought I was trying to say the Targs were like a supreme, specially gifted race. He physically recoiled and almost stopped talking to me until I clarified the question. So you down talking and ignoring the book info provided by the author does not make your supposed ending just so. Special blood and special talents do live within other people and races including, but not limited to the Targaryens.

Quote

Stretching the Blackwood lineage as being important is also somewhat of a stretch. All the noble families of Westeros have First Men ancestry, especially the most ancient houses. There is nothing that sets the Blackwoods apart from the others in this regard. And in Bloodraven's case we actually don't know whether his Blackwood or his Targaryen ancestry - or neither - is what made him a greenseer. It could just be an accident of history. Just as it seems to be in Bran (and possibly Euron).

So, are you saying you are relying on the World book to give accurate information about magic? The same talents and mysteries that the writers of said book are trying to downplay and diminish? The same "authors" who repeatedly tell the reader to "ignore such things"?

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Really? 5 kids out of 5 (and 6 if you count the cousin) born w/ the gift of skinchanging and it's just a freaky coincidence? LOL

And yes, I know you were talking about greenseers but it's the same principle.

No, it is not, since the Children and Bloodraven give us the impression in ADwD that the talent of becoming a skinchanger and greenseer is prevalent in the entire population of sentient species - humans, Children of the Forest, and giants - while giving no indication that special bloodlines are necessary for this.

What we instead learn is that those who are born with the talent to become a greenseer are specially marked by freakish looks, especially amongst the Children (and the albino Bloodraven among the humans). In Bran's case it might be his broken spine. Perhaps only that opened that particular door for him. It seems to be the case.

I'm not completely ruling out that some bloodlines might be important but nothing indicates that this is the case for skinchangers. Varamyr had no skinchanger parents or siblings, nor was he able to sire and skinchanger children. And neither was the Haggon chap as far as we know.

And while the Targaryen blood is special no Targaryen is as 'magically special' as Daenerys. She hatched three dragon eggs in a singular magical event no other Targaryen ever brought about as far as we know. We don't assume this gives her an 'even more special blood' than her siblings, parents, or other kin.

In that sense it doesn't make any sense to cite the Stark children being skinchangers as a sign that they have special blood.

In fact, Bloodraven (or even Bran himself, if he is going to learn to reach through time) could have laid the groundwork for that development assuming it is possible for a greenseer to create another greenseer - or at least help somebody with the potential to become one. And Bloodraven clearly has done that with Bran. It might be much easier to make somebody a skinchanger.

In any case, the important point is that the dragons return and the Starks produce skinchangers and greenseers around shortly before the Long Night begins. Even if no greenseer worked towards that goal - and Bloodraven might have - it could just be 'destiny' that this is the case. There is no need to think it is due the special Stark bloodline.

If it was truly special the Starks would have produced more skinchangers than they have. Which is, you know, zero in millennia of recorded history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Well, i often toy with the idea that there is only blood magic, and that both fire and ice are born out of it.

I'm pretty sure GRRM has said (although I can't find the quote) that all magic should require sacrifice in a fantasy world.

And most magic we see in this story is blood sacrifice—not always as literal as Beric using his blood to power his sword, but it's easy to call Melisandre burning people a blood sacrifice, and even making shadowbabies, she says that takes away some of the power of Stannis's blood.

But what about wargs? Unless sacrifices work back in time and Varamyr sacrificed his brother in the future to gain the power to warg now so he could sacrifice his brother, and Joffrey gave the Stark kids their direwolves by killing their father, I don't see how that works.

And what about visions? I think Mel does talk about burning someone to get better visions, but from what we see, both she and others get true (if confusing) visions all the time from fires and other things without any blood involved.

Still, your idea is compelling, especially since GRRM basically told us that's what we should be looking for. I don't know how to resolve that.

1 hour ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Even the visions people see aren't accurate. Cassel didn't drown as per Bran's vision, and Griffin and the Mummer's Dragon (Varys's Dragon? Not fully convinced that means Aegon is fake) never go to Mereen to Dany as per Quiathes vision. So something is possibly wonky to do with "Magic" in general.

This could just mean that there's free will on Planetos. Maybe sometimes people are fated to do a certain thing, but when they're not, a vision can't show you what they're definitely going to do, only what they're currently planning to do and what will happen if they don't change their mind. (And that's even assuming you interpret the vision properly…) Griff was planning to go to Meereen at the time Quaithe had the vision, and changed his mind later, so the vision ended up wrong.

This may be a difference between visions and prophecies (maybe prophecies only cover cases that are locked in by destiny?), or the same may be true for prophecies too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Well, it is clear that you think the Targaryens are the elite of the elite and that this story is all about replanting the elite (but the elite don't plant trees). Man, you should have heard how aghast GRRM was when he first misunderstood my Targ birth order question and he thought I was trying to say the Targs were like a supreme, specially gifted race. He physically recoiled and almost stopped talking to me until I clarified the question. So you down talking and ignoring the book info provided by the author does not make your supposed ending just so. Special blood and special talents do live within other people and races including, but not limited to the Targaryens.

Well, I'm not surprised that George was disgusted by that kind of question. Because it really appears as if you are looking for some kind of special royal bloodline system thing which is clearly not there. As well as giving the impression that it matters what kind of hair or eye color a child is born with. Which it doesn't, either. Not in this story and not in real life.

It is George who gave the Targaryen 'the blood of the dragon'. That doesn't mean they should rule the world or sit the Iron Throne. It just means that they are different from 'normal people'. That is somewhat George introduced into his story, not I. He doesn't think they are different or better because of their looks - that's just what the people in the books do, wrongly - but they are different from normal people in regards to what they are. A special breed of people who can bond with those dragons.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that having certain abilities doesn't mean you should be seen as better or worse than another group of people. The morons in George's world do. But they are, for the most part, uneducated barbarians living in the middle ages.

And if you have any textual evidence for the author telling us the Starks have 'special blood' in the same or even a remotely similar sense as the Targaryens please feel free to cite such evidence.

4 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

So, are you saying you are relying on the World book to give accurate information about magic? The same talents and mysteries that the writers of said book are trying to downplay and diminish? The same "authors" who repeatedly tell the reader to "ignore such things"?

LOL, no. Not TWoIaF. ASoIaF. Nobody in there says ever anything about the Starks or Blackwoods or First Men having 'special magical blood'. We have the Starks having 'wolf's blood' but that seems to be a euphemism for 'bad temper and hotheadedness'. I never doubted that there were Starks suffering from that character trait.

And I just pointed an important fact out - we don't know what made Bloodraven a greenseer. It could be his Targaryen ancestry, his Blackwood ancestry, both, or neither. We do not know. 

Just as we don't know what made the Stark children skinchangers. Could be their Stark ancestry, or their Tully ancestry, or neither of those things.

When George tells us that the skinchanger and greenseer magical potential runs in certain bloodlines and ethnicities I'll believe it. Not before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enter... Preston Jacobs:

Short version: telepathic/magic genes are probably X chromosome-linked, hence the need for Valyrian incest but also the fact that the incest produced mixed results. Most people think this theory is ridiculous, but I subscribe to it and think it is the most convincing and important PJ theory. And... cue the PJ haters! :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because the idea that magic is something that cares about political offices and titles is pretty much ridiculous. At least in this setting. Being a king has an impact on individuals and how they are perceived by others, sure, but it doesn't change you on an ontological level. Or rather - it doesn't seem to do that in the framework of this story. People certainly believe that an 'anointed king' is set apart from a normal man even more than the Targaryen dynasty is set apart from 'lesser men' - Ned and Cregan Stark being abhorred by the way the kings they were fighting were killed is ample evidence for that - but the author does not believe in shitty medieval ideology of that sort. He is not a monarchist or an elitist. He certainly thinks that men and women are born equal.

First, you're missing the distinction between the political fact of "legally being a king" vs. the emotional and/or ritual fact of "having a bunch of people swear an honest oath to you". The latter could easily have power in a magical world without the former doing so. There are plenty of fantasy worlds where that's true, and there's nothing ridiculous about any of them. (Well, there is something ridiculous about Discworld, but that one's intentional.) 

And meanwhile, the author is a committed materialist who doesn't believe in superstitious magic, and certainly doesn't think that you can murder other people to gain special powers, and yet that's true in his story.

And finally, if he "certainly thinks that men and women are born equal" and therefore it must be true in his story, then how can you argue that "some people are special because of their bloodlines"? The whole point of Locke's theory of natural rights—that all men are created equal—is that there are no special bloodlines.

It is, in fact, far more egalitarian to believe that people are made special by a ritual by other people than to believe that people are made special by having a tiny bit of genetics from a special ancestor long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, Martin has said he plans to keep the magic in his world "wondrous and unexplainable." I don't think in the end we will ever get a clear set of rules for his methods, but if we do, just the minimum amount of info. (enough to keep the forum going after the last book! :P)

On a looser note, I wonder of "blood magic" will end up being "moon blood magic"? As in women have a stronger ability with the talent and can do the more powerful gestures. George has said magic is increasing in the series and has made statements that "women are taking over", which we see already with the amount of houses led by women. *Hells, even in The Mystery Knight we have Mad Danelle Lothston herself come riding in to the story at a specific time when certain reveals happen. So maybe it is possible that we get a little more clarity on this before the story does end? :dunno:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, falcotron said:

I'm pretty sure GRRM has said (although I can't find the quote) that all magic should require sacrifice in a fantasy world.

And most magic we see in this story is blood sacrifice—not always as literal as Beric using his blood to power his sword, but it's easy to call Melisandre burning people a blood sacrifice, and even making shadowbabies, she says that takes away some of the power of Stannis's blood.

But what about wargs? Unless sacrifices work back in time and Varamyr sacrificed his brother in the future to gain the power to warg now so he could sacrifice his brother, and Joffrey gave the Stark kids their direwolves by killing their father, I don't see how that works.

And what about visions? I think Mel does talk about burning someone to get better visions, but from what we see, both she and others get true (if confusing) visions all the time from fires and other things without any blood involved.

Still, your idea is compelling, especially since GRRM basically told us that's what we should be looking for. I don't know how to resolve that.

This could just mean that there's free will on Planetos. Maybe sometimes people are fated to do a certain thing, but when they're not, a vision can't show you what they're definitely going to do, only what they're currently planning to do and what will happen if they don't change their mind. (And that's even assuming you interpret the vision properly…) Griff was planning to go to Meereen at the time Quaithe had the vision, and changed his mind later, so the vision ended up wrong.

This may be a difference between visions and prophecies (maybe prophecies only cover cases that are locked in by destiny?), or the same may be true for prophecies too.

Yea i got thinking of the different types of magic after and who is using what. 

Skinchanging, warging, green dreams, and face changing (In the case of Arya), Long prolonged life (Bloodraven), and resurrecting the dead (Coldhands) with possible mind control over the dead.-Northern powers

Long/prolonged life, Birthing Shadow Demons, Visions in flames, Ressurecting the Dead, and Glamouring.-Powers of Rhllorian faith

Then there the Targaryens with Dragon riding (which may be some form of warging or skinchanging, but then maybe not), and dragon dreams

Then theres visions from shade of the Evening, Prolonged life (The Undying), and possible skinchanging as the warlock who attacks Dany is dancing about like he's on fire while the Undying burn. 

And lastly the Others with Ice powers we still havn't really seen, resurrecting the dead, Possible mind control over the dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Enter... Preston Jacobs:

Short version: telepathic/magic genes are probably X chromosome-linked, hence the need for Valyrian incest but also the fact that the incest produced mixed results. Most people think this theory is ridiculous, but I subscribe to it and think it is the most convincing and important PJ theory. And... cue the PJ haters! :P 

Im a religious watcher of his Crazy theories and great snarky humor hahaha his stuff's always in the back of my head lol checked out abunch of Martins other works because of Prestons talk about the 1000 worlds universe and the shared themes in Martins stories. 

Edit- Chad Summer Child lol 

Edited by AlaskanSandman
Edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I'm not surprised that George was disgusted by that kind of question. Because it really appears as if you are looking for some kind of special royal bloodline system thing which is clearly not there. As well as giving the impression that it matters what kind of hair or eye color a child is born with. Which it doesn't, either. Not in this story and not in real life.

I am sorry, but you are just wrong with this statement on all levels, and it shows you do not understand what the theory is anyway. This was about hiding a baby. Literally nothing at all about a special bloodline. Nothing. Nada. The word "special" is not even used. And neither is "bloodline" if I remember correctly. Please read it before you try and swipe at it.

Quote

It is George who gave the Targaryen 'the blood of the dragon'. That doesn't mean they should rule the world or sit the Iron Throne. It just means that they are different from 'normal people'. That is somewhat George introduced into his story, not I. He doesn't think they are different or better because of their looks - that's just what the people in the books do, wrongly - but they are different from normal people in regards to what they are. A special breed of people who can bond with those dragons.

Yes, they are genetically manipulated with blood from a dragon. Other than mixing dragon blood into theirs, there is nothing else especially unusual about them that the other "magic" lines don't also have.

Quote

You don't seem to grasp the fact that having certain abilities doesn't mean you should be seen as better or worse than another group of people.

So, then the free folk are fine? Because you have hotly debated that they are dirty scum that should be "left to die". But in fact we see that the free folk do have lots of magic in their blood, to which you have said means they are "freaks" and "savage". It is actually Val that tells us that the free folk are the same as everyone else, you just have to part the sheep from the goats.

The free folk are first men, the same blood that runs on the veins of the Starks, so no matter where or when the skinchanging, warging, or greenseeing began, it is within the Starks (and others up north). CLARIFYING: It seems maybe people above the neck, which is appropriate because all of these talents are considered a game of mind.

If it was a magic that was introduced via some outside mixing-in, then so be it, because that is what happened with the Targs as well.

We just don't see any (acknowledged) changers in the current story because the current story has started after "Good" Queen Alysanne closed the Black Gate, the hinge to the magic of Wetseros, and ended up locking away the resources needed to awaken the talents. The historic Stark resources in the story were destroyed in AGOT when the library burned, so we probably won't have Samwell stumbling over a pile of chartographs that spoonfeed the info to readers. Nope, we now have the talented Bran-tree to help explain true history, not maester recorded history (which George has said is purposely erroneous).

Quote

~snipped~

The books tell us plenty.

Edited by The Fattest Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Yea i got thinking of the different types of magic after and who is using what. 

Skinchanging, warging, green dreams, and face changing (In the case of Arya), Long prolonged life (Bloodraven), and resurrecting the dead (Coldhands) with possible mind control over the dead.-Northern powers

Long/prolonged life, Birthing Shadow Demons, Visions in flames, Ressurecting the Dead, and Glamouring.-Powers of Rhllorian faith

Then there the Targaryens with Dragon riding (which may be some form of warging or skinchanging, but then maybe not), and dragon dreams

Then theres visions from shade of the Evening, Prolonged life (The Undying), and possible skinchanging as the warlock who attacks Dany is dancing about like he's on fire while the Undying burn. 

And lastly the Others with Ice powers we still havn't really seen, resurrecting the dead, Possible mind control over the dead.

Arya learning face changing doesn't seem to be anything Northern, or connected to any of the other Northern powers.

Melisandre claims to have shadowbinder powers gained from her time in Asshai, separate from her R'hllor powers. It's not always clear which are which, and maybe she's even learned ways of mixing them together, but I wouldn't expect any of the other red priests to produce shadowbabies (well, especially since I think all the other named red priests are male… but even besides that).

In fact, mixing two or more magical traditions seems to be a major thing. Besides Arya and Mel, we've got Bloodraven (who was already a "sorcerer" before he went north), Marwyn, Mirri…

Meanwhile, your scheme doesn't account for, just off the top of my head, in addition to those, Qyburn and his Frankengregor, Quaithe's shadowbinder visions, Patchface's drowned visions, Maggy's blood-magic visions, the glass candles used by both Maesters (and Alleras) and Qartheen, Aeron's 100% success in reviving the drowned, … And that's just present-day characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Im a religious watcher of his Crazy theories and great snarky humor hahaha his stuff's always in the back of my head lol checked out abunch of Martins other works because of Prestons talk about the 1000 worlds universe and the shared themes in Martins stories. 

Edit- Chad Summer Child lol 

Sorry OP: Just one quick comment and then I won't go off topic anymore :D

I have watched PJ's videos to get his take on the other George works, but they just don't seem to get deep enough into the story. That is probably what the comments section was supposed to be for, but alas, the internet ruined that chance <_< Oh how I wish there was a good discussion forum for his older work.

Ok, back to magic.

Melisandre (Full of Magic) is a classic GRRM charlatan try-hard. I would be leery of trusting her claims too closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Arya learning face changing doesn't seem to be anything Northern, or connected to any of the other Northern powers.

Melisandre claims to have shadowbinder powers gained from her time in Asshai, separate from her R'hllor powers. It's not always clear which are which, and maybe she's even learned ways of mixing them together, but I wouldn't expect any of the other red priests to produce shadowbabies (well, especially since I think all the other named red priests are male… but even besides that).

In fact, mixing two or more magical traditions seems to be a major thing. Besides Arya and Mel, we've got Bloodraven (who was already a "sorcerer" before he went north), Marwyn, Mirri…

Meanwhile, your scheme doesn't account for, just off the top of my head, in addition to those, Qyburn and his Frankengregor, Quaithe's shadowbinder visions, Patchface's drowned visions, Maggy's blood-magic visions, the glass candles used by both Maesters (and Alleras) and Qartheen, Aeron's 100% success in reviving the drowned, … And that's just present-day characters.

Well i included that as a nod to House Bolton who were said to skin and wear the flesh of their enemies which may or may not be tied to the same git.

Well there's differences in all of them really. None of them seem exactly the same.

And what scheme? I merely mentioned Blood magic maybe being the only magic, but then when on to agree that magic may be more complicated and listed some of the known magic to have happened during the books. Adding the others is helpful though. That being said, Frankengregor and Aeron's may be closer to medical science than flat out magic (misunderstood powers of Earth or some other thing out side of our understanding of science). Which just adds to my point that allll examples differ from each other while remaining similar. Such as fooling people as to who you are, controlling animals or creatures, resurrecting the dead, and visions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Sorry OP: Just one quick comment and then I won't go off topic anymore :D

I have watched PJ's videos to get his take on the other George works, but they just don't seem to get deep enough into the story. That is probably what the comments section was supposed to be for, but alas, the internet ruined that chance <_< Oh how I wish there was a good discussion forum for his older work.

Ok, back to magic.

Melisandre (Full of Magic) is a classic GRRM charlatan try-hard. I would be leery of trusting her claims too closely.

Agreed and Agreed! They're may also be some form of telepathy thats behind the powers. The shadow baby seems to have been telepathically controlled by Stannis in his sleep, while Arya or Bran and thems control over their Direwolves or hodor and such is a form of telepathy. Glamoring and such may also be a form of telepathy and something that's not actually physically happening. Hope that's still on point OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, falcotron said:

And the Tyrells are even more of an issue, since we're told they actually didn't have any Gardener blood, unlike six other major families

No, we're not.  We're told they can only trace their descent to the female line.  Ser Robert Tyrell married the daughter of King Mern VI Gardener, and the entire Tyrell line traces their descent from him.  What the other Reach noble houses in question resent is that they can trace their descent, purely agnatically, all the way back to Garth Greenhand, putting them on the same level of pedigree as House Gardener itself.  The Tyrells merely married into the line, after the Andal invasion.

Edited by DominusNovus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragonglass, Glass Candles, Dragons steel, Valyrian Steel, Dawn, and Obsidian (Frozen Fire) along with Dragons (Fire made flesh) all seemed to be tied together. Just an off hand note. 

This line from Jojen i think is interesting . "If ice can burn, then love and hate can mate, Mountain or Marsh it makes no matter, the Land is one."  Still leads me to think that Ice and Fire magic are some how tied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Enter... Preston Jacobs:

Short version: telepathic/magic genes are probably X chromosome-linked, hence the need for Valyrian incest but also the fact that the incest produced mixed results. Most people think this theory is ridiculous, but I subscribe to it and think it is the most convincing and important PJ theory. And... cue the PJ haters! :P 

Telepathy and Telekinesis could be all we're seeing and just a mistaken understanding from the characters. Hence why there efforts produce varying results?

Mind controll/Telepathy- Fooling those who see you into seeing something else, false sense of foreseeing the future through mind reading, seeing back in time through the Tree's which are alive, Mind controll and making creatures or people do what you want.

Telekinesis- Controlling shadows, controlling water, controlling fire, controlling ice, controlling dragons or creatures through telekinetic nudges like a cowboy does with his heels or reins. 

Creation of dragons and Direwolves may have just been breeding.

So the power to do these things comes from? The Trees? Bran does drink Weirwood paste and Dany drinks shade of the Evening. The BlackStone? Melisandre is stronger at the wall than even in Asshai she thinks to herself and the wall may have foundations in this stone. Idk, just some speculations. 

Edit-@falcotron, thoughts? It would pull away much of the magic and myths and show them all for misunderstanding of man and building false ideas, practices, and legends around them.

Edited by AlaskanSandman
Edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blood is in the eye of the beholder... :D

But seriously, maybe a user of "magic" needs some serious motivation, or something. Like, a blood sacrifice from a Royal, regardless of the bloodline. Wasn't Mance (or fMance as it were) sacrificed by Melisandre, and his child (along with Aemon) spirited away to avoid a similar fate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now