Jump to content

thewolfofStarfall

Members
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About thewolfofStarfall

  • Rank
    Sellsword

Recent Profile Visitors

1,249 profile views
  1. thewolfofStarfall

    Could the North, Stannis,& Aegon team up?

    If they're willing to team up to fight a common enemy wouldn't they be willing to enter a marriage pact once the aforementioned enemy is dealt with? This is what happened in the War of the Roses except there was no strategic team-up, so a marriage alliance is actually more natural in this case.
  2. thewolfofStarfall

    Could the North, Stannis,& Aegon team up?

    The opposition in the middle? The Riverlands are allied with the North,despite the Freys being in power now. I get the feeling they'll be defeated. Plus, this the North a reason to team up with Aegon. He and Dorne can help liberate the Riverlands as part of his campaign.
  3. thewolfofStarfall

    Could the North, Stannis,& Aegon team up?

    But Dorne will already side with Aegon as he is Dornish. Aegon needs new friends who share a potential foe with him: Stannis+North. How will be able to defeat Dany's dragons without weirwood arrows? This would very intresting plot wise because not only would see the second Dance of the Dragons, but also ice vs. fire. The North bent the knee to the dragons once, perhaps now they'll team up with a metaphorical dragon (Aegon) to the fight new dragons coming to Westeros.
  4. I've been thinking that Stannis might actually be willing to compromise with Aegon. There's a precedent in history of a foreigner to a country being chosen as a king's heir. This happened with the founder of the current ruling house of Sweden: House Bernadotte. The founder was Charles XIV John of Sweden, but he was born a Frenchman named Jean Bernadotte. King Charles XIII of Sweden had no heir, so he chose Bernadotte in 1810. Now, would Stannis be willing to make such a compromise with Aegon who he'll initially see a foreigner with no claim? There's differences between the two cases of coarse since the House of Bernadotte was a brand new dynasty whereas the Targaryen dynasty is an old one that Stannis helped defeat. However, when push comes to shove I think he'll be winning to compromise with Aegon, but not necessarily bend the knee. There's two ways this sisuation could work out: 1. Stannis makes Aegon his heir and marries him to Shireen. This would parallel the War of the Roses in which Shireen is Elizabeth of York and Aegon is Henry Tudor. This marriage ends the dynastic feud between the Yorks and Lancasters aka Baratheons and Targaryens, respectively. This situation also parallels how Orys, who was rumored to be a Targaryen bastard, married Argella Durrendon. 2. Stannis marries Shireen to Rickon to solidify the North's support. This would fulfill Robert's dream of joining the two families together. Aegon becomes Stannis' heir, and he marries let's say Sansa or Arya, further solidifying the North's support. Although, he already basically has the North backing him, I think both him and the North may realize if they want to beat Daenerys' dragons, they will not only need to work together, they will need to ally with another enemy so they have less opposition and more support. The North is vital to beating Dany since they have weirdwoods. Having Aegon on their side instead of against them would be crucial. All in all, I think Stannis would be more willing to team up with Aegon rather than Dany since he could have sexist leanings. In addition, Aegon is not a product of incest, at least not directly like Dany is. Stannis is an asshole but also prides himself in being a man of the law. He most likely would have agreeed with Ned on how the brutal murder of Elia and her children was abhorrent, and that the Mountain, the guy who killed Rhaenys (forget his name) and perhaps even Tywin who ordered the crimes in the first place should be prosecuted. Perhaps, Stannis would have some sympathy for Aegon because of his brother's injustice, and be willing to team up with him? We know he really didn't like Robert, and I think this is because of his dishornable behavior towards him and others. Note: I haven't read ADWD so some of the info could be off.
  5. She is the most self-righteous character I have ever seen in my life. Daenerys claims to have loved a man who had brutally murdered, raped and enslaved god knows how many men, women, and children for fun, supported his "campaign" to get her precious chair. Daenerys also things she has the right to torture a human being to death because aforementioned genocidal rapist is killed most likely due to his own immense stupidity. Seriously, what the fuck? Dany had absolutely no place to be torturing nor condemning Miri for allegedly killing Rhaego when she had loved and supported a man who has killed and enslaved thousands of children who ha already been born under his regime. If Dany was so concerned about "justice", why didn't she tie one of the remaing Dothraki to the pyre? Perhaps use him as a warning for the Dothraki to stop being evil pieces of shit? She has already done this for the slavers. I'm just playing devil's advocate because she has no business torturing anyone. So can you give me a few reasons to what's so great about her? Dany isn't one of those characters where people like her as a villain because they find her interesting or funny. People legitimately admire her, and I don't see much to admire. Please mention something other than freeing slaves, because she had burned her own slave and didn't have much of probably with slavery, before she started her "abolitionist" campaign. Not to mention she eventually turns their cities into living hell. This obviously won't change my opinion because ironically I used to like Dany when I first started watching the show, but then I woke the hell up. But please share!
  6. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Well I agree with this. Its impossible for me to force anyone to believe in a particular moral code nor do I want to, but that doesn't mean mine is less legitimate or I will stop believing in it. So yeah, I agree that not every person will believe in a specific moral code, but that of coarse doesn't mean society can't come to a consensus of what is right and wrong in general. However, when it comes some moral situations. "who is right or wrong" or "who gets to decide morality for all" are not questions worth asking because people can have "logical" justifications behind their actions, but those actions can still purely and essentially wrong. For example, Stannis and Melisandre's sacrifices. Those are rephensible from the point of view of any code of ethics besides religious extremism. Also, in other cases, such questions may not be possible to answer clearly. I'm not ignoring the shortcomings of of these characters. I simply disagree with the notion that someone cannot make a wrong decision, - especially one they regret- without being completely "grey" or morally ambiguous. I don't see how that's any different from moral absolutism. Just because people make bad choices, doesn't people are incapable of being essentially good. If you want call it "being a saint", then okay I guess you could call it that. I would call Davos, Ned, Jon, Sam, Robb, Brienne, Meera, Bran, Jojen, Sansa, Shireen, Renly, Hordor, EdriDayne, Berric Dondarian and the BWB, good people. There are also characters on the road to redemption like Jamie and the Hound. The would call the show counterparts of Arya and Tyrion good people, but I hear they are much darker in the books, so I don't want to be completely consclusive. The only Stark I would call almost completely selfish is Catelyn and Lady SH is obviously not a good person.
  7. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I agree completely moral ambiguity or lack of it does not dertermine whether a story is well written and enjoyable. What some people would determine a "black and white" story can be harder to write than a story full of "grey" characters
  8. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Yeah, my previous statement was not properly stated. I completely agree that intentions are integral to one's moral descion making, but I was just trying to re-empazise that simply having an intention is not what dertimines an action to be right or wrong. The mere existence of one is what I deem "irrelevant", not what the intentions actually are.
  9. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    True, I think my statement in red was poorly communicated . Intentions are important, but having good or ambiguous intentions to an act does not automatically mean the act is moral. Daenerys may or may not have had good intentions when crucifying random slavers without trial, but that doesn't mean it's justified. About your statements in bold. The human species as a whole has not actively participated in wiping out other species. As in not everyone is trying kill elephants and other endangered species. There are a lot people trying to stop poachers. This can't be said of the Others who are actively trying to eradicate humans. It's possible the Others we see are just an extremist faction, and "normal" Others do not want to kill humans, but we have no idea. Also, none of the life forms you listed are sentient, so they are not comparable to the Others IMO. I'm actually not utterly against utilitarianism btw. In some circumstances, actions that are not traditionally seen as "right" are simply necessary. An example of this, maybe when Miri Maaz Durr was acussed of killing Rhaego by Daenerys. It's likely she killed neither Drogo or Rhaego, and Daenerys being the self righteous bitch she is just wanted to punish her... but I would have no problem if Miri purposefully killed either of them. I'm wondering what your opinion on utilitarianism is? Do you think is an example in ASIOAF where a utilitarian coarse of ethics is taken and you agree with it?
  10. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I never said the whole of humankind was was particularly good at reckonsing those ethical standards. Also, we do not depend most of the enndgagered species in earth for survival yet is still wrong to drive them to extinction. Ethics is not defined by what is natural or needed for survival, but does councide with if at times. There is no evidence that Others need to destroy all life in order to survive. We nothing about their motives. I'm confused by you mean by "it's in their nature", are you saying the Others are just a supernatural force who are not sentient, thus have no choice in what they're doing?
  11. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Reasons can be important in evaluating an action to be right or wrong. However, many people seem to believe simply having a reason behind a reprehensible action is enough to absolve a person from condemnation and assert "everyone's the hero of their own story". This makes no sense whatsoever. The actual reason is what is important, not the mere presence of one. As I've stated before, everyone has "reasons" behind their actions.
  12. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    It's ambiguous in the sense that the person's actions can fall anywhere on the spectrum depending on what they want rather than standards of right and wrong. It means there is no clear line between good and evil. People's actions are a big mess of "grey" composed of what we usually think of being "good" or "evil" actions but at end of the day there there no good or evil, according to moral relativists, nor is there good or evil people. People operate according to their own desires and we attach value to those actions based on our persceptives. Our persceptive is what makes an action "ambiguous", not a true existence of right and wrong. The "greyness" is ultimately a meaningless sea of nothing.
  13. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I never claimed people don't justify their actions by pretending or genuinely thinking they're doing the right thing in real life or the books. I'm simply claiming that not everyone operates that way, and that there are people who do not care whether something is right or wrong.
  14. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I just wanted to clear any confusion and say that my main point with the Others isn't necessarily about whether they're evil or not, I'm arguing against the assertion that it is impossible for the Others to be evil because of the oversimplification this saga has been reduced to. This is under the assumption that the Others are sentient beings, which is very clear in the show but maybe I haven't gotten far enough into the books to judge if the case is the same. The bottom line is it's possible that by the end of the story I'll be convinced that the Others at least aren't purely evil, but that end is yet to come.
  15. thewolfofStarfall

    "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I would say ethical standards should be beneficial to life in general, not just human life. A species trying to annihilate another species is evil regardless of what species were are talking about. Just like the Andals slaughtering the children of the forest were also reprehensible actions. The evilness of genocide really has nothing to do with what "race" were taking about. Futhermore, all those things you listed are entirely distinct from moral ambiguity. Having to face dilemmas is moral complexity and implies an existence and respect for ethical standards. Moral ambiguity is essentially amorality, meaning descions are simply based on characters' selfish desires much like Tywin, Littlefinger, and Daenerys. I don't buy her "abolistinst" act, she's okay with virtually any reprehensible act if it benefits her or sadistically punishes those she deems as worthless, so she can get her "ruthlessness" across.
×