Mladen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 My question is this: Are dragons good or bad? Does having them automatically make one an antagonist? Why the "double standard"? Dragons are animals... Not good, not bad... They are animals. So, entire discussion whether dragons are good or bad is rather pointless. As we have seen with Nymeria and Drogon, animals don't have the moral compass of the people. And I suppose entire talk of "double standards" fall with realization that whomever controls the dragons decides whether they are used for good or bad. So, it is not double standards, but quite logical view on things. Just like in our world. It is not the same that USA has nuclear bombs and South Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acnologia Targaryen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It is the stigma to targs sadly same way alot of fans think most starks are noble idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaynsa Starne Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I think a more apt question would be whether it is morally appropriate for any human to train and ride dragons so that they may be weaponized. I would say that, yes, having a dragon makes one an antagonist by default regardless of intentions. A dragon is not a pet. Even if the dragon itself is an animal and therefore cannot subscribe to either good or evil, the human riding it can. By virtue of owning a dragon a person sets him/herself in contention with the rest of humanity because a dragon with a rider is so weaponized and because the rider can basically do whatever he/she wants whenever the mood strikes him/her. This is obviously a major threat. That's not to say that all dragon riders are evil villains, but I would say they're antagonists in the sense that it would be quite logical to remain suspiscious and fearful of dragon masters at all times. They can be agents of good, such as Dany setting slaves free, but only at a terrible price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maid So Fair Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I think a more apt question would be whether it is morally appropriate for any human to train and ride dragons so that they may be weaponized. I would say that, yes, having a dragon makes one an antagonist by default regardless of intentions. A dragon is not a pet. Even if the dragon itself is an animal and therefore cannot subscribe to either good or evil, the human riding it can. By virtue of owning a dragon a person sets him/herself in contention with the rest of humanity because a dragon with a rider is so weaponized and because the rider can basically do whatever he/she wants whenever the mood strikes him/her. This is obviously a major threat.That's not to say that all dragon riders are evil villains, but I would say they're antagonists in the sense that it would be quite logical to remain suspiscious and fearful of dragon masters at all times. They can be agents of good, such as Dany setting slaves free, but only at a terrible price. No more than having an access to a huge army is a major threat, yet no one is arguing that all the Lords Paramount are antagonists. Just having a lot of power does not mean that you are going to abuse it, unless you are arguing about concentration of power in general or that power always corrupts. There's also the fact that the selection process for being a dragonrider is more rigorous than than that for being born am heir to a certain family. That being said, I find the use of dragons in welfare problematic, as seen in the Dance of Dragons, where you have all these innocent creatures dying and suffering in a war they did not start. They should be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaynsa Starne Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 No more than having an access to a huge army is a major threat, yet no one is arguing that all the Lords Paramount are antagonists. Just having a lot of power does not mean that you are going to abuse it, unless you are arguing about concentration of power in general or that power always corrupts. There's also the fact that the selection process for being a dragonrider is more rigorous than than that for being born am heir to a certain family. That being said, I find the use of dragons in welfare problematic, as seen in the Dance of Dragons, where you have all these innocent creatures dying and suffering in a war they did not start. They should be free.This is very true, but the situation with the LPs is a bit different. LPs are dependent on others doing what they want, which doesn't always work so well as we've seen with the delightful Walder Frey. There are economic, interpersonal, and environmental constraints to having an army that just don't exist in the same way with dragons.Also, the LPs have legal, political, economic, and social functions and dragons do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maid So Fair Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 This is very true, but the situation with the LPs is a bit different. LPs are dependent on others doing what they want, which doesn't always work so well as we've seen with the delightful Walder Frey. There are economic, interpersonal, and environmental constraints to having an army that just don't exist in the same way with dragons. Taming a dragon is a pretty dangerous process that claims the lives of the unprepared and unwary it would seem, though it is true you can cheat at it by being given an egg at birth. It's still a pretty dangerous past-time, especially at war when you are expected to ride the dragon to battle and risk being set on fire, shot by a projectile, or just plain falling off the dragon. It becomes positively deadly when facing other people with dragons. In some ways it's more honest as you have to put your money where your mouth is rather than just leading from the rear. It also should be pointed out that like there are restrictions on more traditional ways of wielding military power, dragons are not all-powerful, especially younger dragons. It's not a magical formula for success as depending on the scenario they might not be usable, or, if they are, they can still be killed by a determined and skilled opponent. They're just a bit more overpowered than other methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoshi Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Some really interesting answers. I don't agree with all of them. Firstly, I disagree that it is not a double standard because people have apparently assessed the person who will be in charge of the dragon. The thing is that these assessments are hardly ever objective. For instance, I have witnessed that a large number of posters wish for Tyrion to be a dragon rider. Because they like him. Because he is witty. Because he is "clever". The problem I have with Tyrion is that he is not opposed to using hard measures to win his cause, be it justified or not. Just look at the chain, or the antler men, or the singer. I am unwilling to "forgive" these crimes yet at the same time I find Dany roasting the Masters of Astapor justifiable. This is a double standard on my part and I fully admit it. My point is that no matter who has the nuclear weapons, someone somewhere is getting screwed. Against whom would Jon use the dragons? That's the question I ask. At least with Dany I know the answer--slavers and "moustache twirling villains". And I'm cool with that. Any other character is an unknown to me. That worries me. I agree that we cannot assign the human moral code to animals. However, we have to realise that these are magical animals. There are moments in the book where Summer shows autonomy [i don't have the quote but he seems not to want to go back to Bran because it is a cage of sorts. I will find the quote]. In Jon's dreams, Ghost senses that some of his siblings are either dead or beyond his sensory reach. Nymeria seems to actively fight against the Freys; she even pulls Cat out of the river because she recognises her. Drogon roasts people at Daznak's pit but not Dany. These are not ordinary animals. While we may not assign our moral code to them, we can assign some. I also don't agree that having a dragon in itself is a dangerous thing. I think Maid So Fair raises an important point in likening dragons to the armies sworn to the lords paramount. While you may argue that the LPs have control over their armies, something that cannot be said of riders and their dragons, I think that is untrue. Just look at the havoc both sides of the war wreaked in the Wot5K. And even in the cases that the LP knows of the soldiers' villainy, they still don't know to what extent. Just look at Gregor and Tywin and the whole Elia debacle. Tywin apparently did not intend for events to unfold as they did, yet they did. At this point I will liken Gregor to a very dangerous dog, akin to a wild dragon because I honestly believe there is no difference between the two except fire breath. And at least with dragons they don't have blind followers like Raff the Sweetling who will gang rape a girl for the fun of it. So yeah, it still doesn't make sense to want a dragon for one Targaryen [Jon - assuming R+L=J] and not the other (Dany). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I didn't see the point in starting a new thread for the next question I have. Anyway, a few months back I came across a post stating, with passion I might add, that dragons are the Planetos version of weapons of mass destruction and the fact that Dany has three of these weapons proves she is being set up as the antagonist. Later, and in another thread, the same poster expressed, with just as much passion, his/her desire for Jon to be one of the heads of the dragon. My own personal belief is that being one of the heads of the dragon is the same as being a dragon rider i.e. having one's own personal dragon, as is the case with Daenerys. It is worth noting that this particular poster likes Jon but not Dany. My question is this: Are dragons good or bad? Does having them automatically make one an antagonist? Why the "double standard"? But my sweet summer child. If Dany has dragons they're bad. If Jon has them, they're good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I don't think Targaryen madness is as much about mental instability (although there's obviously some of that in there) as it is about this one family having to answer to no one. When you effectively wield absolute power and have no one to check you, you keep pushing harder and further to see what you can get away with. At the point you reach your limit — maybe it's drinking wildfire, maybe it's fasting for eons, maybe it's conquering Dorne — long past where anyone could have gone, it could look, to the outsider, like you're nuts. Combine that with the "blood of the dragon" crap, and there's your family of nutters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoshi Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 But my sweet summer child. If Dany has dragons they're bad. If Jon has them, they're good. The Azor Ahai situation...got it. I don't think Targaryen madness is as much about mental instability (although there's obviously some of that in there) as it is about this one family having to answer to no one. When you effectively wield absolute power and have no one to check you, you keep pushing harder and further to see what you can get away with. At the point you reach your limit — maybe it's drinking wildfire, maybe it's fasting for eons, maybe it's conquering Dorne — long past where anyone could have gone, it could look, to the outsider, like you're nuts. Combine that with the "blood of the dragon" crap, and there's your family of nutters. I'm going to nitpick because I think the other parts of your post have been covered extensively. To the bolded, but other characters identify themselves according to their House sigils. Arya - I am a wolf...I need a new pack...my pack is gone...I am wolf Cersei - I am a lion of Casterly Rock Tyrion - I am a lion Tywin - lions do not care what sheep think [i'm not sure if this is show-only] Robb - young wolf Just a few I could recall. And that's not counting the number of characters who are fond of reminding everyone of their House words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 ... At the point you reach your limit — maybe it's drinking wildfire, maybe it's fasting for eons, maybe it's conquering Dorne, maybe it's starting an anti-slavery campaign in SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 But my sweet summer child. If Dany has dragons they're bad. If Jon has them, they're good. perhaps that is because Jon has shown himself to be much better than Dany in wielding power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 perhaps that is because Jon has shown himself to be much better than Dany in wielding power. ...yet. People thought Aerys was a nice chap when he was young, before Duskensdale. And he was kidnapped. And we've seen, as pointed above, that Jon has shown to have a temper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 perhaps that is because Jon has shown himself to be much better than Dany in wielding power.Yes, because being in charge of an extremely small military organization is totally comparable to ruling a huge city while dealing with an insurgency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Yes, because being in charge of an extremely small military organization is totally comparable to ruling a huge city while dealing with an insurgency. Jon is trying to solve the problems created by others. Dany is trying to solve the problems she herself created and in the process she is creating more problems. So even if Dany's problems are harder than Jon's, it is her own fuck up. ...yet. People thought Aerys was a nice chap when he was young, before Duskensdale. And he was kidnapped. And we've seen, as pointed above, that Jon has shown to have a temper. I think Dany is much more prone to Aerysian madness than Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoshi Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Jon is trying to solve the problems created by others. Dany is trying to solve the problems she herself created and in the process she is creating more problems. So even if Dany's problems are harder than Jon's, it is her own fuck up. I think Dany is much more prone to Aerysian madness than Jon. And how exactly is Dany more prone to Aerysian madness than Jon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Better yet, how has Jon shown any superiority at wielding power?Where is Jon when we last see him???? Oh yeh I forgot, GRRM cheats and makes everyone Dany meets a cartoon character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Crashing Waves Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 And how exactly is Dany more prone to Aerysian madness than Jon? Because of obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 And how exactly is Dany more prone to Aerysian madness than Jon? 163wineseller's daughtersusurper's dogsdragons plant no treesand a lot of wars/betrayals in the future Better yet, how has Jon shown any superiority at wielding power?Where is Jon when we last see him????Oh yeh I forgot, GRRM cheats and makes everyone Dany meets a cartoon character. Jon successfully handled the decliate situations with Stannis, wildlings, Tycho, The Flint and the Norrey, Alys Karstark. He risked his position as the LC to save the people of Hardhome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 163wineseller's daughtersusurper's dogsdragons plant no treesand a lot of wars/betrayals in the future Jon successfully handled the decliate situations with Stannis, wildlings, Tycho, The Flint and the Norrey, Alys Karstark. He risked his position as the LC to save the people of Hardhome.He gave Stannis half(a big chunk) of the Nights Watch land , I don't call that a success.The situation in his last chapter was directly due to his handling of the wildlings, also not what I would call a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.286c4041b1858d97184224ffa57d1501.thumb.jpg.58c01da3f0aa8225a4568cc1e2d7398b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.