Is it implausible to believe that the Others built the Wall?

[ummester]

The wall probably exists as a barrier to keep the old magical ways - especially the powers of ice, cold and preservation separate to the lands of humans. Coldhands, although a thrall to BloodRaven and an old member of the Nights Watch is bound by this preserving cold magic - so yea, his place would be north of the wall. And, although he puts wrights down to assist characters like Sam and Bran - he doesn't seem to have any particular dislike or fear of wrights.

Also, Cold Hands killed the Nights Watch deserters at Crasters keep. Either he doesn't like deserters, he saw Craster's keep as having a valid purpose - or both.

Perhaps all true members of the Nights Watch, that have blood of the First Men and are sworn in under the Old Gods, are preserved like Coldhands by the Others - with most of their cognition in tact. We just don't know enough about how the ice power works to conclude anything - though it doesn't seem a simple matter of evil necromancers with frozen zombies to me.

[mee aar dun wee wee]

The wall probably exists as a barrier to keep the old magical ways - especially the powers of ice, cold and preservation separate to the lands of humans. Coldhands, although a thrall to BloodRaven and an old member of the Nights Watch is bound by this preserving cold magic - so yea, his place would be north of the wall. And, although he puts wrights down to assist characters like Sam and Bran - he doesn't seem to have any particular dislike or fear of wrights.

Also, Cold Hands killed the Nights Watch deserters at Crasters keep. Either he doesn't like deserters, he saw Craster's keep as having a valid purpose - or both.

Perhaps all true members of the Nights Watch, that have blood of the First Men and are sworn in under the Old Gods, are preserved like Coldhands by the Others - with most of their cognition in tact. We just don't know enough about how the ice power works to conclude anything - though it doesn't seem a simple matter of evil necromancers with frozen zombies to me.

The fact that craster was always saying he was a godly man and was pretty much left unmolested by the others has me thinking. Could the fact that he sacrificed his sons be the thing that kept him safe? The rest of the wildlings have forgotten the old ways. The others are pissed that they're not receiving their due? The wall is simply there to keep the others' "live stock " (wildlings) from going south. Now that Jon has allowed them south of the wall and is aiding them against the others could the 7 kingdoms have gone against an oath that said they will stay out of the affairs of wildlings and others? Will this act be enough to bring down the wall? I'm just putting this together on the run

Edited to add. And Ned as the stark in winterfell knew this, but Didn't have a chance to pass on the knowledge because he thought he was headed to the wall and would escape execution?

[ummester]

The fact that craster was always saying he was a godly man and was pretty much left unmolested by the others has me thinking. Could the fact that he sacrificed his sons be the thing that kept him safe? The rest of the wildlings have forgotten the old ways. The others are pissed that they're not receiving their due? The wall is simply there to keep the others' "live stock " (wildlings) from going south. Now that Jon has allowed them south of the wall and is aiding them against the others could the 7 kingdoms have gone against an oath that said they will stay out of the affairs of wildlings and men? Will this act be enough to bring down the wall? I'm just putting this together on the run

Not sure what will bring down the Wall - or if it will come down.

Am sure that Craster's praying to the Others by giving them his sons is exactly what kept him safe. The idea that wildlings are trapped there as Other's livestock is interesting.

[shadow282]

i think what he meant is that evil isnt necessarily black and white, that there were gradients in between. the same logic would make sandor wholly evil, and jaime. stoneheart being truly evil (no need for a purpose).

the point i think is the gradients of evil, and that NO ONE is necessarily "black." when there's purpose, and when you feel your doing the "right" thing, id consider it a gradient. the closest to wholly "black" i think would be Gregor and Ramsay. the truth of the matter is: we don't know the actual story of the night's king. dont get me wrong, i doubt he's a paladin in shining armor, but the point is, we dont know, and to further add to the mystery, his written records were destroyed so everyone's going on "oh, this one guy who erased his history said he was a bad guy, he MUST be a be-all end-all evil."

while he may be a shade, darker, he may have a purpose and a reasoning for his pursuit. thats all im saying. a little more sandor, than gregor. actually, sandor's a perfect example. he was villainized, and was he inherently the devil? FURTHER someone took his helm, and masqueraded AS him, soiling his name further. Perfect example.

I agree that not everything is black/white- there are places in between good and evil. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't any pure evil. It just means that most characters fall in between good and evil, just like in real life. Sandor, Jaimes, ect fall in the middle area. People like Ramsay and the Mountain don't.

Thinking you're doing the right thing doesn't mean that you're not pure evil. Hitler was convinced that he was doing the right thing. Nobody is the villain of their own story. Just look at Cersei's POV. I'm not saying she's pure evil, but every bad thing she does is somebody else's fault, or done for "good" reasons. Getting Ramsay or Mountain POVs wouldn't change their actions, it would just show us how they feel about their actions. It might let us understand their characters better, but understanding the why behind a psychopath doesn't make them less of a psychopath.

It's not ridiculous if you try and think objectively and get over a subjective, human POV.

Jamie started as a nasty incestuous attempted child murderer and now he is one of the more heroic figures in the series. As readers, we judged Jamie on the POV of others and then, when his POV was offered, we were able to judge him on himself. We have not been offered a Mountain or Ramsay POV - but I don't think it matters as some characters are just painted as monsters to progress the plot and aid with more important character development. Vargo, Gregor and Ramsay are these type of characters - they are the stories' monsters that exist for other characters to develop or face as obstacles.

I'm certain ASoIaF is going to paint the supernatural 'monsters' (such as The Others, CotF) as equally sympathetic, if not more sympathetic than the humans as part of it's conclusion. It is a logical place for the narrative to go after how it has presented the human characters.

Ask yourself a simple question - all of the character drama, development and twist and turns aside - what has been happening in overall plot of ASoIaF for 5 lengthy books?

Jaime is a bad example because he changes throughout the series. He's heroic not because he wasn't a bad person then but because he's gradually becoming a better person.

The people being painted as monsters do matter because they're the evil people in the series. You can't just dismiss them.

I agree that GRRM is building up to that point. I'm arguing that based off their actions it's going to seem ridiculous to not make them evil.

"Listen, I know that I've shown them stealing babies and doing gods know what with them, slaughtering men, women, and children before reanimating them as zombie slave warriors and forcing them to slaughter their own loved ones, but really they're pretty nice guys!"

[ummester]

Edited to add. And Ned as the stark in winterfell knew this, but Didn't have a chance to pass on the knowledge because he thought he was headed to the wall and would escape execution?

So what you suggests is that the purpose of the Starks is to keep the wall manned (hence killing deserters), to keep the Wildlings in the North, to keep the Others placated and thus keep the Long Night away?

It may be that this became their purpose after the first Long Night, Last Hero/Nights King - true wildlings (like Craster) could be descended from the Nights King (mixed Other/human blood).

[ummester]

Jaime is a bad example because he changes throughout the series. He's heroic not because he wasn't a bad person then but because he's gradually becoming a better person.

The people being painted as monsters do matter because they're the evil people in the series. You can't just dismiss them.

I agree that GRRM is building up to that point. I'm arguing that based off their actions it's going to seem ridiculous to not make them evil.

"Listen, I know that I've shown them stealing babies and doing gods know what with them, slaughtering men, women, and children before reanimating them as zombie slave warriors and forcing them to slaughter their own loved ones, but really they're pretty nice guys!"

By trying to kill a child, Jamie was as monstrous as Gregor at the start. If Jamie changed Gregor can. I'm not dismissing them, GRRM is - he has painted a character like Gregor as a pure monster because every story needs some kind of antagonistic yardstick to develop central characters against. I don't think I know enough about Gregor to judge because GRRM hasn't written him that way. You can take him as a villain if you want, but I think that is being 1) judgemental and 2) looking further into the character than info provided. He's a monstrous antagonist to advance the plot - he's not even a fully fleshed out human character. I can dismiss them on that level.

The Others steal no babies - FFS - Craster gives them away. They are sacrificial, like Mel burning people in the fire. Except if you watch the show it seems to suggest th Others don't kill the babies, rather transform them.

The Others have slaughtered very few characters in the story. Royce is the only confirmed kill I'm aware of and seeing as Sam killed an Other - it seems pretty even.

The Others may control the wrights - it seems very likley but is still not proven. Mormont engaged the wrights at the fist of the first men. Tormund thinks the Others are just ghostly cold things that pick stragglers off.

Their purpose is unkown - this is not proof of any alignment. Judging them as aligned a certain way just shows a reader jumping to conclusions, or being judgmental.

[Dorian Martell]

Do you think the pale whit spiders as big as hounds are an actual thing, or are they more like Grumpkins and Snarks - a human perversion of an actual thing.

Grumpkins to me seem very much like CotF and Snarks like Giants.

If the others rode on dead mounts, like half skeletal horses, bears, unicorns (wooly rhinos), perhaps the idea of spiders is just a perversion of that.

Consider in Jons arc he has gone from thinking wildlings and Giants are different to viewing them as kindred - so far. In Brans arc he has gone from thinking the CotF are mythical and potentially dangerous to seeing them somewhat as kindred. There is no reason this line of understanding cannot be extended to the Others.

Have we even seen an Other try and pass south of the wall? How do we know they cannot pass, other than tales humans have told each other.

I recon that magic hatch Sam went through would stop them but the gate at Castle Black won't do squat, because the magic is removed - it's just a tunnel.

The wall could have been built as part of an agreement - that the Others were happy to stay on one side of so long as only people the respected the old ways went north of it. Because of the gate at Castle Black and a non binding tunnel, anyone can now go anyway and the agreement is no longer valid.

As for the agreement part, no one has ever mentioned one in the books so probably not, but it is a fantasy series so extreme left field is always possible.

As for the others going south of the wall, no, but since they're fond of killing the nights watch, why not just do it? Why send wights to be taken through if the others could just walk through or over and do the deed. Something is stopping them, and that is the wall, which as the tales are told, was built specifically to stop them with the magic of the CTOF, the same magic that keeps wights out of the cave of the 3EC.

The wall probably exists as a barrier to keep the old magical ways - especially the powers of ice, cold and preservation separate to the lands of humans. Coldhands, although a thrall to BloodRaven and an old member of the Nights Watch is bound by this preserving cold magic - so yea, his place would be north of the wall. And, although he puts wrights down to assist characters like Sam and Bran - he doesn't seem to have any particular dislike or fear of wrights.

Also, Cold Hands killed the Nights Watch deserters at Crasters keep. Either he doesn't like deserters, he saw Craster's keep as having a valid purpose - or both.

Perhaps all true members of the Nights Watch, that have blood of the First Men and are sworn in under the Old Gods, are preserved like Coldhands by the Others - with most of their cognition in tact. We just don't know enough about how the ice power works to conclude anything - though it doesn't seem a simple matter of evil necromancers with frozen zombies to me.

The wall as a magical barrier seems vaguely plausible. The thing about coldhands though is that he is by all other means a wighted brother of the nights watch who appears to have free will. He seems like a thrall at times but leaf speaks of him as a person albeit a dead one. Because the wall, like the Cave is wighted against the undead, his place is going to be north of the wall, or outside the cave. I'm sure if he was dragged through the wall he could move as he pleased. He killed the NW deserters. This could be that he is still honoring his vows, or he needed to feed the three as they rested. I have no idea where you get the idea that all NW members of first men origin are preserved. There is nothing in the text about it. We have only seen coldhands. All other dead watchmen north of the wall are wights at this point. We know a ton about how the others magic works. When you die you become a somewhat mindless killing machine with black hands and blue eyes. Animals fear them and they do not rot. By dance, everyone that dies rises again as a wight unless burned. And it says nothing about the wall being built for or with an agreement with the others.

The fact that craster was always saying he was a godly man and was pretty much left unmolested by the others has me thinking. Could the fact that he sacrificed his sons be the thing that kept him safe? The rest of the wildlings have forgotten the old ways. The others are pissed that they're not receiving their due? The wall is simply there to keep the others' "live stock " (wildlings) from going south. Now that Jon has allowed them south of the wall and is aiding them against the others could the 7 kingdoms have gone against an oath that said they will stay out of the affairs of wildlings and others? Will this act be enough to bring down the wall? I'm just putting this together on the run

Edited to add. And Ned as the stark in winterfell knew this, but Didn't have a chance to pass on the knowledge because he thought he was headed to the wall and would escape execution?

Craster did say he was a godly man but it didn't keep him safe. The Thenns carry on the tradition of the first men in language and custom. They didn't forget something that never was. As for the wildlings as livestock, the Others haven't been seen for nigh on 8000 years. If they were using humans as livestock someone might have seen them once or twice. AS for an oath, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that in any way. The wall will hold, it might have a hole or two by the end though

[pop culture reference]

To be fair, it seems a pretty fair assumption that the race that steals your babies and indiscriminately slaughters your people before raising them up as zombie soldier slaves are evil. Don't really need records for that.

Reading this, my very first thought was "well, we've pretty much been seen humans in the series doing those things. Save for zombie soldier slaves, but still.

[mee aar dun wee wee]

So what you suggests is that the purpose of the Starks is to keep the wall manned (hence killing deserters), to keep the Wildlings in the North, to keep the Others placated and thus keep the Long Night away?

It may be that this became their purpose after the first Long Night, Last Hero/Nights King - true wildlings (like Craster) could be descended from the Nights King (mixed Other/human blood).

Yeah this. Like the Dothraki hoards. "Why go to war withem when their friendship comes so cheap " sort of ideal.

[mee aar dun wee wee]

As for the agreement part, no one has ever mentioned one in the books so probably not, but it is a fantasy series so extreme left field is always possible.

As for the others going south of the wall, no, but since they're fond of killing the nights watch, why not just do it? Why send wights to be taken through if the others could just walk through or over and do the deed. Something is stopping them, and that is the wall, which as the tales are told, was built specifically to stop them with the magic of the CTOF, the same magic that keeps wights out of the cave of the 3EC.

The wall as a magical barrier seems vaguely plausible. The thing about coldhands though is that he is by all other means a wighted brother of the nights watch who appears to have free will. He seems like a thrall at times but leaf speaks of him as a person albeit a dead one. Because the wall, like the Cave is wighted against the undead, his place is going to be north of the wall, or outside the cave. I'm sure if he was dragged through the wall he could move as he pleased. He killed the NW deserters. This could be that he is still honoring his vows, or he needed to feed the three as they rested. I have no idea where you get the idea that all NW members of first men origin are preserved. There is nothing in the text about it. We have only seen coldhands. All other dead watchmen north of the wall are wights at this point. We know a ton about how the others magic works. When you die you become a somewhat mindless killing machine with black hands and blue eyes. Animals fear them and they do not rot. By dance, everyone that dies rises again as a wight unless burned. And it says nothing about the wall being built for or with an agreement with the others.

Craster did say he was a godly man but it didn't keep him safe. The Thenns carry on the tradition of the first men in language and custom. They didn't forget something that never was. As for the wildlings as livestock, the Others haven't been seen for nigh on 8000 years. If they were using humans as livestock someone might have seen them once or twice. AS for an oath, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that in any way. The wall will hold, it might have a hole or two by the end though

It seemed to keep him pretty safe from others and wights. They were hounding the survivors of the fist but they seem to have left them once they hit crasters. Why did that happen?

[mee aar dun wee wee]

The Others steal no babies - FFS - Craster gives them away. They are sacrificial, like Mel burning people in the fire. Except if you watch the show it seems to suggest th Others don't kill the babies, rather transform them.

The Others have slaughtered very few characters in the story. Royce is the only confirmed kill I'm aware of and seeing as Sam killed an Other - it seems pretty even.

The Others may control the wrights - it seems very likley but is still not proven. Mormont engaged the wrights at the fist of the first men. Tormund thinks the Others are just ghostly cold things that pick stragglers off.

Their purpose is unkown - this is not proof of any alignment. Judging them as aligned a certain way just shows a reader jumping to conclusions, or being judgmental.

I'm with u on not knowing enough and I hadn't really thought too much about it before reading this thread. This talk about only Royce being a confirmed kill made me think. What actually killed Royce? Was there something about his sword shattering or was it definitely as the result of a blow from the other? I might be way off. Just thinking was this just a first contact gone bad? Are they trying to help us? Also the fact that Sam killed one makes me suspicious. The other blocked all Royce s blow ( that might be from the show, if so ignore it, because the point is) stiff frozen fat useless Sam stabs one with a "dagger "?

[Slowpoke Martin]

I find it funny when people consider the Others to be nothing else than evil. Nothing they have done thus far suggests anything of the sort. We see just how cruel and evil humans are to eachother, but this different species of life must be evil because they hurt humans??

We literally know nothing at all about the Others to classify them as evil. If anything, humans are shown as being evil.

[mee aar dun wee wee]

The Others steal no babies - FFS - Craster gives them away. They are sacrificial, like Mel burning people in the fire. Except if you watch the show it seems to suggest th Others don't kill the babies, rather transform them.

The Others have slaughtered very few characters in the story. Royce is the only confirmed kill I'm aware of and seeing as Sam killed an Other - it seems pretty even.

The Others may control the wrights - it seems very likley but is still not proven. Mormont engaged the wrights at the fist of the first men. Tormund thinks the Others are just ghostly cold things that pick stragglers off.

Their purpose is unkown - this is not proof of any alignment. Judging them as aligned a certain way just shows a reader jumping to conclusions, or being judgmental.

I'm with u on not knowing enough and I hadn't really thought too much about it before reading this thread. This talk about only Royce being a confirmed kill made me think. What actually killed Royce? Was there something about his sword shattering or was it definitely as the result of a blow from the other? I might be way off. Just thinking was this just a first contact gone bad? Are they trying to help us? Also the fact that Sam killed one makes me suspicious. The other blocked all Royce s blow ( that might be from the show, if so ignore it, because the point is) stiff frozen fat useless Sam stabs one with a "dagger "?

[ummester]

The wall as a magical barrier seems vaguely plausible. The thing about coldhands though is that he is by all other means a wighted brother of the nights watch who appears to have free will. He seems like a thrall at times but leaf speaks of him as a person albeit a dead one. Because the wall, like the Cave is wighted against the undead, his place is going to be north of the wall, or outside the cave. I'm sure if he was dragged through the wall he could move as he pleased. He killed the NW deserters. This could be that he is still honoring his vows, or he needed to feed the three as they rested. I have no idea where you get the idea that all NW members of first men origin are preserved. There is nothing in the text about it. We have only seen coldhands. All other dead watchmen north of the wall are wights at this point. We know a ton about how the others magic works. When you die you become a somewhat mindless killing machine with black hands and blue eyes. Animals fear them and they do not rot. By dance, everyone that dies rises again as a wight unless burned. And it says nothing about the wall being built for or with an agreement with the others.

This is only if The Last Hero and the Nights King are legends referring to the same individual and you take the visuals from the show into account. The text is vague and almost contradictory concerning the Age of Heroes, Long Night and events within them.

[Dorian Martell]

It seemed to keep him pretty safe from others and wights. They were hounding the survivors of the fist but they seem to have left them once they hit crasters. Why did that happen?

It looks like it does. Then again, Sam ended up killing one so they might have regrouped to reassess the situation allowing the remnant of the expedition to make it to craster's place. the sacrifices did not keep him safe from the watch rebels though

I find it funny when people consider the Others to be nothing else than evil. Nothing they have done thus far suggests anything of the sort. We see just how cruel and evil humans are to eachother, but this different species of life must be evil because they hurt humans??

We literally know nothing at all about the Others to classify them as evil. If anything, humans are shown as being evil.

We are shown humans being everything, from terribly cruel for no reason to sacrificing ones life in the name of a vow they swore. We see parents grieve for children and children grieve for their parents. We see caring and cruelty, love and horror and everything in between with people.

With the others, all we see is Killing, reanimating of corpses, more killing, child taking and finally, melting at the touch of obsidian. We have seen them do some horrible cruel, inhuman and violent things and we have seen nothing good. Zero, Zip, Zilch. Nathan, Nip, Nada. So, now and for the foreseeable future, they are the ultimate bad guys in the books

[ummester]

I find it funny when people consider the Others to be nothing else than evil. Nothing they have done thus far suggests anything of the sort. We see just how cruel and evil humans are to eachother, but this different species of life must be evil because they hurt humans??

We literally know nothing at all about the Others to classify them as evil. If anything, humans are shown as being evil.

I'm with u on not knowing enough and I hadn't really thought too much about it before reading this thread. This talk about only Royce being a confirmed kill made me think. What actually killed Royce? Was there something about his sword shattering or was it definitely as the result of a blow from the other? I might be way off. Just thinking was this just a first contact gone bad? Are they trying to help us? Also the fact that Sam killed one makes me suspicious. The other blocked all Royce s blow ( that might be from the show, if so ignore it, because the point is) stiff frozen fat useless Sam stabs one with a "dagger "?

If GRRM isn't using the Others to show human prejudice, it's seems a very wasted setup, doesn't it?

[ummester]

With the others, all we see is Killing, reanimating of corpses, more killing, child taking and finally, melting at the touch of obsidian. We have seen them do some horrible cruel, inhuman and violent things and we have seen nothing good. Zero, Zip, Zilch. Nathan, Nip, Nada. So, now and for the foreseeable future, they are the ultimate bad guys in the books

Seriously? We see this?

Cite me a chapter from the books that shows us this Other killing clearly? And again, the children are offered to them - considering the babies are left out in the snow, making them snow babies isn't such a bad thing, surely?

There are no ultimate bad guys in this series - chances are the final conflict will have 3 sides, with 2 of them potentially aligned, though all of them fighting for their own purpose.

[Dorian Martell]

This is only if The Last Hero and the Nights King are legends referring to the same individual and you take the visuals from the show into account. The text is vague and almost contradictory concerning the Age of Heroes, Long Night and events within them.

Hence the comment about speculative theories bases on other purely speculative theories with no textual basis

[Dorian Martell]

Seriously? We see this?

Cite me a chapter from the books that shows us this Other killing clearly? And again, the children are offered to them - considering the babies are left out in the snow, making them snow babies isn't such a bad thing, surely?

There are no ultimate bad guys in this series - chances are the final conflict will have 3 sides, with 2 of them potentially aligned, though all of them fighting for their own purpose.

Seriously, We see this in the very first chapter of the very first book of the very series we are discussing in these very forums in this very thread at this very moment. Very.

The kids being offered change nothing. They are a magical inhuman beings that if I may reiterate kill and then reanimate corpses to do more killing who also take children away to do unknown things with.

Even in they do end up having some sort of noble motive, we have not seen it yet, so as of now, they are presented as the only true ultimate bad guy and the closest thing to pure evil we have seen so far.

We still have 2 books left so you never know...

[ummester]

Seriously, We see this in the very first chapter of the very first book of the very series we are discussing in these very forums in this very thread at this very moment. Very.

The kids being offered change nothing. They are a magical inhuman beings that if I may reiterate kill and then reanimate corpses to do more killing who also take children away to do unknown things with.

Even in they do end up having some sort of noble motive, we have not seen it yet, so as of now, they are presented as the only true ultimate bad guy and the closest thing to pure evil we have seen so far.

We still have 2 books left so you never know...

Like I said - the only human I've read them kill on page was Royce. In the show they killed 2 humans - but in the book thee wright of Royce killed that other dude.

The only reasons the humans in the book and most readers are so certain they are evil is because of Long Night mythology.

Hence the comment about speculative theories bases on other purely speculative theories with no textual basis

Here's the thing - I consider the books and show as telling the same story. I see it as this story is being told by 3 people now, GRRM & D&D. So I see nothing at all wrong with combining information from multiple sources to derive a conclusion. I think either book or show preference is stupid at this stage - because they have pretty much melded into the one big story universe.