Heresy 187

[Black Crow]

The problem I've got with declaring the Nights King or anyone else of that ilk to be a greenseer is that it just doesn't fit the pattern. While their powers clearly differ the greenseers as actually depicted are the maesters to the three-fingered tree-huggers. They are the wise ones rather than the wood dancers, and although they might be able to see beyond the trees and enter into the dreams of others, they are physically shackled to those trees.

[LordImp]

If i remember right , wasnt there a hersy discussion about that the Nights King of Nightfort might in fact be the main branch of House Stark and that Brandon the braker of Winterfell was just a cadet branch of Nightfort . Basically that the Nights King was the rightful King of winter ? 

[Melifeather]

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

The problem I've got with declaring the Nights King or anyone else of that ilk to be a greenseer is that it just doesn't fit the pattern. While their powers clearly differ the greenseers as actually depicted are the maesters to the three-fingered tree-huggers. They are the wise ones rather than the wood dancers, and although they might be able to see beyond the trees and enter into the dreams of others, they are physically shackled to those trees.

Bloodraven was a willing "servent". He served as Lord Commander for 13 years before seeking out the Children...a common theme that echoes the Last Hero and his friends seeking out the Children. Bloodraven spent his whole adult life manipulating the Seven Kingdoms, then after being sent to the Wall he sought out another way where he could manipulate the realm again by becoming the last greenseer. The more we discuss this the more it makes sense that the human greenseer is the Night's King. He's enthroned underground. You say "shackled" to his masters, but I think he went there willingly. He was bestowed with great power so in his eyes the sacrifice of self was more than acceptable. He cannot leave...that much is true, but that's because the enthronement has extended his life and if he left he would die. Maester Aemon symbolically is Bloodraven. Aemon lived longer than most, but once he left the Wall he died.

If Bloodraven is the current Night's King and the previous Night's King was rooted out by the Lord of Winterfell and the King Beyond the Wall, then the Starks are the ones that took him down...suppressing magic and keeping it contained. Winter fell.

[Black Crow]

4 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

Bloodraven was a willing "servent". He served as Lord Commander for 13 years before seeking out the Children...a common theme that echoes the Last Hero and his friends seeking out the Children. Bloodraven spent his whole adult life manipulating the Seven Kingdoms, then after being sent to the Wall he sought out another way where he could manipulate the realm again by becoming the last greenseer. The more we discuss this the more it makes sense that the human greenseer is the Night's King. He's enthroned underground. You say "shackled" to his masters, but I think he went there willingly. He was bestowed with great power so in his eyes the sacrifice of self was more than acceptable. He cannot leave...that much is true, but that's because the enthronement has extended his life and if he left he would die. Maester Aemon symbolically is Bloodraven. Aemon lived longer than most, but once he left the Wall he died.

If Bloodraven is the current Night's King and the previous Night's King was rooted out by the Lord of Winterfell and the King Beyond the Wall, then the Starks are the ones that took him down...suppressing magic and keeping it contained. Winter fell.

Still not convinced. There are kings and there are greenseers but not one and the same. The Warg King had his greenseers and I dare say the Nights King had his, but he was a King who ruled for 13 years making sacrifices to the Others. There's not a scintilla of evidence that he himself was a greenseer.

Mind you I still wonder if I may have been right in suggesting that he was imprisoned forever as the gate in the portal

[Melifeather]

12 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Mind you I still wonder if I may have been right in suggesting that he was imprisoned forever as the gate in the portal

This part I am leaning towards being in favor of. The Night's King was taken out of power, but maybe he couldn't be killed or removed so he became the Black Gate.

[Melifeather]

19 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Still not convinced. There are kings and there are greenseers but not one and the same. The Warg King had his greenseers and I dare say the Nights King had his, but he was a King who ruled for 13 years making sacrifices to the Others. There's not a scintilla of evidence that he himself was a greenseer.

How can you say there is no evidence when there are so many striking similarities?

Night's King was a Lord Commander
Bloodraven was a Lord Commander

Night's King wed to pale Other
Bloodraven wed to pale weirwood

Night's King gave his seed to Other
Bloodraven gave up having children

Night's King ruled during the night, man during the day
Bloodraven ruled the realm most of adult life, now enthroned underground in the dark

Night's King caught sacrificing to the Others
Bloodraven suspected of blood sacrifice, and of creating white walkers

Night's King ensorcelled Watch for 13 years
Bloodraven served as Lord Commander for 13 years before becoming greenseer

Night's King taken down by Lord of Winterfell and King Beyond the Wall
Bloodraven will be replaced by a son of Winterfell

[Matthew.]

10 hours ago, Black Crow said:

The problem I've got with declaring the Nights King or anyone else of that ilk to be a greenseer is that it just doesn't fit the pattern. While their powers clearly differ the greenseers as actually depicted are the maesters to the three-fingered tree-huggers. They are the wise ones rather than the wood dancers, and although they might be able to see beyond the trees and enter into the dreams of others, they are physically shackled to those trees.

I don't know what other posters mean when they say "I believe the Night's King was/is a greenseer," but what I specifically envision is Bran before he was taken into BR's cave--where he has the gift, but is not yet functioning as a greenseer proper. I believe the NK was a man born with the same skinchanging potential and the same dreams, but instead turned his gift toward the Wall, and maintaining the threat of the WWs to ensure the Haunted Forest would be respected.

I suppose you could say that, under that scenario, I'm suggesting that the NK was not functionally a greenseer, merely that the same innate magical potential existed, and it's that magic that made one an appealing candidate to serve as Lord/King of the Nightfort.

In addition, I do think there are a couple things here and there that allow us to at least speculate he had the potential, first and foremost being that he "bound his brothers to his will through sorcery." Another is that he may have been of House Stark, and what we're told of House Stark is: their current generation is batting 6 for 6 when it comes to wargs, and at least one for six with greenseers; several prior Starks are represented with direwolves at their side; Brandon the Builder used sorcery he gained from the CotF.

With all of this in mind, it's not an unreasonable inference that a man born of this bloodline held similar potential.

[Melifeather]

I'd also add that it appears that the wheel of time is moving in reverse:

The Targaryens are the source of dragons, with the Greyjoys poised to steal them and bring them to Westeros like Aegon the Conqueor, but if we're to expect opposite outcomes, I'd say that "Aegon the Conqueror" either doesn't come at all or he fails.

Arianne Martell is effectively bringing the Dornish to the "Rhoynar" by bringing the promise of Dorne's support through marriage to JonCon's Aegon who may end up refusing her...or not. The reverse may be a marriage that succeeds in taking the throne, albet briefly.

The Faith of the Seven seems poised to take the Iron Throne from their own Andal descendants, and is also bound to come into conflict with the "Rhoynar" Aegon.

Leaf says the wolves will outlive them all, so the realm seems destined to be returned to the First Men/King in the North, of which we may have Bran enthroned as the next Night's King. Maybe the last "battle" will be between the Lord of Winterfell and the Night's King once again, only this time the Night's King wins.

[Brad Stark]

What does everyone think of the Black Gate?  If it really is as old as the wall,  this is evidence against the wall having another purpose originally.  You have to speak vows to pass "I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers. I am the shield that guards the realms of men".  This is not in line with something followers of a Holly King like ruler would say.  

[Melifeather]

16 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

What does everyone think of the Black Gate?  If it really is as old as the wall,  this is evidence against the wall having another purpose originally.  You have to speak vows to pass "I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers. I am the shield that guards the realms of men".  This is not in line with something followers of a Holly King like ruler would say.  

It would if the greenseer were effectively imprisoned, so to speak. If the Black Gate is indeed the Night's King, he was bound and contained within the Wall.

[Brad Stark]

At the risk of spoilers from the show, GRRM was asked if the "Night King" on the show was the same as the "Night's King".

"As for the Night's King (the form I prefer), in the books he is a legendary figure, akin to Lann the Clever and Brandon the Builder, and no more likely to have survived to the present day than they have."

 I can infer a lot from this.

1) He didn't answer if they are the same or different.  That implies it isn't a stupid question.  He corrects people who ask stupid questions,  especially if the show confused them.  Here, he wants fans to consider whether or not they are the same.

2)  The Night's King is not much more recent than we think, unless Lann and Bran are too.

3) He didn't directly say the Night's King didn't survive to the present day.

[Lykos]

I'm convinced that the Black Gate predates "The Wall". The purpose of the Watch certainly has shifted in the last centuries.

As you cited, the original vows mentioned walls not one wall. Also the part mentioning "take no wife hold no lands" doesn't seem to be necessary to open the gate.

I think that each of the hundred kingdoms of old had a "Stark", responsible to take them through dire times, they were the watchers and a counterpart (probably a brother) was offered to the "Cold Gods" to become active in case that they failed to reign in their fellow men.

This was a rather extreme measure offered to the Last Hero, by the Children and thus there came the gift of a hundred dragonglass blades for the hundred offerings by the hundred kingdoms to enable men to undo their magic once they've served their purpose (as we've seen with Puddles).

Of course this power over the cold has been abused by men in the past. That's were the stories of the Night's King originate.

"The Wall" only came into existence after the seven kingdoms formed with a unifying culture of cooperation. A culture of helping the neighbouring kingdom (with food) rather than raiding it.  Of course this didn't come for free, but with the necessity to observe the laws of this culture and a new level of powergrabbing, the provider sets the rules, and the recipient has to swear fealty.

 

[Melifeather]

31 minutes ago, Brad Stark said:

He didn't directly say the Night's King didn't survive to the present day.

I don't think the Night's King is the same one from ancient history, but I think it's a position that has been recently refilled. If "Night's King" is the title given the human greenseer enthroned in the weirwoods, then Bloodraven is a Night's King, and Bran his heir apparent.

This would be difficult to translate in the mummer's version, and I also don't believe they are doing everything the same. They are telling their own story.

[Brad Stark]

31 minutes ago, Feather Crystal said:

I don't think the Night's King is the same one from ancient history, but I think it's a position that has been recently refilled. If "Night's King" is the title given the human greenseer enthroned in the weirwoods, then Bloodraven is a Night's King, and Bran his heir apparent.

This would be difficult to translate in the mummer's version, and I also don't believe they are doing everything the same. They are telling their own story.

I am interested in GRRM'S comments and how they apply to his books.  The mummer's version has to be different, as it has to be much shorter.  GRRM could have said we won't see someone from the age of heroes in the present,  similar to how he said we won't see gods directly appear on stage.  He didn't,  instead he leaves the possiblity open.

[Black Crow]

4 hours ago, Matthew. said:

In addition, I do think there are a couple things here and there that allow us to at least speculate he had the potential, first and foremost being that he "bound his brothers to his will through sorcery." Another is that he may have been of House Stark, and what we're told of House Stark is: their current generation is batting 6 for 6 when it comes to wargs, and at least one for six with greenseers; several prior Starks are represented with direwolves at their side; Brandon the Builder used sorcery he gained from the CotF.

With all of this in mind, it's not an unreasonable inference that a man born of this bloodline held similar potential.

Yeah but its that six out of six after generations of scoring zero which makes me think that its the direwolves, not the bloodline and while Bran has obviously come further than any of them, he was drawn up the tower by the crows and it was the three-eyed crow that visited his dreams and opened his third eye. There's no disputing that the triggers are external but these days I'm leaning much more to the direwolves and the crows being responsible for it.

As an aside I'm not convinced as to his men pleading that he used sorcery to bind his men to his will; that sounds far more like the last pleading before their heads end up decorating spikes

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

At the risk of spoilers from the show, GRRM was asked if the "Night King" on the show was the same as the "Night's King".

"As for the Night's King (the form I prefer), in the books he is a legendary figure, akin to Lann the Clever and Brandon the Builder, and no more likely to have survived to the present day than they have."

 I can infer a lot from this.

1) He didn't answer if they are the same or different.  That implies it isn't a stupid question.  He corrects people who ask stupid questions,  especially if the show confused them.  Here, he wants fans to consider whether or not they are the same.

2)  The Night's King is not much more recent than we think, unless Lann and Bran are too.

3) He didn't directly say the Night's King didn't survive to the present day.

I think you may be over-analysing this. GRRM was simply distancing his Nights King of legend from the sinister guy stalking around in the mummers' version.

I do however believe that the history of Westeros doesn't go back as far as the Septons and Maesters tell us.

[Black Crow]

2 hours ago, Lykoshi said:

I'm convinced that the Black Gate predates "The Wall". The purpose of the Watch certainly has shifted in the last centuries.

As you cited, the original vows mentioned walls not one wall. Also the part mentioning "take no wife hold no lands" doesn't seem to be necessary to open the gate.

I think that each of the hundred kingdoms of old had a "Stark", responsible to take them through dire times, they were the watchers and a counterpart (probably a brother) was offered to the "Cold Gods" to become active in case that they failed to reign in their fellow men.

This was a rather extreme measure offered to the Last Hero, by the Children and thus there came the gift of a hundred dragonglass blades for the hundred offerings by the hundred kingdoms to enable men to undo their magic once they've served their purpose (as we've seen with Puddles).

Of course this power over the cold has been abused by men in the past. That's were the stories of the Night's King originate.

"The Wall" only came into existence after the seven kingdoms formed with a unifying culture of cooperation. A culture of helping the neighbouring kingdom (with food) rather than raiding it.  Of course this didn't come for free, but with the necessity to observe the laws of this culture and a new level of powergrabbing, the provider sets the rules, and the recipient has to swear fealty.

 

One way some of us interpret all of this is that the Wall wasn't raised to defend the realms of men from the Others, but was the other way around. The Wall was raised by deep magic and blood magic at that to protect the magic otherlands ro the north of it. As originally built the Black Gate was the only portal between the realms and the other castles were only built after the Pact was broken and the surviving tree-huggers and other old races fled beyond it.

I agree to a point with the dragonglass in that I have in the past argued that the 100 pieces of dragonglass corresponded to the 100 kingdoms, but if so one piece of dragonglass given each year to each kingdom isn't a gun-running operation but a symbolic gift signifying that the Pact still holds. What we don't know is what was given in return, but I can't help but suspect that Craster was still keeping up the old tradition.

[Black Crow]

3 hours ago, Brad Stark said:

What does everyone think of the Black Gate?  If it really is as old as the wall,  this is evidence against the wall having another purpose originally.  You have to speak vows to pass "I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers. I am the shield that guards the realms of men".  This is not in line with something followers of a Holly King like ruler would say.  

No, but when the Nights King fell, perhaps those who overthrew him changed the locks.

[LordImp]

It could be that the show Nights king is the same just that they changed the story completely , you know he is the same guy but with a different story.

[Black Crow]

41 minutes ago, LordImp said:

It could be that the show Nights king is the same just that they changed the story completely , you know he is the same guy but with a different story.

Dubious. As I said above to me GRRM seemed pretty direct on that. Aside from the fact that the Mods have declared the mummers' version to be out of bounds on this side of the forum, there's not really a lot of point. In previous seasons the mummers were adapting the text. In this season they are making it up as they go along simply because there is no text to adapt. That said they do know some things, hence milestones such as Jon Snow's awakening and the connection GRRM long ago hinted of between the tree-huggers and the walkers, but while the milestones are there, everything else including the "new" Nights King belongs to the mummers, not GRRM