Bran Truly Was The Best Possible Choice To Rule

[Cron]

On 6/3/2019 at 9:04 PM, Mystical said:

I'm still baffled how anyone can think that Bran is the best choice. He's known since S6 that Dany would burn down KL and did nothing (except bring mad Dany about depending on how you read his 'character'). Bran is dead and in it's place is the 3ER. How is it a good thing to put someone on any throne who shows no regard for human live or human suffering? A million people died so he could become King and he could have prevented it. Imagine what other atrocities he's going to allow or even facilitate. Then there is also the implication that Westeros is now a surveilence state because the 3ER can see whatever he wants, wherever he wants.

My strong assumption is that either:

(1) Bran's ability to change the future using his knowledge of future events is very limited, if it exists at all, or

(2) Bran has seen many possible futures, and knows that all other options would have turned out even worse.

It's difficult to know for sure about stuff like this, though, because Bran is such a mystery, because we are given SO little information about his powers and what is going on in his head after he becomes the 3ER.   However, I saw nothing in the show that would lead me to believe that he was a bad guy who would allow perhaps a million people to get crossed off just so he could become king, whereas we WERE giving information that he knows certain things MUST be acertain way (for example, when he said their plan against the Night King had to include Bran himself being used as bait in the Godswood.  Superficially, that made no sense, but Bran knew it HAD to be that way, and sure enough, we have confirmation that he was right, because the Night King was in fact defeated.)

[Cron]

On 6/4/2019 at 2:41 PM, Apoplexy said:

Exactly. If he did indeed know Dany was going to burn the city, why didn't he do anything to stop? Plus, if he can 'check to see what drogon is doing right now', why didn't he warg drogon and stop the mass murder. That part still baffles me.

Please see my Reply to Mystical, above, for some of the issues you raise.

Regarding warging Drogon:  My understanding it that it is extremely difficult to do that with a creature of higher intelligence (such as another human), and my understanding is that dragons in ASOIAF are of much higher intelligence than other animals, possibly even including humans.

[Cron]

On 6/5/2019 at 12:29 AM, Techmaester said:

Viserion was dead and then reanimated - it proved nothing. Bran clearly couldn't control the NK so obviously there is a limit to his power. 

Yes, and my understanding is that Bran's limitations involve the intelligence of the creature (including possibly humans) that he is trying to warg.

Even relatively unintelligent humans are extremely difficult (and dangerous) to warg, which is why, so far as I know, Bran is the only Greenseer to ever achieve it, even with a relatively simple mind like Hodor's.

Further, as I mentioned above, as I recall dragons in ASOIAF are NOT at a level of intelligence like other ordinary animals (such was wolves, birds, dogs, cats, whatever).  My understanding is that dragons are of much higher intelligence than such animals, possibly even more intelligent than humans.

[Apoplexy]

14 hours ago, Cron said:

Please see my Reply to Mystical, above, for some of the issues you raise.

Regarding warging Drogon:  My understanding it that it is extremely difficult to do that with a creature of higher intelligence (such as another human), and my understanding is that dragons in ASOIAF are of much higher intelligence than other animals, possibly even including humans.

The issue with all these assumptions is that they are assumptions. The show never elaborated on Bran's powers or his warging abilities. The 'hold the door' moment was confusing for me. What exactly happened there? Did Bran alter the past ? Because the books say that the 'ink is dry' on the past.

So essentially the only thing Bran can change is the future. So why didn't he at least try? As for warning a dragon, Bran was the 3ER. If anyone could warg into a dragon, it should've been him.

[SeanF]

Bran's a creepy teenager who has the interpersonal skills of a plank.  He could never make a good King.

[Mystical]

On 6/30/2019 at 6:30 AM, Cron said:

My strong assumption is that either:

(1) Bran's ability to change the future using his knowledge of future events is very limited, if it exists at all, or

(2) Bran has seen many possible futures, and knows that all other options would have turned out even worse.

It's difficult to know for sure about stuff like this, though, because Bran is such a mystery, because we are given SO little information about his powers and what is going on in his head after he becomes the 3ER.   However, I saw nothing in the show that would lead me to believe that he was a bad guy who would allow perhaps a million people to get crossed off just so he could become king, whereas we WERE giving information that he knows certain things MUST be acertain way (for example, when he said their plan against the Night King had to include Bran himself being used as bait in the Godswood.  Superficially, that made no sense, but Bran knew it HAD to be that way, and sure enough, we have confirmation that he was right, because the Night King was in fact defeated.)

But how are you so sure that Bran's way is the right way? What makes you think that Bran/3ER is good? What makes you think that anything he says or does is to bring about a future that is set in stone? What makes you think he's on the side of humanity?

Here is what we do know in the show. The 3ER is a creation of the Children of the Forest (or so it seems) just like the NK. The NK is their physical weapon while the 3ER is their shadow player. We know why the Children created the NK, it was to wipe out humanity which was invading their land and killing them. Why would the purpose of the 3ER be any different? And we have hints that the 3ER is not someone good. After all the previous 3ER lured a crippled kid to his cave to body snatch into a new host.

Bran/3ER can see the future, no one should be disputing that anymore. People who generally argue that 'things had to happen that way and that's why Bran didn't interfere' only use S8 to make their point. Which makes no sense because S 6/7 also has to be looked at. The big thing that happened in S7 was the wight hunt which ended with undead dragon and goodbye wall. Bran had to have known this yet he didn't stop it. And we know he knows because he insists on giving Arya the dagger. The NK didn't cross the wall in thousands of years (heck he didn't even walk around it by freezing the oceans meaning that's not an option) so he had no way to invade Westeros. So presumably the NK would still be behind the wall if Bran/3ER had stopped the wight hunt mission, something he knew about long before it happened. He was also the one to chose when the secret of Jon's parentage would be revealed. He could have waited until after the Battle for the Long Night or after Cersei was removed (presumably without the torching of KL). But no, he chose the perfect time. With that I mean the perfect time where he knew it would cause the most damage (to Dany and eventually to people). The vision of the dragon over KL was brought back for a reason and let us know that Bran has known since S6 that Dany would torch KL. But only if the conditions were right.

I would agree with Bran knowing but letting things happen because he knows it's supposed to happen that way if he had been entirely passive the entire time. Meaning if there was never any sign he interfered with events to steer the outcome in a certain direction. But he did and we know he did. Jon's parentage reveal for one. Him talking to Tyrion to tell him his life story when previously he couldn't be bothered to speak 2 sentences to anyone. His insistence to not wanting to be 'Lord of anything'. He actively got involved to achieve the outcome, him becoming King. He didn't let free will reign so things naturally ended up where they are supposed to. And that's why quite a few people see Bran as evil, anti-humanity and a worse fate for Westeros than all the rulers previously.

[Rast-afari]

Subjects usually are driven by the demands and whims of their ruler which in turn leads to advancements and innovations. If the King/Queen desires conquest then that will lead to military technology advancing (kind of how the Scorpions improved under Cersei). If the King/Queen wants the tallest, fanciest palace then architectural advancements will  occur. A love of plays and music will lead to more competition and  greater quality. The thing with Bran is he has no "wants" so there's nothing to push the people. He seems okay with keeping the status quo among the population which will result in stagnation. And if he's capable of living for a thousand years, well that's a thousand years of staying the same.

[Mystical]

8 hours ago, Rast-afari said:

The thing with Bran is he has no "wants" so there's nothing to push the people.

Says who? The 3ER? Well of course 3ER says that, since it drove everyone to think 'perfect ruler would be one who doesn't want it'. And 3ER clearly did want power, hence his interference in events that set it up for him to become King. By both inaction and action he managed to get the desired outcome, him to become King. He didn't get there by letting everyone have free will or let things happen naturally, he interfered. If he doesn't want anything he wouldn't have interfered. Simple really.

And if he wants nothing how is that good for the people? He won't care about system changes, disputes, hunger, sickness or war. A ruler who doesn't care beyond his own sphere, we have had that before. They were either tyrants or losers. And the council he assembled is no better than the previous legitimate King's (Bobby B), aka a King who didn't want it. I'd venture Bran's council is even worse considering Tyrion (whose body count is so high he should have died in S8 instead of getting rewarded with ruler ship yet again) is at the head of it and a sellsword controls the money.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Maybe Bran is the best choice because he simply looks at the past. Now that we know that Martin wants rule by psychohistory a la The Foundation, Dany looks especially bad as a candidate. "If I look back I'm lost"? Maybe you should look back every once in a while so you're not stumbling around like an idiot. 

That said, the show did a poor job of putting this together to show how learning from history can be useful, and why Bran is suited for the challenge. 

[Jaghen]

Bran is likely not the best choice, but he did say the right things to make others think he would be. He walked the path that brought him where he wanted to end up.

Bran basically had access to every alternative S8 plot from the moment he ran out of that cave, and could chose which one he liked.

[Hodor's Dragon]

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Maybe Bran is the best choice because he simply looks at the past. Now that we know that Martin wants rule by psychohistory a la The Foundation, Dany looks especially bad as a candidate. "If I look back I'm lost"? Maybe you should look back every once in a while so you're not stumbling around like an idiot. 

That said, the show did a poor job of putting this together to show how learning from history can be useful, and why Bran is suited for the challenge. 

Well now wait, maybe you can make a case for Dany lacking introspection in the show, but don't throw Martin's name into that idea. Book Daenerys is the most introspective character in the whole story: she is constantly examining her own actions and herself. My favorite thing about her, but I concede it is all but completely lost in the show where she is always decisive and self-confident.

[Jaghen]

She does think a great amount of times "If I look back I am lost" in the book (not sure if it appeared in the show ?).

But I'm not sure that is the path favored by Martin. It may be where the story ends though, which may be that "bittersweet" idea. Now a God Emperor rules over the petty humans. they survived the WW just to die under his rule.

[Rose of Red Lake]

20 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Well now wait, maybe you can make a case for Dany lacking introspection in the show, but don't throw Martin's name into that idea. Book Daenerys is the most introspective character in the whole story: she is constantly examining her own actions and herself. My favorite thing about her, but I concede it is all but completely lost in the show where she is always decisive and self-confident.

That phrase is used in key moments when she doesn't want to think. She does barrel forward in the books too - look at her decision to light the funeral pyre or march to the Red Waste. She decisively chooses based on superstition. She might be introspective about it later because she at least knows she made poor decisions.

But anyway, my point was that she's not pondering her history, of which Dany knows very little. GRRM said she should read Fire and Blood. "This is a book that Daenerys might actually benefit from reading, but she has no access to Archermaester Gyldayn's crumbling manuscripts. So she's operating on her own there. Maybe if she understood a few things more about dragons and her own history in Essos, things would have gone a little differently." Some of that is the author's fault because he's keeping it from her. I wonder why that is? 

[Jaghen]

Because that is her story. Last of her line. Unburnt yes, but also untrained. Mother of Dragons, Child of none. Only home she has ever known could be a brothel (granted that's conjecture based on a red door, and the place being suited to harbor a fugitive princess, long shot). Raised by her half mad brother. Head full of dreams that sometimes do not reflect the world at all. Difficulty to make the distinction.

Most people benefit from history lessons. Even geniuses can't come up with every damn thing humans have come up with over millennia.

[Mystical]

20 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Maybe Bran is the best choice because he simply looks at the past

Every character can do that. Limited as they may be, not having access to the memories of the entire world, they can do that. Sansa was the only Stark to do that for example. Someone capable of reflecting on her own past and that of her family. Understanding and admitting her faults and the faults of her family members.

She looked back on herself and understood what a naive person she was (no fault of own IMO, she was groomed that way) and that this lead her to make the decisions she did. She understood that her father had no mind for the games at KL and lost his head for it. She understands that Robb made mistakes too since he lost his head as well. Hence her counsel to Jon to do better than them in order not to lose his head. So it is possible for people without god-powers to reflect on the past and learn from it, if they are willing. And I take a person willing to reflect and better themselves and become a good leader as a result (not talking about Sansa here but just in general) over a god-like tree who doesn't give a damn about humans which makes him the worst choice as ruler.

[Rose of Red Lake]

14 hours ago, Mystical said:

Every character can do that. Limited as they may be, not having access to the memories of the entire world, they can do that. Sansa was the only Stark to do that for example. Someone capable of reflecting on her own past and that of her family. Understanding and admitting her faults and the faults of her family members.

 

No argument there, Sansa is my choice for queen of Westeros. I'm just trying to understand GRRM's POV on Bran as king since this was confirmed from the author. It seems like he really thinks time travelers ruling will be great because he will know exactly what mistakes were made so they dont repeat them. Or something.

[Cron]

On 6/30/2019 at 3:56 PM, Apoplexy said:

The issue with all these assumptions is that they are assumptions. The show never elaborated on Bran's powers or his warging abilities. The 'hold the door' moment was confusing for me. What exactly happened there? Did Bran alter the past ? Because the books say that the 'ink is dry' on the past.

So essentially the only thing Bran can change is the future. So why didn't he at least try? As for warning a dragon, Bran was the 3ER. If anyone could warg into a dragon, it should've been him.

I don't believe Bran changed the past regarding Hodor.  We have never been given a version of Hodor that does not include him being accidentally brain damaged by Bran.

And yes, I agree, if anyone could warg a dragon I would think it would be Bran, but we've just not been given information that that is within even his powers.

Personally, I like the fact that so much about Bran is still mysterious, and I'm very much looking forward to more about him being revealed in the sequel, when it is eventually made (and yes, I said "sequel," and "when" it is eventually made.  Even though only prequels are in various stages of production, I consider it absolutely inevitable that a sequel will eventually be made, and that Arya, Brand and Sansa will all play huge roles.  Probably Jon and Dany, too, for that matter, as I believe Dany WILL be resurrected.)

[Cron]

On 6/30/2019 at 11:15 PM, SeanF said:

Bran's a creepy teenager who has the interpersonal skills of a plank.  He could never make a good King.

Well, personally I would rather live in a Westeros ruled by Bran than any other character available for the job right now.

He is extremely powerful, presumably beyond corruption (because he does not "want" anymore), and we have NO reason to believe he is anything but benevolent and good.

 

I've heard theories that he has been tainted by his predecessor 3ER, but unless and until that is shown to be true, I'm going to assume he is good, because I think that is consistent with all other information we have been given. 

[Cron]

On 7/1/2019 at 6:54 AM, Mystical said:

But how are you so sure that Bran's way is the right way? What makes you think that Bran/3ER is good? What makes you think that anything he says or does is to bring about a future that is set in stone? What makes you think he's on the side of humanity?

Here is what we do know in the show. The 3ER is a creation of the Children of the Forest (or so it seems) just like the NK. The NK is their physical weapon while the 3ER is their shadow player. We know why the Children created the NK, it was to wipe out humanity which was invading their land and killing them. Why would the purpose of the 3ER be any different? And we have hints that the 3ER is not someone good. After all the previous 3ER lured a crippled kid to his cave to body snatch into a new host.

Bran/3ER can see the future, no one should be disputing that anymore. People who generally argue that 'things had to happen that way and that's why Bran didn't interfere' only use S8 to make their point. Which makes no sense because S 6/7 also has to be looked at. The big thing that happened in S7 was the wight hunt which ended with undead dragon and goodbye wall. Bran had to have known this yet he didn't stop it. And we know he knows because he insists on giving Arya the dagger. The NK didn't cross the wall in thousands of years (heck he didn't even walk around it by freezing the oceans meaning that's not an option) so he had no way to invade Westeros. So presumably the NK would still be behind the wall if Bran/3ER had stopped the wight hunt mission, something he knew about long before it happened. He was also the one to chose when the secret of Jon's parentage would be revealed. He could have waited until after the Battle for the Long Night or after Cersei was removed (presumably without the torching of KL). But no, he chose the perfect time. With that I mean the perfect time where he knew it would cause the most damage (to Dany and eventually to people). The vision of the dragon over KL was brought back for a reason and let us know that Bran has known since S6 that Dany would torch KL. But only if the conditions were right.

I would agree with Bran knowing but letting things happen because he knows it's supposed to happen that way if he had been entirely passive the entire time. Meaning if there was never any sign he interfered with events to steer the outcome in a certain direction. But he did and we know he did. Jon's parentage reveal for one. Him talking to Tyrion to tell him his life story when previously he couldn't be bothered to speak 2 sentences to anyone. His insistence to not wanting to be 'Lord of anything'. He actively got involved to achieve the outcome, him becoming King. He didn't let free will reign so things naturally ended up where they are supposed to. And that's why quite a few people see Bran as evil, anti-humanity and a worse fate for Westeros than all the rulers previously.

Lotta stuff there, and I did read every word, even though I won't be able to conveniently reply to every word.

I'll say this, though:  My understanding is that we have no reason to believe Bran is bad.  Yes, there's speculation about it, and there are theories about it, but there was also rampant speculation for years that Bran was the Night King himself, and now it looks like all of those theories were flat out wrong (although I do admit it's still possible Bran was/is the NIght King, it now seems extremely unlikely to me)

The issues you raise about free will, fate, pre-determination, etc., are very complex (and would require a LOT of writing by me to respond to it all line by line), but I've not seen anything so far that would lead me to believe that Bran has had less tragic options available for him to consider yet chose a path that led to hundreds of thousands of innocent people being crossed off just because he wanted to be king. 

To my knowledge, we have NOT been given such information, and because all of the information we HAVE been given about Bran is that he is fundamentally good (both in his POV chapters in the books, where we actually get into his head, and in the show, based on his words and deeds), and so long as that is true I'm inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt rather than speculating that "well, maybe he's actually a bad guy," and then just assuming that is true.

Regarding the Children of the Forest creating both the Night King and the 3ER:  I'm not positive they created the 3ER (sounded to me like you're not positive about that either), but even if the DID create both, my understanding is that the Children of the Forest later regretted creating the NIght King and took steps to try to rectify that, AND note that ultimately the Night King and the 3ER (Bran) WERE opposed to each other, and Bran WON.

Having said all that, I am not claiming it's impossible for Bran to be bad, just that I believe it's not consistent with information we've been given so far.  Still, however, this is Game of Thrones, and I admit that nearly anything is possible.  If a sequel is made and it turns out Bran has been corrupted, then I will accept that, and it may even turn out to be good story-telling (just as I accept Dany's turn to the dark side, or Anakin Skywalker's turn to the dark side, and consider all of that good story-telling even though it hurts to watch and I"m always still rooting for the "good guys," such as they are in Game of Thrones) 

[hewman]

Is there nothing amiss with a demigod of the old religion beeing king over a population that consists mostly of believers in The Seven? To me it looks a bit like electing Mohammed king of Israel or Juda.