Given Bran's vision of his ancestor killing a captive, how horrible were the Starks of old?

[sweetsunray]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

I've no issue with the slavers receiving their due, but I think there is something ritualistic about hanging up their entrails, in the same way I think there's something ritualistic about the Boltons' flaying.

I fear this is because you see it in line with real world rituals of hanging stuff in trees for gods/spirits you know didn't exist.

But here we do know that spirits go into trees, that a gifted person can see (past/present and potentially future) and communicate via the trees in the present. George has given us the manner in which the Andal Faith judged guilt: by combat. He has shown us how in the later centuries since the Conquering an alternative in human trials have evolved as an alternative to the combat. And how a King of the IT or a LP judges. He has as of yet never told us how First Men judged thousands of years ago. People just assume that Rickard and Ned Stark are saying how it has been done for thousands of years, and yet here we have a story of a Stark King not being the judge, nor the executioner.

6000/4000 years ago there were rapists, treacherous plotters, murderers, raiders, thieves too. And this at a time when villagers and petty kings had experience with the powers of a greenseer.

Be very careful when George uses real world modern prejudice in another world. It tends to be something he uses to put the reader onto a wrong trail of how a society works. A good example of this is Seven Times Never Kill a Man.

Spoiler

There the protagonist Nekroll has this pet anthropological theory that every society/world in the universe has gods that are basically representing the same thing, and that this is expressed in those worlds' art. (he is a seller of art). He has a liking to a certain "people" Jainshi who seem to live mostly vegetarian primitive life around some red pyramid. Each member of a "village" has their own role: only one speaks (the Speaker), only one carves (the Carver). Nekroll trades salt for those carvings. And the carvings they make are the spitting image of earthly ancient gods (Roman, Greek). He sees this as confirmation of his "hypthesis". However, as the story progresses it becomes clear the Jainshi in those villages are under some type of mind control of the pyramids - making them pacificists, mostly vegetarian and restricting their sexual activity as well as culling pigs when there are too many. Once a pyramid gets destroyed by the evil Steel Angels (followers of Bakalon the Pale Child), the orphaned Jainshi infants grow into normal angry, vengeful individuals, eating meat and highly sexual active. And then the carvers of those villages begin to leave statues of Bakkalon the Pale Child, which eventually leads the Steel Angels to steal a pyramid, claim it as their own and take it back to their colony settlement: they start to farm, hang their own children to cull their own numbers, etc... The pyramids took the beliefs from the minds of the Steel Angels and Nekroll and mirrored it back with carvings. It's a self fulfillment.

George is doing the same thing here: but here you are Nekroll or the Steel Angel, seeing what you are predisposed to see, without second guessing your own beliefs.

[Lollygag]

45 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

The guy who told it lived hundreds if not a thousand of years later; before Manderlys (who follow the Andal Faith) ended up with the Wolf's Den in their dominion. Andals and maesters talk about human sacrifice but both have an agenda to declare it as such, even if the Manderlys are grateful and loyal to the Starks. Meanwhile non-Faith following Northerners have a personal interest in making someone shit their pants and believe the worst - scare tactics. Skagos for example: if outsiders believe you're savage cannibals performing human sacrifice and stay away or meddle less because of it, why change their mind?

BTW did you take note that the King did NOT judge or execute these slavers himself?

Sure, but human sacrifice is a huge thing in this series both in obvious and more subtle forms. If it was a single instance, I'd be more inclined to agree, but it's repeated over and over again which goes into bad writing at that point. The guy is retelling the story from a long time ago, but his adamant and angry exclamation about the winter not knowing the seven isn't just from history, it's how he feels personally, too. Your Seven don't know winter, and winter don't know them."

Yes, the King didn't do it himself. The slaves were the ones agrieved. He didn't stop it either and if I was a slave bent on homicidal revenge, I'd not be waiting to act on it, so it makes more sense that Ice Eyes, the grandson of Edrick Snowbeard (a wildling name by the sounds of it) was there and cool with it.

It's reinforced in other ways, too. We have Manderly's Frey pies which goes even into unapologetic revelry in cannibalism. TWOIAF says White Harbor practiced blood sacrifice to the old gods as recently as 500 years ago, but by the non-objective and heated way the story was told and Manderly's Frey pies, I'd wager it still goes on in some form.

The World of Ice and Fire - Ancient History: The Dawn Age

The gods the children worshipped were the nameless ones that would one day become the gods of the First Men—the innumerable gods of the streams and forests and stones. It was the children who carved the weirwoods with faces, perhaps to give eyes to their gods so that they might watch their worshippers at their devotions. Others, with little evidence, claim that the greenseers—the wise men of the children—were able to see through the eyes of the carved weirwoods. The supposed proof is the fact that the First Men themselves believed this; it was their fear of the weirwoods spying upon them that drove them to cut down many of the carved trees and weirwood groves, to deny the children such an advantage. Yet the First Men were less learned than we are now, and credited things that their descendants today do not; consider Maester Yorrick's Wed to the Sea, Being an Account of the History of White Harbor from Its Earliest Days, which recounts the practice of blood sacrifice to the old gods. Such sacrifices persisted as recently as five centuries ago, according to accounts from Maester Yorrick's predecessors at White Harbor.

 

The Manderlys are old refugee family from the Reach. They follow the 7, but then we have this about the earliest Reach First Men which further reinforces the above:

The World of Ice and Fire - The Reach: Garth Greenhand

The story of the Reach begins with Garth Greenhand, the legendary progenitor not only of the Tyrells of Highgarden, but of the Gardener kings before them...and all the other great houses and noble families of the Green Realm as well.

 

A thousand tales are told of Garth, in the Reach and beyond. Most are implausible, and many contradictory. In some he is a contemporary of Bran the Builder, Lann the Clever, Durran Godsgrief, and the other colorful figures of the Age of Heroes. In others he stands as the ancestor of them all.

...

Garth was the High King of the First Men, it is written; it was he who led them out of the east and across the land bridge to Westeros. Yet other tales would have us believe that he preceded the arrival of the First Men by thousands of years, making him not only the First Man in Westeros, but the only man, wandering the length and breadth of the land alone and treating with the giants and the children of the forest. Some even say he was a god.

 

There is disagreement even on his name. Garth Greenhand, we call him, but in the oldest tales he is named Garth Greenhair, or simply Garth the Green. Some stories say he had green hands, green hair, or green skin overall. (A few even give him antlers, like a stag.) Others tell us that he dressed in green from head to foot, and certainly this is how he is most commonly depicted in paintings, tapestries, and sculptures. More likely, his sobriquet derived from his gifts as a gardener and a tiller of the soil—the one trait on which all the tales agree. "Garth made the corn ripen, the trees fruit, and the flowers bloom," the singers tell us.

 

A few of the very oldest tales of Garth Greenhand present us with a considerably darker deity, one who demanded blood sacrifice from his worshippers to ensure a bountiful harvest. In some stories the green god dies every autumn when the trees lose their leaves, only to be reborn with the coming of spring. This version of Garth is largely forgotten.

 

 

For even more reinforcement, we have this on House Manderly. Like Garth the Green, their sigil merman has green hair and Wylla dyes her hair green.

 

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Manderly

 

The Manderlys are an ancient line who once lived along the banks of the mighty river Mander in the Kingdom of the Reach, and some claim the river was named after them.^[9] A noble house of great lords descended from the First Men, they held the castle of Dunstonbury as their seat and had a fierce rivalry with House Peake.^[10]

 

 

^{--------------------------}

 

 

Adding:

I’m going to take this further. The weirwoods have red leaves making them look like a tree on fire. They’re described with the same terminology as the dragons. It’s a Targ hooked up to it right now and those giant bat skeletons sound more plausibly to be ancient small dragon skeletons. Viseryon is described as hanging from a ceiling like a bat. If weirwoods are opposed to the Others, then fire/dragon trees sound like a good pick on that one. The most egregious examples of human sacrifice come from fire and blood Valyria. The connection is obvious. Ned’s ritual of washing the blood of his sword in the pool by the heart tree sounds like a remnant of human sacrifice rituals.

AGOT Bran IV

Old Nan nodded. "In that darkness, the Others came for the first time," she said as her needles went click click click. "They were cold things, dead things, that hated iron and fire and the touch of the sun, and every creature with hot blood in its veins. They swept over holdfasts and cities and kingdoms, felled heroes and armies by the score, riding their pale dead horses and leading hosts of the slain. All the swords of men could not stay their advance, and even maidens and suckling babes found no pity in them. They hunted the maids through frozen forests, and fed their dead servants on the flesh of human children."

I’m not into this evil Starks crap, but rather, this looks more like only death may pay for life which is also what we see in the old, darker Garth Greenhand tales.

Blood and plants are a real-life thing. I’ve heard from a nurse who uses expired or unusable blood donations on her own plants and trees. For those of us who don't have access to spare blood, there’s processed blood meal or diluted milk also works well.

https://www.wikihow.com/Use-Blood-Meal

It’s high in nitrogen which is necessary in higher quantities when plants go through rapid growth cycles. It’s perhaps no coincidence that GRRM the gardener wrote the White Tree weirwood with its human bones as by far the largest Jon’s ever seen.

 

[sweetsunray]

@Lollygag

Oh, I know the World Book makes claims about human sacrifice: that the CotF and the First Men committed it. And I take it with a big grain of salt, because of the sources. Let it be these claims where maester Yandel hardly ever puts question marks behind himself.

The maesters and the Citadel are not an objective source, least of all since the Andals arrived and were embraced by the Reach. The Citadel supposedly predates the Andal arrival, and was started by Peremor the Twisted, a child that was restricted to his room because of his handicap - a withered arm and twisted back. He was the son of King Uthor of the High Tower, the first Hightower King. He was bedridden for much of his short life but had an insatiable thirst for knowledge about the world, so he turned to "wise men, teachers, priests, healers, and singers, as well as wizards, alchemists and sorcerers". After Peremor's death, these "wise men" were given land and they founded the Citadel.

Simultaneously Uthor was wed to one of the daughters of Garth GreenHand, Maris the Maid, before Argoth-Stone-Skin (allegedly a giant, but wouldn't be surprised if we'll hear of this figure at Skagos) got to claim her hand. In other words, Peremor was a grandson of a greenseer king. Did you notice any greenseers being mentioned in the list of people who satiated the thirst of knowledge of Peremor who was stuck in his room? I didn't. I did notice the mention of priests though, which is an Andal or Ironborn thing (both were anti greenseers). So, we have several things here that just do not add up.

Basically Peremor is a parallel to Bran, or what Bran would have become if there had been no Wo5K and relied only on his maester's false beliefs.  

Why do the maester endorse this human sacrifice claim? They deny the existence of powers such as greenseers have. And well, if you don't believe in greenseers or their powers, then you miss out on the crucial aspect of what they would do via weirwoods, exactly as we see Bran do with Theon: forgive or judge a criminal. And if you don't know or believe the latter, then anything done in front of a weirwood must be explained as a ritual in gods you don't believe in. If that entail executing a man in front of a weirwood you'd call it a human sacrifice. And of course, us readers did not get any confirmation about the greenseer power via weirwood trees in Bran's last chapter of aDwD, after being fed prejudices for all the previous novels and in aDwD itself in Davos's chapters.

And yes that prejudice shows Lollygag, when you try to frame the skulls at Whitetree as a sacrifice, and completely ignore the context in which it is shown.

 

Quote

 

It was the biggest tree Jon Snow had ever seen, the trunk near eight feet wide, the branches spreading so far that the entire village was shaded beneath their canopy. The size did not disturb him so much as the face . . . the mouth especially, no simple carved slash, but a jagged hollow large enough to swallow a sheep.

Those are not sheep bones, though. Nor is that a sheep's skull in the ashes.

"An old tree." Mormont sat his horse, frowning. "Old," his raven agreed from his shoulder. "Old, old, old."

Jon said, "My lord father believed no man could tell a lie in front of a heart tree. The old gods know when men are lying."

"My father believed the same," said the Old Bear. "Let me have a look at that skull."

Jon dismounted. Slung across his back in a black leather shoulder sheath was Longclaw, the hand-and-a-half bastard blade the Old Bear had given him for saving his life. A bastard sword for a bastard, the men joked. The hilt had been fashioned new for him, adorned with a wolf's-head pommel in pale stone, but the blade itself was Valyrian steel, old and light and deadly sharp.

He knelt and reached a gloved hand down into the maw. The inside of the hollow was red with dried sap and blackened by fire. Beneath the skull he saw another, smaller, the jaw broken off. It was half-buried in ash and bits of bone.

When he brought the skull to Mormont, the Old Bear lifted it in both hands and stared into the empty sockets. "The wildlings burn their dead. We've always known that. Now I wished I'd asked them why, when there were still a few around to ask."

Jon Snow remembered the wight rising, its eyes shining blue in the pale dead face. He knew why, he was certain.

 

 

This skull is used to tell us two things:

• greenseers know when people lie in front of a heart tree.
• wildlings burn their dead to prevent them from rising like a wight, and always have done so.

Now why is the first of interest? In which setting is the first of interest? As a trial! Oh and look, we even have a mention of the VS sword, like Ice was a ceremonial execution sword made of VS.

You are INSERTING human sacrifice in this, and using misguided maester beliefs and Andal/Ironborn lies to support what you imagine in Whitetree.

And you missed my point about the King giving the slavers to the freed prisoners, his people: what Ned Stark did in the first chapter of Bran is not exactly how justice worked in the past. And if it didn't work like that at the time of the Wolf's Den, then there's no reason to believe justice worked the same way thousand years before that.

The sole ones we actual have evidence for on committing human sacrifice without any justice element in sight for magic powers or to please followers are

• Mel, Rh'llorisst
• Victarion, 7 maidens on a sloop set on fire for the god of the Ironborn, the 7 of the Faith and Rh'llor
• Dany to hatch dragons
• MMD potentially

[Lollygag]

12 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

@Lollygag

Oh, I know the World Book makes claims about human sacrifice: that the CotF and the First Men committed it. And I take it with a big grain of salt, because of the sources. Let it be these claims where maester Yandel hardly ever puts question marks behind himself.

The maesters and the Citadel are not an objective source, least of all since the Andals arrived and were embraced by the Reach. The Citadel supposedly predates the Andal arrival, and was started by Peremor the Twisted, a child that was restricted to his room because of his handicap - a withered arm and twisted back. He was the son of King Uthor of the High Tower, the first Hightower King. He was bedridden for much of his short life but had an insatiable thirst for knowledge about the world, so he turned to "wise men, teachers, priests, healers, and singers, as well as wizards, alchemists and sorcerers". After Peremor's death, these "wise men" were given land and they founded the Citadel.

Simultaneously Uthor was wed to one of the daughters of Garth GreenHand, Maris the Maid, before Argoth-Stone-Skin (allegedly a giant, but wouldn't be surprised if we'll hear of this figure at Skagos) got to claim her hand. In other words, Peremor was a grandson of a greenseer king. Did you notice any greenseers being mentioned in the list of people who satiated the thirst of knowledge of Peremor who was stuck in his room? I didn't. I did notice the mention of priests though, which is an Andal or Ironborn thing (both were anti greenseers). So, we have several things here that just do not add up.

Basically Peremor is a parallel to Bran, or what Bran would have become if there had been no Wo5K and relied only on his maester's false beliefs.  

Why do the maester endorse this human sacrifice claim? They deny the existence of powers such as greenseers have. And well, if you don't believe in greenseers or their powers, then you miss out on the crucial aspect of what they would do via weirwoods, exactly as we see Bran do with Theon: forgive or judge a criminal. And if you don't know or believe the latter, then anything done in front of a weirwood must be explained as a ritual in gods you don't believe in. If that entail executing a man in front of a weirwood you'd call it a human sacrifice.

And you missed my point about the King giving the slavers to the freed prisoners, his people: what Ned Stark did in the first chapter of Bran is not exactly how justice worked in the past. And if it didn't work like that at the time of the Wolf's Den, then there's no reason to believe justice worked the same way thousand years before that.

I didn't miss the point. A rationalization for sacrifice doesn't change what it is.

I'm going with what GRRM chose to write and what GRRM knows most of us recognize from rl. I'm underscoring it based on the amount of repetition.

Here's more. When Davos is captured, Manderly gives him to Garth.

ADWD Davos IV

He woke to the sound of voices and crept to the door of his cell, but the wood was too thick and he could not make out the words. Dawn had come, but not the porridge Garth brought him every morn to break his fast. That made him anxious. All the days were much the same inside the Wolf's Den, and any change was usually for the worse. This may be the day I die. Garth may be sitting with a whetstone even now, to put an edge on Lady Lu.

The onion knight had not forgotten Wyman Manderly's last words to him. Take this creature to the Wolf's Den and cut off head and hands, the fat lord had commanded. I shall not be able to eat a bite until I see this smuggler's head upon a spike, with an onion shoved between his lying teeth. Every night Davos went to sleep with those words in his head, and every morn he woke to them. And should he forget, Garth was always pleased to remind him. Dead man was his name for Davos. When he came by in the morning, it was always, "Here, porridge for the dead man." At night it was, "Blow out the candle, dead man."

Once Garth brought his ladies by to introduce them to the dead man. "The Whore don't look like much," he said, fondling a rod of cold black iron, "but when I heat her up red-hot and let her touch your cock, you'll cry for mother. And this here's my Lady Lu. It's her who'll take your head and hands, when Lord Wyman sends down word." Davos had never seen a bigger axe than Lady Lu, nor one with a sharper edge. Garth spent his days honing her, the other keepers said. I will not plead for mercy, Davos resolved. He would go to his death a knight, asking only that they take his head before his hands. Even Garth would not be so cruel as to deny him that, he hoped.

...

For all its comforts, though, his cell remained a cell. Its walls were solid stone, so thick that he could hear nothing of the outside world. The door was oak and iron, and his keepers kept it barred. Four sets of heavy iron fetters dangled from the ceiling, waiting for the day Lord Manderly decided to chain him up and give him over to the Whore. Today may be that day. The next time Garth opens my door, it may not be to bring me porridge.

...

A few of the very oldest tales of Garth Greenhand present us with a considerably darker deity, one who demanded blood sacrifice from his worshippers to ensure a bountiful harvest. In some stories the green god dies every autumn when the trees lose their leaves, only to be reborn with the coming of spring. This version of Garth is largely forgotten.

This is some crap writing if the obvious isn't what our takeaway should be. This world is a messed up place and so is everyone in it. I'm never going to buy the idea that the Starks can do no wrong and everything dark about them should be whitewashed any more than I'll buy that from any other family. It runs completely counter to the game of thrones/tribalism themes in a way I can’t reconcile. Plus, it’s boring as hell.

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point. 

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

And yes that prejudice shows Lollygag, when you try to frame the skulls at Whitetree as a sacrifice, and completely ignore the context in which it is shown.

 

Quote

 

It was the biggest tree Jon Snow had ever seen, the trunk near eight feet wide, the branches spreading so far that the entire village was shaded beneath their canopy. The size did not disturb him so much as the face . . . the mouth especially, no simple carved slash, but a jagged hollow large enough to swallow a sheep.

Those are not sheep bones, though. Nor is that a sheep's skull in the ashes.

"An old tree." Mormont sat his horse, frowning. "Old," his raven agreed from his shoulder. "Old, old, old."

Jon said, "My lord father believed no man could tell a lie in front of a heart tree. The old gods know when men are lying."

"My father believed the same," said the Old Bear. "Let me have a look at that skull."

Jon dismounted. Slung across his back in a black leather shoulder sheath was Longclaw, the hand-and-a-half bastard blade the Old Bear had given him for saving his life. A bastard sword for a bastard, the men joked. The hilt had been fashioned new for him, adorned with a wolf's-head pommel in pale stone, but the blade itself was Valyrian steel, old and light and deadly sharp.

He knelt and reached a gloved hand down into the maw. The inside of the hollow was red with dried sap and blackened by fire. Beneath the skull he saw another, smaller, the jaw broken off. It was half-buried in ash and bits of bone.

When he brought the skull to Mormont, the Old Bear lifted it in both hands and stared into the empty sockets. "The wildlings burn their dead. We've always known that. Now I wished I'd asked them why, when there were still a few around to ask."

Jon Snow remembered the wight rising, its eyes shining blue in the pale dead face. He knew why, he was certain.

 

 

This skull is used to tell us two things:

• greenseers know when people lie in front of a heart tree.
• wildlings burn their dead to prevent them from rising like a wight, and always have done so.

Now why is the first of interest? In which setting is the first of interest? As a trial! Oh and look, we even have a mention of the VS sword, like Ice was a ceremonial execution sword made of VS.

Ok, there's more that's been added.

Yes, the wildlings burn their dead. We've been told that over and over. This is the first and only time we see them burnt to a weirwood, so not typical. And it being the largest tree Jon's ever seen can't be ignored in conjunction with the skulls either in world or in rl if anyone has any basic experience with gardening. If people lie to you, it's fucked up to sacrifice them for that. And again, I don't care about the reasons. Sacrifice is sacrifice. Mucking any justice with sacrifice corrupts the purpose of any justice. And if there's some ok thing going on here, it's gross incompetence in writing to attach Craster, a monster tree and human skulls to it. All of that is grotesque. The scene is ominous.

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

You are INSERTING human sacrifice in this, and using misguided maester beliefs and Andal/Ironborn lies to support what you imagine in Whitetree.

GRRM is inserting human sacrifice in this (and all kinds of variations of it into the books) and GRRM wrote those "maester beliefs" and "Andal/Ironborn lies". Are they right all time? No more than anyone else is. To universally dismiss based on ad hominem isn't how the books are being written nor is it how people work, and it directly flies in the face of the anti-game of thrones, anti-tribalism themes of the books. This view is exactly what GRRM is making a point against.

 

[sweetsunray]

10 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I didn't miss the point. A rationalization for sacrifice doesn't change what it is.o

It's not a rationalisation for sacrifice. It's an execution, and then afterwards he entrails end up in the branches of the tree. Which may have a display meaning like Joffrey wanting to see head on spikes, or something to do with the spirits ending up in trees.

Just because someody calls it a human sacrifice hundreds of years later does not make it so.

Quote

I'm going with what GRRM chose to write and what GRRM knows most of us recognize from rl. I'm underscoring it based on the amount of repetition.

Yeah, but you miss out on the irony that it doesn't add up... like Garth and the threat about dying... but Davos lives, no? Our Garth (!!!!), our gardener was toying with your mind and Davos's.

Quote

This is some crap writing if the obvious isn't what our takeaway should be. This world is a messed up place and so is everyone in it. I'm never going to buy the idea that the Starks can do no wrong and everything dark about them should be whitewashed any more than I'll buy that from any other family. It runs completely counter to the game of thrones/tribalism themes in a way I can’t reconcile. Plus, it’s boring as hell.

I never said the Starks can do no wrong.

Hanging entrails in a tree is still a sick thing to me, as much as heads on spikes is revolting to me. And it's possible the moment when captives were executed for their crimes likely coincided with the harvest season, the summer/winter king concept. So, yes, I can accept that it was a mix of "justice" with  "let's not waste this execution". But I will need actual positive evidence to that, rather than maester Yandel's claims or a label to an event that doesn't describe human sacrifice whatsoever. Because so far, any man I've seen die in front of a heart tree confirmed to be a sacrifice in actions rather than words, was someone who voluntarily crawled there, after sacrificing his life to save a rather unworthy man - maester Luwin. He was knifed too, but upon his own request. 

I find it eye-opening how much you call the justice aspect a rationalisation, when you know that the justice aspect of it would ALWAYS lead to executions, and are "harsh" and "barbarous" too. Why do you think I compare this to Joffrey stuff? Because most readers amongst us considered his actions barbarous. Did you not think Ned Stark's beheading on the square a barbarous thing, with the crowd crying for blood? Or Joffrey taking Sansa out and forced her to watch the heads of the people of her household, including her father, after they were put on spikes? Is that not barbarous enough? Or is it only barbarous when it's human sacrifice? In that sense it's eyeopening that you call me stripping off the claims of human sacrifice and reveal the execution aspect as "whitewashing Starks". Or that you consider that "boring".

[sweetsunray]

9 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Yes, the wildlings burn their dead. We've been told that over and over. This is the first and only time we see them burnt to a weirwood, so not typical.

Oh, and what were those poor Free Folk and Wun Wun doing in front of the weirwood north of the Wall? They were waiting, and dying. It seems to me that Free Folk who believe in the old gods, wish that if they do end up with a spirit in a tree it should be a weirwood tree.

Quote

 If people lie to you, it's fucked up to sacrifice them for that.

Are you that short sighted? I'm sorry, Lollygag, but I did expect you to understand the point about the lying in front of weirwoods better. I didn't think I'd need to spell that out for you, line by line, with a whole scenario. It's a sign of your prejudice on this subject and irrationility, because otherwise you have astute reading abilities.

Nowhere did I say someone would be executed for lying, and that is not what the scene, Jon's words or Mormont's words imply. Say, you catch someone who raped your granddaughter, or at least he's accused of doing so. But he cries innocence. That he didn't do it. You drag him in front of a weirwood, and the greenseer will see whether that man speaks the truth or not. That's why you cannot lie in front of a weirwood. It knows the truth. It sees the truth. And in that sense, the tree might be your saviour as much as it may be the undoing. If the accused falsely denies having raped the granddaughter, then the greenseer via weirwood tree will expose him to be guilty of it, and I guess he will executed for it (not for lying, but the raping). If the accused rightfully denies having raped the granddaughter, the greenseer via weirwood tree will reveal his innocence too, and he'll be set free. 

It is quite clear that you are completely irrational about this, since this never ever occurred to you. Which is not surprising to me, as I've discovered most readers arguing "evil sacrifice!!!!!!" do, when I point out the inconsistencies or how they insert human sacrifice just because "EEK a skull!!!!!!" and "EEK a big tree!". Pity. That it's blinding you so much that you consider it barbaric before a weirwood and then MUST be human sacrifice, but have it in front of a howling crowd crying for blood isn't barbaric at all.... that's whitewashing... that's boring according to you. 

Yes, we disagree a great deal on all of this: I find executions barbaric, period, even when you actually have the weirwood as lie detector to confirm how guilty the person is. I find sticking people a needle in their arm to execute them, after a trial and appeals, also barbaric. The games in Rome were as barbaric to me as the Etruscan religious ritual behind it was. Neither the reason (except for self defense or euthanasia/mercy), nor the method makes me think of the killing of a person as less barbaric at the crux of it all. In other words, I don't need it to be a human sacrifice to consider it barbaric. And I see more mercy in Bran than the greenseers and Starks of old long before him when it comes to a man who indeed is guilty.

That you consider reframing the purpose why someone dies - justice - whitewashing says a lot in that respect, not so much about the Starks of old, but of you.

[Wisconsin]

On 10/28/2020 at 7:12 AM, Loose Bolt said:

There might have been a time during Long Night when only those people who paid that blood tax to "gods" survived and those who did not paid that were wiped out. Besides there is a chance that deal was one reason why Starks could rise from one of many petty kings to dominant house in the North.

War is paid for with a blood tax.  Kingdoms paid that tax with the blood of their sons whom they sent to battle.  The Starks paid and kept paying.  They resorted to direct human sacrifice when that was not enough.  They gave the most and became the dominant family in the north. 

[CamiloRP]

@Wisconsin 

I'm gonna repeat  abunch of things I already said, as well as some things others said, but you completely ignored. I hope you don't ignore me this time.

 

1. It's likely that the people in the vision weren't Starks: 

First of all, a list of all the things Bran sees through the tree:

Ned

What's likely Lyanna and Benjen

A pregnant woman, we get no clue who she is, but likely she isn't a Stark by blood, just the mother/wife of a Stark 

A slender girl kissing a young knight as tall as Hodor, now this is likely Dunk and some girl, but this girl likely isn't a Stark, so no Stark in this vision.

"A dark eyed youth' snapping branches from the trees and making arrows out of them. The dark eyes point at him not being a Stark, as Starks have grey eyes, tho this doesn't mean it's impossible for him to be a Stark, but most likely he isn't. I doubt an old gods worshiping Stark would cut branches from a weirwood, some freefolk do so, but still, it feels off.

Bran then sees a bunch of Stark lords/kings he recognizes from the crypts, and the way in which they are dressed speaks of a long time ago.

Then he sees the sacrifice.

So rather than a Stark family album(like you claimed it was) it's a film about everything that happened in front of WF's weirwood. Stark or not.

In the description he gives of the final vision he describes two persons:

A bearded man and a white haired woman. Nothing in their appearance points to any of them being a Stark, and Bran doesn't recognize any of them even tho he was just recognizing lords (how good are WF sculptors, right?)

But the most important thing he describes is a bronze sickle, this points to a period before the Andal invasion.

Now, the truth is that we don't know when House Stark was founded, but  we know the heart tree is older than Winterfell, and if WF and House Stark where created around the same time, it follows that the tree is older than House Stark. Also, having those hot springs around would make it quite a desirable place, first men groups would gather there. Also, as the passage is written, we get a sense that this is the last thing Bran sees, meaning it's likely the first thing of note to happen in front of the heart tree, which would be something that happened when the tree was first growing, as first men culture is built around these trees (but it was after the pact). With all of this combined we get that the event happened  a long time before the building of Winterfell and the creation of House Stark.

Of course I could be dead wrong, tho thinking about it has convinced me more in that direction, but all I'm saying is we have no reason to take it as a certainty that the people in the vision where Starks.

 

2. It's likely that they were executing a criminal or rival.

The fact that the man is imprisoned points to the fact that he's a criminal or a rival.

There's also this bit from TWOIAF, The North:

  On 10/28/2020 at 9:33 AM, kissdbyfire said:

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

Does this make it okay for him to be killed? Through our moderns lens it doesn't, but through the lens of 300 AC Westerosi it does. 

Ned beheads a NW desserter.

Robb beheads Rickard Karstark.

Jon beheads Janos Slynt.

Joffrey/Payne behead Ned.

Joffrey trebuchets the antler men.

Tywin executes the deserting Goldcloaks.

Now for the real horrible ones, from least horrible to more horrible:

Dany/Drogo have the wine merchant dragged by horse to death.

Theon drowns Septon Chayle.

Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur.

Stannis burns Florent, the cannibals and a bunch more people.

The Mountain hacks off Vargo Hoat bit by bit and feeds him to himself.

 

None of this situations are seen as wrong morally, because they were executing criminals and traitors. The Mountain and Stannis are seen as wrong because they are extremely cruel (what does that mean for Dany?) and Robb's is seen as a bad political move. But no one considers the killing of prisoners or traitors to be wrong in modern Westeros. So why would doing the same thousands of years ago would make the 'Starks of old' horrible?

Like I said in an older comment. Saying that the Starks of old were horrible because they executed people is like saying that Garlan Tyrell is an asshole because he benefits from feudalism. Yes, you're right, but in the context it means nothing.

 

3. There's almost no way that Rickard sacrificed people to the Weirwood tree

First of all, I will direct you again to that TWOIAF quote:

  Quote

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

 

Second of all Ned was 16 when his father and brother died, in contrast, Bran sees Ned execute Gared when he was Eight. So he would know about the family tradition if there was one. Also, there'd be rumors about the Stark as there is about the Boltons flaying people. So if the Starks ever partook in it (which is likely) I'd say the stop before the conquest at the very minimum, probably a lot earlier.

But also, that wouldn't make them horrible even for current Westeros, killing captives is really common, offering them to Gods doesn't change the situation, unless you do it like R'lhor followers do (burning) or Drowned God followers do (drowning).

[SeanF]

I'm not sure that human sacrifice is even considered wrong, in-universe.  It seems a widespread cultural practice.  

As you point out, no one in-universe would question capital punishment.

[Finley McLeod]

On 10/8/2020 at 6:22 PM, Barbrey Dustin said:

I think the Starks practicing blood sacrifice to weirwoods was a regular thing.  Viewed from the lens of the current story's time period, yeah, they would be horrible people.  

The First Men are a brutal people.  Winterfell was built by bloody hands.  Bran is being made aware of the Stark's terrible sins of the past. 

[CamiloRP]

10 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

The First Men are a brutal people.  Winterfell was built by bloody hands.  Bran is being made aware of the Stark's terrible sins of the past. 

Hey buddie, please read, everything you said here has already been disprove, unless you have any evidence.

 

On 3/20/2021 at 11:46 PM, CamiloRP said:

@Wisconsin 

I'm gonna repeat  abunch of things I already said, as well as some things others said, but you completely ignored. I hope you don't ignore me this time.

 

1. It's likely that the people in the vision weren't Starks: 

First of all, a list of all the things Bran sees through the tree:

Ned

What's likely Lyanna and Benjen

A pregnant woman, we get no clue who she is, but likely she isn't a Stark by blood, just the mother/wife of a Stark 

A slender girl kissing a young knight as tall as Hodor, now this is likely Dunk and some girl, but this girl likely isn't a Stark, so no Stark in this vision.

"A dark eyed youth' snapping branches from the trees and making arrows out of them. The dark eyes point at him not being a Stark, as Starks have grey eyes, tho this doesn't mean it's impossible for him to be a Stark, but most likely he isn't. I doubt an old gods worshiping Stark would cut branches from a weirwood, some freefolk do so, but still, it feels off.

Bran then sees a bunch of Stark lords/kings he recognizes from the crypts, and the way in which they are dressed speaks of a long time ago.

Then he sees the sacrifice.

So rather than a Stark family album(like you claimed it was) it's a film about everything that happened in front of WF's weirwood. Stark or not.

In the description he gives of the final vision he describes two persons:

A bearded man and a white haired woman. Nothing in their appearance points to any of them being a Stark, and Bran doesn't recognize any of them even tho he was just recognizing lords (how good are WF sculptors, right?)

But the most important thing he describes is a bronze sickle, this points to a period before the Andal invasion.

Now, the truth is that we don't know when House Stark was founded, but  we know the heart tree is older than Winterfell, and if WF and House Stark where created around the same time, it follows that the tree is older than House Stark. Also, having those hot springs around would make it quite a desirable place, first men groups would gather there. Also, as the passage is written, we get a sense that this is the last thing Bran sees, meaning it's likely the first thing of note to happen in front of the heart tree, which would be something that happened when the tree was first growing, as first men culture is built around these trees (but it was after the pact). With all of this combined we get that the event happened  a long time before the building of Winterfell and the creation of House Stark.

Of course I could be dead wrong, tho thinking about it has convinced me more in that direction, but all I'm saying is we have no reason to take it as a certainty that the people in the vision where Starks.

 

2. It's likely that they were executing a criminal or rival.

The fact that the man is imprisoned points to the fact that he's a criminal or a rival.

There's also this bit from TWOIAF, The North:

  On 10/28/2020 at 9:33 AM, kissdbyfire said:

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

Does this make it okay for him to be killed? Through our moderns lens it doesn't, but through the lens of 300 AC Westerosi it does. 

Ned beheads a NW desserter.

Robb beheads Rickard Karstark.

Jon beheads Janos Slynt.

Joffrey/Payne behead Ned.

Joffrey trebuchets the antler men.

Tywin executes the deserting Goldcloaks.

Now for the real horrible ones, from least horrible to more horrible:

Dany/Drogo have the wine merchant dragged by horse to death.

Theon drowns Septon Chayle.

Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur.

Stannis burns Florent, the cannibals and a bunch more people.

The Mountain hacks off Vargo Hoat bit by bit and feeds him to himself.

 

None of this situations are seen as wrong morally, because they were executing criminals and traitors. The Mountain and Stannis are seen as wrong because they are extremely cruel (what does that mean for Dany?) and Robb's is seen as a bad political move. But no one considers the killing of prisoners or traitors to be wrong in modern Westeros. So why would doing the same thousands of years ago would make the 'Starks of old' horrible?

Like I said in an older comment. Saying that the Starks of old were horrible because they executed people is like saying that Garlan Tyrell is an asshole because he benefits from feudalism. Yes, you're right, but in the context it means nothing.

 

3. There's almost no way that Rickard sacrificed people to the Weirwood tree

First of all, I will direct you again to that TWOIAF quote:

  Quote

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

 

Second of all Ned was 16 when his father and brother died, in contrast, Bran sees Ned execute Gared when he was Eight. So he would know about the family tradition if there was one. Also, there'd be rumors about the Stark as there is about the Boltons flaying people. So if the Starks ever partook in it (which is likely) I'd say the stop before the conquest at the very minimum, probably a lot earlier.

But also, that wouldn't make them horrible even for current Westeros, killing captives is really common, offering them to Gods doesn't change the situation, unless you do it like R'lhor followers do (burning) or Drowned God followers do (drowning).

 

[Walter White]

Killing a hostage isn't that horrible in their soceioty.

[Moiraine Sedai]

12 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

The First Men are a brutal people.  Winterfell was built by bloody hands.  Bran is being made aware of the Stark's terrible sins of the past. 

Bran's eyes need to open so he doesn't have this illusion that the Starks are good people.  But there is a darker purpose.  Those scenes were his family through the centuries.  Bran will regress and become as savage as the founding members of his family.  

[CamiloRP]

38 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Bran's eyes need to open so he doesn't have this illusion that the Starks are good people.  But there is a darker purpose.  Those scenes were his family through the centuries.  Bran will regress and become as savage as the founding members of his family.  

People can't be savage, only animals can, that statement is discriminatory.

And again, please read, try to argue, not jus repeat stuff with out a shred of evidence, or else people will know how baseless your view is. 

I'll quote it again for you, tho of course, you have no arguments and won't reply.

 

On 3/20/2021 at 11:46 PM, CamiloRP said:

@Wisconsin 

I'm gonna repeat  abunch of things I already said, as well as some things others said, but you completely ignored. I hope you don't ignore me this time.

 

1. It's likely that the people in the vision weren't Starks: 

First of all, a list of all the things Bran sees through the tree:

Ned

What's likely Lyanna and Benjen

A pregnant woman, we get no clue who she is, but likely she isn't a Stark by blood, just the mother/wife of a Stark 

A slender girl kissing a young knight as tall as Hodor, now this is likely Dunk and some girl, but this girl likely isn't a Stark, so no Stark in this vision.

"A dark eyed youth' snapping branches from the trees and making arrows out of them. The dark eyes point at him not being a Stark, as Starks have grey eyes, tho this doesn't mean it's impossible for him to be a Stark, but most likely he isn't. I doubt an old gods worshiping Stark would cut branches from a weirwood, some freefolk do so, but still, it feels off.

Bran then sees a bunch of Stark lords/kings he recognizes from the crypts, and the way in which they are dressed speaks of a long time ago.

Then he sees the sacrifice.

So rather than a Stark family album(like you claimed it was) it's a film about everything that happened in front of WF's weirwood. Stark or not.

In the description he gives of the final vision he describes two persons:

A bearded man and a white haired woman. Nothing in their appearance points to any of them being a Stark, and Bran doesn't recognize any of them even tho he was just recognizing lords (how good are WF sculptors, right?)

But the most important thing he describes is a bronze sickle, this points to a period before the Andal invasion.

Now, the truth is that we don't know when House Stark was founded, but  we know the heart tree is older than Winterfell, and if WF and House Stark where created around the same time, it follows that the tree is older than House Stark. Also, having those hot springs around would make it quite a desirable place, first men groups would gather there. Also, as the passage is written, we get a sense that this is the last thing Bran sees, meaning it's likely the first thing of note to happen in front of the heart tree, which would be something that happened when the tree was first growing, as first men culture is built around these trees (but it was after the pact). With all of this combined we get that the event happened  a long time before the building of Winterfell and the creation of House Stark.

Of course I could be dead wrong, tho thinking about it has convinced me more in that direction, but all I'm saying is we have no reason to take it as a certainty that the people in the vision where Starks.

 

2. It's likely that they were executing a criminal or rival.

The fact that the man is imprisoned points to the fact that he's a criminal or a rival.

There's also this bit from TWOIAF, The North:

  On 10/28/2020 at 9:33 AM, kissdbyfire said:

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

Does this make it okay for him to be killed? Through our moderns lens it doesn't, but through the lens of 300 AC Westerosi it does. 

Ned beheads a NW desserter.

Robb beheads Rickard Karstark.

Jon beheads Janos Slynt.

Joffrey/Payne behead Ned.

Joffrey trebuchets the antler men.

Tywin executes the deserting Goldcloaks.

Now for the real horrible ones, from least horrible to more horrible:

Dany/Drogo have the wine merchant dragged by horse to death.

Theon drowns Septon Chayle.

Dany burns Mirri Maz Duur.

Stannis burns Florent, the cannibals and a bunch more people.

The Mountain hacks off Vargo Hoat bit by bit and feeds him to himself.

 

None of this situations are seen as wrong morally, because they were executing criminals and traitors. The Mountain and Stannis are seen as wrong because they are extremely cruel (what does that mean for Dany?) and Robb's is seen as a bad political move. But no one considers the killing of prisoners or traitors to be wrong in modern Westeros. So why would doing the same thousands of years ago would make the 'Starks of old' horrible?

Like I said in an older comment. Saying that the Starks of old were horrible because they executed people is like saying that Garlan Tyrell is an asshole because he benefits from feudalism. Yes, you're right, but in the context it means nothing.

 

3. There's almost no way that Rickard sacrificed people to the Weirwood tree

First of all, I will direct you again to that TWOIAF quote:

  Quote

“The men of the North are descendants of the First Men, their blood only slowly mingling with that of the Andals who overwhelmed the kingdoms to the south. The original language of the First Men—known as the Old Tongue—has come to be spoken only by the wildlings beyond the Wall, and many other aspects of their culture have faded away (such as the grislier aspects of their worship, when criminals and traitors were killed and their bodies and entrails hung from the branches of weirwoods.)”

 

Second of all Ned was 16 when his father and brother died, in contrast, Bran sees Ned execute Gared when he was Eight. So he would know about the family tradition if there was one. Also, there'd be rumors about the Stark as there is about the Boltons flaying people. So if the Starks ever partook in it (which is likely) I'd say the stop before the conquest at the very minimum, probably a lot earlier.

But also, that wouldn't make them horrible even for current Westeros, killing captives is really common, offering them to Gods doesn't change the situation, unless you do it like R'lhor followers do (burning) or Drowned God followers do (drowning).

 

[Bowen 747]

On 10/8/2020 at 6:08 PM, Rondo said:

Bran was given a vision of one of his ancestors murdering a captive and feeding his blood to the Stark's weirwood tree.   So the Starks of old were practitioners of human sacrifice.  Is it possible that this practice only ended with the deaths of Rickard and Brandon Stark?  Ned was too young to inherit the family tradition.  

It was a horrible practice. 

[CamiloRP]

26 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

It was a horrible practice. 

Agreed, a horrible practice everyone in Westeros keeps, like Stannis, Balon, Ned, Robert, Tywin, Joffrey, Daenerys...