CamiloRP Posted March 17, 2021 Author Share Posted March 17, 2021 5 hours ago, Jaenara Belarys said: Who said anything about a nuclear holocaust? Just asking. Nuclear holocausts, well, generally involve nuclear bombs and missiles. Dragons are WMDs, killing thousands of people with dragonbreath is no different than killing them with nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron the Daring Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 Yea, sure. Imagine someone going to war and eventually dying. Then, as the war's over, the peasant's family asks the others who survived how he died. And the dead guy's buddy is like "Yoo sis, he died in dragonfire", and his wife's like "Duh, that it matters to me or her if he was stabbed or burned" and the veteran guy's like "It's really whatever, man". And the little chat is fucking over because it matters nothing at all. Even surviving being burned is drastically better than losing limbs. Edit: What I meant is that it really doesn't matter how you die on the battlefield. You just died and that's the end of your round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 17, 2021 Share Posted March 17, 2021 On 3/15/2021 at 9:57 PM, Nathan Stark said: The point is that she was treated like livestock instead of like a human being Viserys viewed it that way, but the Dothraki don't. Livestock can be sold from one buyer to the next, and a man may one more than one. Quote And while Drogo did come to love and respect Dany after a fashion, he could just as easily have treated her like actual property if he had wanted to. Dothraki law would not permit him to sell her to someone else. In fact, she can never marry anyone else per that law. On 3/16/2021 at 2:41 AM, SeanF said: One can argue that she was treated similarly to many aristocratic women in this world This I agree with. The distinctive thing is that there was an unusually large cultural gap and wrangling for a military alliance played a much larger role than something like interpersonal compatibility. Quote Many of the knights and lords of Westeros are essentially Dothraki who possess coats of arms. Mancur Olson would emphasize the distinction between the stationary vs roving bandit. And for purposes of this discussion we should note that the Dothraki believe in capturing & selling slaves, while the Westerosi prohibit slavery and instead rely on a class of peasantry. Quote The Others, I'm sure, have real grievances against humans. We haven't gotten any indication of that. On 3/16/2021 at 10:11 AM, Mourning Star said: First, there is the tiny sample size all involving men intent on violence. The masses of wildlings were afraid of them and all fleeing south of the Wall. Including women & children. Quote Second, there is an easy parallel to draw to dragons, in being more of a force of nature than evil aggressor. The Others wield swords, can ride beasts, and laughed before killing Waymar. They don't appear to eat, and so kill to create wights rather than to survive. Quote They even allowed his companion to escape. They used Waymar to kill Will. Quote Someone has to be the bigger person to break a cycle of vengeance. If the other person keeps attacking you, then you haven't actually stopped the violence. Quote See Ned and Cersei. Ned was actually wrong to warn Cersei rather than seizing her. He failed to anticipate that she would fight back rather than flee. Quote There is a difference between enforcing the law and a personal vendetta. What is the "personal vendetta" in Others vs living humans? Quote First, you learn their language How are you going to do that if they kill any humans they encounter? Quote The arguments you are making could all be made about the Wildlings for instance All of Westeros, including most wildlings, speak the same language. Even though that doesn't make much sense. Quote Taking it even further it is the sort of argument made by colonists about natives, and I would say is pretty categorically recognized as immoral. European colonials frequently did establish a relationship with their subjects which in some ways resembles that between the Westerosi aristocracy and their subjects. Because they're all humans. The relationship between humans and other species of animal is entirely different. We don't try to make peace with mosquitos, malaria or man-eating tigers. Quote And again, doing the right thing in no way guarantees a positive outcome for you personally, nor does it mean others will certainly do the right thing If doing something is guaranteed to result in a negative outcome, I wouldn't say it's likely that I or anyone else will do it! On 3/16/2021 at 10:25 AM, Mourning Star said: The argument for the Iraq war was that WMDs posed an existential threat to the US If Iraq had actually nuked the US, those arguments would have been valid. Quote The argument for Vietnam was that the spread of Communism was an existential threat to the US. That should really be combined with some version of the domino theory. Quote Both the duel with Waymar and interactions with Craster point to more complex motivations. What "complex motivations"? And child sacrifices hardly paint them as nuanced. Quote It is absolutly worth finding out what they want! How can anyone do that without getting killed by them? Quote Also, trying to communicate and striving for peace isn't even the same as turning the other cheek I agree, but this is a situation where peace doesn't apply. Just as pacifist Bryan Caplan didn't try to apply it to his "war" against the hornets on his property. On 3/16/2021 at 10:33 AM, Mourning Star said: An individual under direct personal threat defending themselves is not comparable to large scale war. There was an army of the undead pushing the wildlings south and attacking the Fist of the First Men. It's not a matter for individual self-defense. On 3/16/2021 at 11:13 AM, Mourning Star said: It was absolutely Waymar who sought out the Others there, beyond the wall He was doing recon on wildlings and trying to determine what killed them, not seeking out Others. On 3/16/2021 at 11:23 AM, Mourning Star said: he hunted down the party despite being beyond the wall What do you mean "despite"? Ranging beyond the wall was his explicit task. On 3/16/2021 at 11:27 AM, Mourning Star said: He shouldn't have been there at all. Of course he should have. He was assigned a ranging, and the rangers of the watch have been doing that for centuries. Quote I think it's wild to assume the only answer is obliteration of us or them. It's not "wild", it's in the pitch letter that they hate all life. On 3/16/2021 at 11:30 AM, Mourning Star said: Do they even have sheaths? A sword-wielder willing to put down their sword would probably have one. On 3/16/2021 at 11:47 AM, Mourning Star said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan I know lots of southerners dislike his waging of total war, but it ultimately made peace arrive sooner. On 3/16/2021 at 11:51 AM, Jaenara Belarys said: The Native Americans attacked settlers since the settlers were effectively breaking and entering, which is understandable. Many of the natives were warlike before any Europeans arrived, and waged war for the same reasons they always had (in addition to the breaking & entering analogy). On 3/16/2021 at 12:46 PM, Mourning Star said: Why would the Other do this? Lowering your sword is a means of communicating to someone that you're not about to kill them. Quote Doing the right thing isn't conditional on the behavior of others. A game theorist would disagree. And game theory is what evolutionary biologists use to analyze hawk vs dove strategies. A strategy which is not evolutionarily stable is doomed. On 3/16/2021 at 5:55 PM, CamiloRP said: The europeans knew nothing of the Americans when they first showed up, so was either group exterminating the other okay in that situation? To be fair, most of the deaths were due to infectious diseases the natives had no defense against. Quote specially considering all the europeans wanted to do was kill rape and steal... Hey, they tried to enslave the natives at first too! That didn't work because of the aforementioned deaths due to disease. Quote they learnt too But they kept fighting until the natives were too weak to continue. 8 hours ago, CamiloRP said: What I proposed was like the fighting between Blackwood and Bracken. No one is innocent, both are guilty, but no particular group is 'evil' or worthy of complete extermination. But that's not what we see. There has been no fighting at all for centuries, because the Others have been gone. Then out of nowhere they appear and start attacking humans. Quote It hasn't been that way with nothing else in the series, or any of the other things he wrote, but if you say so... Plenty of the villains in this series have been completely irredeemable & one-dimensional. And those are the humans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 1 hour ago, CamiloRP said: So, you mean like most characters throughout the story using the phrase 'Other's take you' as a curse, children hearing stories of the monstrous Others in their beds, or Jon, Sam, Stannis, Melissandre, or anyone in the Wall, Stannis side or any member of the Freefolk thinking the Others need to be stopped, preparing to kill them, thinking them the true threat, the only war that matters, etc? How is that not enough set up? Being taken by the Others still isn't a good thing: it means coming back as a murderous wight. The surprise revelation is that the children's stories that Tyrion & most maesters dismiss (and even Ned executed Gared rather than taking heed) turn out to be real, just as magic is. Stannis actually had his face-turn when he sailed North to defend the Wall. GRRM himself has said this makes him righteous. Quote Like the characters, we 'grew up' listening storie of how evil the Others are No, we saw them kill Waymar and then turn him into a wight to kill Will with before hearing such stories. Quote But if you are preparing for an incoming attack, specially one you'll most likely lose, trying to negotiate is a great idea. Normally the aggressive side sends an envoy to make demands that the defender can respond to. The Others never do anything remotely close to that, they just kill whoever they come across. Quote He's doing everything he can to stop them, to kill them, you are being disingenuous. He actually puts some wights in ice cells to study them, rather than immediately destroying them all. Quote I'm saying Humans and Others likely hate/fear eachother We never see Others act afraid of humans. They laugh at Waymar before killing him. Quote when most wars are eneded with negotiations Frequently when it's clear one side has won and the other has lost. 1 hour ago, CamiloRP said: Read any GRRM work, literally anything he wrote. He doesn't do 'fully evil'. And if he presents something as one way in the beginning, it's likely going to be different by the end. Gregor and the Mountain's Men (barring Shitmouth maybe), the Brave Companions, Joffrey, Ramsay, the warlocks of Qarth, the slavers, Euron... how long should I keep going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted March 18, 2021 Author Share Posted March 18, 2021 52 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said: Yea, sure. Imagine someone going to war and eventually dying. Then, as the war's over, the peasant's family asks the others who survived how he died. And the dead guy's buddy is like "Yoo sis, he died in dragonfire", and his wife's like "Duh, that it matters to me or her if he was stabbed or burned" and the veteran guy's like "It's really whatever, man". And the little chat is fucking over because it matters nothing at all. Even surviving being burned is drastically better than losing limbs. Edit: What I meant is that it really doesn't matter how you die on the battlefield. You just died and that's the end of your round. Yeah, I agree, I never said it was worse than an axe to the head or something like that, tho I think that I would personally chose the axe, but morally it's the same, it's just that it's alike to a nuclear attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted March 18, 2021 Author Share Posted March 18, 2021 44 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: To be fair, most of the deaths were due to infectious diseases the natives had no defense against. I meant hipotetically, if either group decided to absolutely exterminate the other. Quote But that's not what we see. There has been no fighting at all for centuries, because the Others have been gone. Then out of nowhere they appear and start attacking humans. Yes, but their centuries old war was memorable enough for the humans, and the humans won, so imagine how memorable it must've been for the Others. If the humans still remember it, still tell horror stories about it, why couldn't the Others? Quote Plenty of the villains in this series have been completely irredeemable & one-dimensional. And those are the humans! One dimensional no, one dimensional means that only one of the three aspects (dimensions) of a character is developed, those dimensions being physical, sociological and psychological, I think most characters are developed as three dimensional, tho some minor character can be the exception. Irredeemable, yes, but I wasn't arguing that, I said that no one is fully evil, specially not a whole race. 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Being taken by the Others still isn't a good thing: it means coming back as a murderous wight. The surprise revelation is that the children's stories that Tyrion & most maesters dismiss (and even Ned executed Gared rather than taking heed) turn out to be real, just as magic is. Stannis actually had his face-turn when he sailed North to defend the Wall. GRRM himself has said this makes him righteous. Yes, it's bad, that wasn't my point, but it is an example of people from Westeros knowing about the Others and thinking they are evil, even before they know they actually exist, which is what I was talking about. Quote The surprise revelation is that the children's stories that Tyrion & most maesters dismiss (and even Ned executed Gared rather than taking heed) turn out to be real, just as magic is. This is not a surprise revelation, as we learn they are real before we are presented with them not being real. Something you point out in the next paragraph. Quote No, we saw them kill Waymar and then turn him into a wight to kill Will with before hearing such stories. Yes, but seeing a few individuals do an evil act shouldn't be enough to think all members of that group are evil, but that is reinforced with the many, many stories. Quote Normally the aggressive side sends an envoy to make demands that the defender can respond to. The Others never do anything remotely close to that, they just kill whoever they come across. Yes, something that, I repeat, the Humans would if things where reversed. Both sides are wrong, it's what I'm repeating since the beginning of this. Imagine you're a Westerosi warrior, maybe even a member of the NW, you grew up with tales of how evil the Others are. You then spot an Other, they don't spot you, you think you can kill them. Of course you do. It's either that or run away, the two things any Westerosi would do in that same situation. Then you are ranging with a few thousand other humans and encounter a few hundred Others. Of course you attack, if you think you can beat them. So why would the Others act any differently? Quote He actually puts some wights in ice cells to study them, rather than immediately destroying them all. That's true. Quote We never see Others act afraid of humans. They laugh at Waymar before killing him. We barely see them at all, and they knew Waymar couldn't hurt them, but they lost the war before, they presumably know this, which would make them fear at least some humans. Quote Frequently when it's clear one side has won and the other has lost. Yep, still talking and negotiating is necessary. Quote Gregor and the Mountain's Men (barring Shitmouth maybe), the Brave Companions, Joffrey, Ramsay, the warlocks of Qarth, the slavers, Euron... how long should I keep going? They have humanizing aspects, or in the case of groups, humanizing members. Gregor was constantly under pain, and had little tools to deal with anything, his only tool was violence. His men, again, as a group there's Shitmouth, but they aren't as prevalent to be relevant or to be fully flesehd out. Same with the BC. Joffrey had many humanizing aspects,t he desperate need of attention from his father, the awful way in which he was raised, the fact that he's just a kid, etc, etc. Ramsay is clearly insecure about his bastardry. The Slavers have many members that are 'better' than the rest, and therefore, not fully evil. I won't speak for the Warlocks or Euron bc they are misterious in their desires and such. But in any case, none of this villains is both close to the importance of the Others as an antagonist and has significant 'screentime', so it's not the same. Also, none of this villains is an entire race constructed as naturally evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 11 hours ago, CamiloRP said: Yeah, I agree, I never said it was worse than an axe to the head or something like that, tho I think that I would personally chose the axe, but morally it's the same, it's just that it's alike to a nuclear attack. You miss the blast and the radiation poisoning though. I've always thought a bomber unleashing phosphorous or kerosene would be closer to the mark, like the Highway of Death out of Kuwait City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Viserys viewed it that way, but the Dothraki don't. Livestock can be sold from one buyer to the next, and a man may one more than one. Dothraki law would not permit him to sell her to someone else. In fact, she can never marry anyone else per that law. This I agree with. The distinctive thing is that there was an unusually large cultural gap and wrangling for a military alliance played a much larger role than something like interpersonal compatibility. I don't think there's anything that would prevent a Dothraki Khal from selling or killing his wife if he grew tired of her, or else just giving her to his blood riders to enjoy. A Khal's widow enters the Dosh Khaleen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted March 18, 2021 Author Share Posted March 18, 2021 2 hours ago, SeanF said: You miss the blast and the radiation poisoning though. I've always thought a bomber unleashing phosphorous or kerosene would be closer to the mark, like the Highway of Death out of Kuwait City. Yes, it's not the same, the similarity is both cases being a weapon that can kill thousands of people at once with little to no effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Star Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We haven't gotten any indication of that. I think we have, Leaf's analogy of the woods. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The masses of wildlings were afraid of them and all fleeing south of the Wall. Including women & children. And yet the Others attacked the Fist of the First Men in front of the Wildlings... curious no? 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The Others wield swords, can ride beasts, and laughed before killing Waymar. They don't appear to eat, and so kill to create wights rather than to survive. How would we know if they eat? Sounds like wild speculation, which, don't get me wrong I do all the time, it's just not convincing without some sort of support from the text. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They used Waymar to kill Will. But, not Gared. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If the other person keeps attacking you, then you haven't actually stopped the violence. Absolutely true! I'm not saying the use of force is never warranted, or that self defense isn't ok. What I'm saying is that the right thing to do is to try to end violence, and one accomplishes that by trying to understand and speak to the other side. Three guys ambushed in the woods is not the same as an organized group going to war. And maybe there isn't a peaceful solution, but you won't know unless you try. Analogies comparing nations going to war to school yard fights are frankly extremely poor in all situations. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Ned was actually wrong to warn Cersei rather than seizing her. He failed to anticipate that she would fight back rather than flee. No, here I disagree wholeheartedly. Mercy is never a mistake. His mistake was trusting Littlefinger (and even more so Cat's error in trusting Littlefinger), not showing Cersei mercy. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How are you going to do that if they kill any humans they encounter? In all likelihood, by learning from the Singers or the Green Men. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: All of Westeros, including most wildlings, speak the same language. Even though that doesn't make much sense. And they still don't get along... Language is an issue not the only issue. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: European colonials frequently did establish a relationship with their subjects which in some ways resembles that between the Westerosi aristocracy and their subjects. Because they're all humans. The relationship between humans and other species of animal is entirely different. We don't try to make peace with mosquitos, malaria or man-eating tigers. I don't think the Others are animals, and their use of weapons, clothing, and language are evidence of this. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If doing something is guaranteed to result in a negative outcome, I wouldn't say it's likely that I or anyone else will do it! I assume you are kidding, but obviously no guarantee of a positive outcome is not the same as guaranteeing a negative outcome. And obviously we won't all choose the right thing over self interest every time, especially since it is so often so hard to know what is right. "You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life." He glanced around the cell. "When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why." 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If Iraq had actually nuked the US, those arguments would have been valid. But they didn't, the US is the only nation to ever nuke anyone. And humans are the only race in Westeros to conquer it and force other races into extinction or exile. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That should really be combined with some version of the domino theory. Probably so, and more I'm sure... There was obviously a lot going on, and things look different in hindsight. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to learn from our mistakes rather than repeating them. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What "complex motivations"? And child sacrifices hardly paint them as nuanced. What happens to the babies? How do we know if it is nuanced or not? It seems to me that the assumption that the Others are mindless evil is just that, an assumption. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How can anyone do that without getting killed by them? Well Bran seems in a perfect position to do so, with access to the Singers (who likely speak there languages) and memories of the past. Nobody said it would be easy. Starting in the libraries is a good idea, then searching out the children like the Last hero did. (Note: I think it is no coincidence that the library in Winterfell was burned at the series beginning.) There is also the Isle of the Green Men in the God's Eye. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I agree, but this is a situation where peace doesn't apply. Just as pacifist Bryan Caplan didn't try to apply it to his "war" against the hornets on his property. I disagree. Nothing about the Others gives me the impression of unthinking animals. People point to their swords as indicative of violence, and sure they are tools of war, but the fact that they use tools and wear clothing means they must be fairly developed and not at all irrational animals by any stretch. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There was an army of the undead pushing the wildlings south and attacking the Fist of the First Men. It's not a matter for individual self-defense. This isn't so clear. The undead and Others attacked the Fist in front of the Wildlings. If they had just been chasing them then the Night's Watch would have encountered the Wildlings first. It seems far more like they were being herded than just hunted. I would even question whether Mance gathers the Wildlings to save them from the Others, or if the Other's threaten the Wildlings so Mance can gather them. ... This point by point thing is a pain and no way to have a discussion. Also, I've gotten tiered of explaining morals to the children here who just seem to want to argue. I do think you have some good points in your post, but still think you err wildly in dismissing the Others as animals unworthy of consideration. I think the far better question to ask, is why they have returned now, and what role Men play in that return. My guess is that we will find human motivations and actions as the root causes behind mankind's woes. Be well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 I SAID for HUMANS. Read it through, plz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Lowering your sword is a means of communicating to someone that you're not about to kill them. Prezackly. Instead, there were 4 or 5 Others with swords drawn. Every Westerosi kid has heard the stories of the Others. Waymar, seeing the Others for the first and last time, is obviously going to attack. This MIGHT have been alleviated is the Others had put down their weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted March 18, 2021 Author Share Posted March 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said: I SAID for HUMANS. Read it through, plz. I read it, I'm just not sure I understood you. Are you saying causing genocide on humans is not okey but in non humans it is? Or are you saying Humans causing genocide is wrong, but non Humans can cause genocide? Because previously you seemed to imply that exterminating the Others was good because "we know nothing about (the Others)" and we "cannot talk to the white walkers". Combining that with your previous statement I assume you were saying that committing genocide against non-humans was okay, which led me to ask my previous question. Which I will rephrase. What makes them not humans? where's the limit? If one day the people of Gondor decided to bring genocide to all Elves or Dwarves or Hobbits, would it be okay, since they aren't humans? What about the Ents, since they are even more distant from humans? Where do you draw the line? Or is genocide always wrong and your post about how we don't understand the Others and don't know them was either pointless, wrong or I misinterpreted it? Also, sidenote, but in that post you said: "The Native Americans attacked settlers since the settlers were effectively breaking and entering, which is understandable. The white walkers just want to wipe out the human race." Which, first, we don't know that the Others want to wipe out the human race. Second, for all we know, North of the Wall is Other territory and both the NW and the Freefolk are trespassing. And third, even if they weren't, that would put the Others as the Europeans in that analogy, once they cross the Wall (unless they never do, which would mean war was even more pointless). So, if the Americans would've killed every European and then burn Europe to the ground, would that make it okay? since they where trespassing, didn't know anything about them, and couldn't even talk to each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamiloRP Posted March 18, 2021 Author Share Posted March 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Jaenara Belarys said: Prezackly. Instead, there were 4 or 5 Others with swords drawn. Every Westerosi kid has heard the stories of the Others. Waymar, seeing the Others for the first and last time, is obviously going to attack. This MIGHT have been alleviated is the Others had put down their weapons. Why would them? What reason do they have to think of humans as anything else than the species that nearly brought their extinction in the Long Night? I ask again, if Waymar would've seen the Others before they saw him, and he thought he had a chance of defeating them, would he not just attack right away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 1 minute ago, CamiloRP said: Are you saying causing genocide on humans is not okey but in non humans it is? Or are you saying Humans causing genocide is wrong, but non Humans can cause genocide? No human should ever, ever commit genocide on other humans. If the non humans are sentient ( like theoretical aliens), and you know that they will never stop, never make a peace then maybe, maybe you should consider using the option of last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 1 minute ago, CamiloRP said: I ask again, if Waymar would've seen the Others before they saw him, and he thought he had a chance of defeating them, would he not just attack right away? Considering what we have seen of Waymar's personality, he probably would've attacked. But it didn't happen that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said: Second, for all we know, North of the Wall is Other territory and both the NW and the Freefolk are trespassing The free folk have lived beyond the Wall for presumably hundreds, maybe thousands of years. If this is true, the attacks from the WWs would have escalated a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 17 hours ago, CamiloRP said: Dragons are WMDs, killing thousands of people with dragonbreath is no different than killing them with nukes. They kill on the orders of their riders. That's like blaming the hammer for smashing in somebody's head rather than the person who swung the hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 51 minutes ago, Mourning Star said: In all likelihood, by learning from the Singers or the Green Men. You heard Maester Luwin. People know that the COTF existed, but they think that the COTF are extinct. And also, how do you talk to somebody you can't find? In addition, we don't know without a doubt that the singers speak the same True Tongue as the WW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaenara Belarys Posted March 18, 2021 Share Posted March 18, 2021 And it would to hard to get to the God's Eye lake. You'd have to make your way through hordes of Bolton troops, get past the Freys, get through a war torn riverlands without being killed and finally get to the island in the middle of the lake. That's not exactly 2+2 easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.12ed2018b1b8619e85b47fcee9d9c8c9.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.