Which Dragon Will Die First?

[Craving Peaches]

If the Dragons are used for their intended purpose, war, then it follows that they will be routinely subject to hazardous conditions. Dragons are very hard to kill, yes, but not impossible. The death of Meraxes was obviously very-luck based, but it does show that the dragons are not invulnerable. The right scorpion bolt in the right place at the right time...The chance is very low, but I have no doubt Westerosi forces facing the dragons will seek to imitate what the Dornish did.

Apart from death on the battlefield, we have the Faceless Men operative 'Pate' quite likely looking for the book 'Blood and Fire', also called 'The Death of Dragons'. This is an ominous title. It is implied that the Faceless Men had a role in causing the Doom. I don't think they as an organisation would be particularly pleased with the rebirth of dragons if this is the case, seeing them as the tools the cruel Valyrians used to subjugate countless people and condemn them to a life of slavery, however Daenerys' anti-slavery stance might give them pause.

There is also possible foreshadowing with the game of Cyvasse that Tyrion and F/Aegon play, that F/Aegon will gain a dragon only to loose it, but that could just mean someone would steal it rather than the dragon dying.

Finally, from a narrative standpoint, I think that  all of the dragons must die by the end of the series, if the Others are beaten/dead, in order to 'balance' the ice and fire magic.

As far as the dragons go, Drogon is the largest and seemingly the most aggressive, which would make him the most obvious target, but he also seems to be the strongest. However, he was nearly killed by the animal handler Harghaz with a spear in Daznak's pit.

Viserion and Rhaegal are smaller than Drogon and so harder to hit, but being chained up for a period of time and having not grown as large as Drogon they may be weaker.

Which dragon will die first?

[Daeron the Daring]

Arrax. 

Oops, wrong thread.

[Craving Peaches]

14 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Arrax. 

Oops, wrong thread.

Well there was a significant size difference. Drogon is bigger than the others but I don't think by the same margin.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

Well there was a significant size difference. Drogon is bigger than the others but I don't think by the same margin.

Well, I always had the humble opinion that dragons going extinct once again is lame, but I also think the Others being wiped out is lame too.

So, I may not be the best opinion, but I wouldn't mind dragons not dying. 

Just let them direwolves and dragons live their happy life, I'm sure they don't mean no harm. 

But yea, just please rid me of Drogon, that name reminds me of someone I really don't want to. The sole reason I want Daenerys to fall in love with someone is that I wouldn't have to hear that name again from her.

Not that Winds is ever coming out.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Daeron the Daring said:

Well, I always had the humble opinion that dragons going extinct once again is lame, but I also think the Others being wiped out is lame too.

So, I may not be the best opinion, but I wouldn't mind dragons not dying. 

Just let them direwolves and dragons live their happy life, I'm sure they don't mean no harm.

I am not a big fan of the dragons but I can tolerate them remaining if the Others remain/aren't really defeated as well. But I will be very dissatisfied if the Others are gone but the dragons remain. The dragons and direwolfs on their own are essentially wild animals, but the dragons have implied magic-bio-engineering that I don't like.

4 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

But yea, just please rid me of Drogon, that name reminds me of someone I really don't want to. The sole reason I want Daenerys to fall in love with someone is that I wouldn't have to hear that name again from her.

So you think he will be the first to die? I had an idea that the 'three treasons' could actually refer to three betrayals that Daenerys herself will commit, which result in the death of her dragons, in which case Drogon would die when she commits a treason for love.

[Daeron the Daring]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I am not a big fan of the dragons but I can tolerate them remaining if the Others remain/aren't really defeated as well. But I will be very dissatisfied if the Others are gone but the dragons remain. The dragons and direwolfs on their own are essentially wild animals, but the dragons have implied magic-bio-engineering that I don't like.

Well, for one, I don't think the Others will be done for by the end of the story, or if they have to be. 

I know the good old argument of dragons being magically engineered creatures, but I guess they are living, breathing and maybe thinking creatures nonetheless. I assume people didn't just one day had the ability to skinchange animals or ride dragons either, magic had to have been involved, but that doesn't make anyone less of a person.

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

So you think he will be the first to die? I had an idea that the 'three treasons' could actually refer to three betrayals that Daenerys herself will commit, which result in the death of her dragons, in which case Drogon would die when she commits a treason for love.

Mmm, no not really. I would say whichever dragon Jon will ride is gonna almost definitely die. But this comes from me thinking Jon doesn't survive the end of the tale either, dying a hero's death or something.

But we can never be certain. Neither is George. Even he drops things he tought he'd carry on until the end, but he basically confirmed the opposite in a recent blogpost. (Basically retconning his previous claim that he know his ending for sure, at least for the most important section of it)

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I assume people didn't just one day had the ability to skinchange animals or ride dragons either, magic had to have been involved, but that doesn't make anyone less of a person.

It just bothers me a bit that the dragons (at least the Targaryen ones) were selectively bread/created for war. I don't mind the magic but the intent with the dragons seems purely destructive, whereas theoretically Greenseeing and Skinchanging could be used for other purposes. I mean you could just fly the dragon around and not attack anyone but no one does that. The magic powers all invite misuse but at least with Skinchanging and possibly Greenseeing there seems to be a loosely agreed upon set of rules. And so far it seems the destructive potential for both of those things is much less than dragons, though this may change.

[Craving Peaches]

10 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

maybe thinking creatures

This confuses me because I got that impression but whenever I read about them in F&B they almost always just instantly obeyed their riders commands, whether it was burning people alive or eating them, they just felt like mindless thralls to the rider. There are a few exceptions like Balerion and Aerea but mostly it seemed like they didn't have free will when it came to obeying their rider. I don't expect them to have a moral compass but things like Rhaenyra being eaten, I just wonder if the dragon would at least hesitate. 

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

It just bothers me a bit that the dragons (at least the Targaryen ones) were selectively bread/created for war. I don't mind the magic but the intent with the dragons seems purely destructive, whereas theoretically Greenseeing and Skinchanging could be used for other purposes. I mean you could just fly the dragon around and not attack anyone but no one does that. The magic powers all invite misuse but at least with Skinchanging and possibly Greenseeing there seems to be a loosely agreed upon set of rules. And so far it seems the destructive potential for both of those things is much less than dragons, though this may change.

Well ,considering how Varamyr was taking his shot with the spearwife, I assume the limits of greenseeing are the stars on the night sky, rewriting the future and the past, spreading your own control over whatever you want. Targaryens control dragons, greenseers may control people, and people may control thousands just as well as dragons. Of there is a pyramid here, skinchangers are definitely on top.

The intent of dragons is actually not primarily destruction, but deterrence. Not to mention that they are pretty fast as well, great for travel (look at pre-Dance messengers) But look at Jaehaerys I threatening Braavos with his dragon. The man ended up shitting his pants, afraid of some facechanger individuals, altough he had multiple dragons and maybe a quarter of a million men to rally.

And, as a matter of fact, they do actually make wars less bloody. (I can elaborate if you want to, I'm just not on the right device to do so currently)

Dragons are very visual and physical magical elements of ASOIAF, but by far not the most overpowered.

[Craving Peaches]

9 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Well ,considering how Varamyr was taking his shot with the spearwife

That was explicitly against the rules of skinchanging though, it was taboo, but no similar taboos exist for dragons.

11 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

The intent of dragons is actually not primarily destruction, but deterrence.

Maybe the Targaryen dragons were more a deterrent but I feel the origin of the dragon species was definitely for destruction, the Valyrians used them to raze cities and conquer, aggressive, attacking actions used to expand the Freehold, not to stop people attacking them. Similarly Aegon used the dragons to attack and conquer the Seven Kingdoms, not to act as a deterrent to stop them attacking Dragonstone. The dragons are only used as a deterrent after they have fulfilled the aggressive and destructive objective of their rider. Only after the authority of the Targaryen regime was assured do they start becoming a deterrent in my opinion. Before that they are attacking people, the Faith etc.

15 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

rewriting the future and the past

I'm not sure about that one. I think it being that OP would detract from the story.

18 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

And, as a matter of fact, they do actually make wars less bloody. (I can elaborate if you want to, I'm just not on the right device to do so currently)

They do with the way the Targaryens have used them in battle but not when they were used by the Valyrians, I don't think. For example the scouring of Lorath. Without dragons battles would be fought and soldiers would die, but I don't think the casualties would equal the death toll caused by exterminating the whole city. At best you could say they made things less bloody for the Valyrians. 

[chrisdaw]

Rhaegal.

Drogon ridden by Dany kills Rhaegal ridden by Aegon, or severely wounds it. Dany wins the Dance.

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

Rhaegal ridden by Aegon

I too thought that Aegon was most likely to ride Rhaegal, the dragon named after his supposed father. Rhaegal's green colouration could fit as F/Aegon is 'green', he's young and naive and untested. I'd be curious to know who you think could ride Viserion.

[TheLastWolf]

7 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'd be curious to know who you think could ride Viserion.

Tyrion 

12 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

There is also possible foreshadowing with the game of Cyvasse that Tyrion and F/Aegon play, that F/Aegon will gain a dragon only to loose it, but that could just mean someone would steal it rather than the dragon dying.

Rhaegal as said above 

7 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Rhaegal.

Drogon ridden by Dany kills Rhaegal ridden by Aegon, or severely wounds it. Dany wins the Dance.

 

12 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Apart from death on the battlefield, we have the Faceless Men operative 'Pate' quite likely looking for the book 'Blood and Fire', also called 'The Death of Dragons'. This is an ominous title. It is implied that the Faceless Men had a role in causing the Doom. I don't think they as an organisation would be particularly pleased with the rebirth of dragons if this is the case, seeing them as the tools the cruel Valyrians used to subjugate countless people and condemn them to a life of slavery, however Daenerys' anti-slavery stance might give them pause.

I think Jaqen is rogue, see my semi crackpot from the other thread

[Craving Peaches]

4 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Tyrion 

I was thinking either him or Jaime (Viserion's colours match that of the Kingsguard), I don't believe in A+J=T (prefer A+J=J+C but I don't really think any of them need to be true) but I think Tyrion could still ride Veserion anyway, I think the story of Nettles taming Sheepstealer is meant to show you don't necessarily need to have the special blood to ride a dragon. Thing is I do want Jon to ride a dragon at some point, so I can see Ser Allister's face when he does so (if Ser Allister is even alive by then). Bowen Marsh's reaction would be nice too but I think he's going to die shortly so wouldn't be around to see it.

4 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

I think Jaqen is rogue, see my semi crackpot from the other thread

Regardless if he's rouge or not, I still think the intentions behind him looking for the book would be the same - he wants a way to kill the dragons if need be. So Jaqen is a danger to the dragons. Though if he is Gerion as you speculate, then perhaps Viserion is safe from him, if Tyrion or Jaime are riding him.

[chrisdaw]

11 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I too thought that Aegon was most likely to ride Rhaegal, the dragon named after his supposed father. Rhaegal's green colouration could fit as F/Aegon is 'green', he's young and naive and untested. I'd be curious to know who you think could ride Viserion.

There may be intermittent riders but yes Tyrion rides Viserion.

The foreshadowing is straight-forward for the dragon riders. The blacks vs greens of the first Dance is foreshadowing the colours of the dragons of the coming dance. Things that are a pain in Dany's ass are given green colouring, like the green grace or her ill fitting slippers.

Viserion is full named and coloured for Tyrion, GRRM was less subtle back when the series was smaller and simpler there was no internet discourse.

 

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Though if he is Gerion as you speculate, then perhaps Viserion is safe from him, if Tyrion or Jaime are riding him.

Some things are thicker than blood...

[Craving Peaches]

31 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Some things are thicker than blood...

But no man is so accursed as the kinslayer!

[Daeron the Daring]

20 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

That was explicitly against the rules of skinchanging though, it was taboo, but no similar taboos exist for dragons.

There are no rules to skinchanging. There are moral standards people held onto, alt least in most cases, if they happen to know them. This is like saying there is a rule to dragonriding, which is not to burn cities. 

20 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Maybe the Targaryen dragons were more a deterrent but I feel the origin of the dragon species was definitely for destruction, the Valyrians used them to raze cities and conquer, aggressive, attacking actions used to expand the Freehold, not to stop people attacking them. Similarly Aegon used the dragons to attack and conquer the Seven Kingdoms, not to act as a deterrent to stop them attacking Dragonstone. The dragons are only used as a deterrent after they have fulfilled the aggressive and destructive objective of their rider. Only after the authority of the Targaryen regime was assured do they start becoming a deterrent in my opinion. Before that they are attacking people, the Faith etc.

This is again irrelevant. What's the origin of skinchangers and greenseers? What was their original purpose? Not to oversee the society they belonged to, and de facto rule as gods above them?

The expansion of the Valyrian Freehold's expansion is pretty petty if we consider it was a thing for 4000 years. And they blew up anyway, so...

As  for dragons in the Targaryen era. In the 150 years they were a thing, they were used for internal conflicts for 5 years, in another five for external ones, and they were the symbol and also tool of authority for the remaining 140. 

20 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm not sure about that one. I think it being that OP would detract from the story.

Well, bad news for you, Hodor's background story is something George gave to the GOT showrunners, so that is at the very least semi-confirmed. It's like RLJ, the odds are not really in favor of anything else. Bran does cripple Hodor in the past there, impacting the past, present, and the future there.

20 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

They do with the way the Targaryens have used them in battle but not when they were used by the Valyrians, I don't think. For example the scouring of Lorath. Without dragons battles would be fought and soldiers would die, but I don't think the casualties would equal the death toll caused by exterminating the whole city. At best you could say they made things less bloody for the Valyrians

Imagine a succession war between Rhaenyra and Aegon II, but without dragons. It wouldn't have ended in two years, and would've flown into a Winter that's probably rivaled by the one we should get in the main story. Imagine if Maegor the Cruel couldn't kill his nephew, Aegon the Uncrowned in dragon battle, and you would've gotten another succession war in the scale of the Dance, the Blackfyre Rebellion, or the WOT5K. Just saying, the Dance, in comparison to the War of the Five Kings, is far less bloodyless. With 15 dragons included.

Dragons gave Westeros the longest periods of internal peace as well as the most prosperous ones. These are facts.

And you can think a different way too. Dragons mean more dragons. Power creates a balance, just as the Velaryons were becoming a balance to the Targaryens. 

And even if you were to kill all magic, injustice would still continue. 

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

There are no rules to skinchanging. There are moral standards people held onto, alt least in most cases, if they happen to know them. This is like saying there is a rule to dragonriding, which is not to burn cities. 

Rules was maybe the wrong word, but a set of taboos for skinchanging exists, there is no similar set of taboos for dragons that I know of.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

This is again irrelevant.

How? My main issue with the Dragons (and the point I thought we were debating) is that they were created for destructive purposes. They may act as deterrents but only after causing a lot of destruction. The original Targaryen dragons only act as deterrents after burning thousands of people alive to secure Targaryen rule. Successive Targaryen dragons are only able to act as deterrents because of the destruction caused by their predecessors. They are not used as deterrents before this, they are used to conquer.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

What's the origin of skinchangers and greenseers? What was their original purpose? Not to oversee the society they belonged to, and de facto rule as gods above them?

 

I don't know for sure because the text doesn't say anything definite on it, at least not in the main series I don't think (I haven't read TWoIaF), I can't see much about it on the Wiki, and I haven't done a lot of 'deep reading' on the subject. I don't doubt that the Greenseers were the elders/leaders but the idea of them ruling doesn't suggest anything inherently destructive to me, unlike with the dragons. We are explicitly told that the Targaryen dragons are bred for war. This is my issue. If it is revealed explicitly in the same way that this is what skinchanging was made for too I will take issue with that as well. But right now dragons come off as worse than skinchanging to me.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Dragons gave Westeros the longest periods of internal peace as well as the most prosperous ones. These are facts.

I'm not trying to dispute this. My issue with the Dragons is that they were created for destructive purposes. They caused a lot of damage in Westeros and Essos before finally giving peace. I'm not sure if the total lives saved would equal the total loss of life caused by dragons, when taking into account all the Valyrians did with them.

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Imagine a succession war between Rhaenyra and Aegon II, but without dragons. It wouldn't have ended in two years, and would've flown into a Winter that's probably rivaled by the one we should get in the main story. Imagine if Maegor the Cruel couldn't kill his nephew, Aegon the Uncrowned in dragon battle, and you would've gotten another succession war in the scale of the Dance, the Blackfyre Rebellion, or the WOT5K. Just saying, the Dance, in comparison to the War of the Five Kings, is far less bloodyless. With 15 dragons included.

I am agreeing with you here, I was talking about how the Valyrians did not use dragons in the same way and did not, I think, reduce the number of lives lost with their use of dragons. The Targaryens defeat armies in the field using their dragons and that's it. The Valyrians do the same but then raze the population centers of the enemy as well.

 

[TheLastWolf]

13 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

But no man is so accursed as the kinslayer!

Not if no one knows other than the author and the reader.

And if the 'no one' was Arya...