Your Unpopular ASOIAF Opinions/Hot Takes

[Craving Peaches]

20 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

I must vigorously disagree. Dragons are one of the primary factors that got me into ASOIAF.

I found them interesting to start with, but I quickly grew bored with them during/after reading Fire and Blood since they were just an instant-win button. Unless they are written more compellingly in the main series I will continue to find them boring.

22 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

They are 7 who are one though. So 7 7 worshipping kingdoms, and 7 kingdoms who are one.

Hmm, you may be right, but still I am not in favour of Targaryen monarchs at the end of the series.

17 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon and his sisters were the good ones, because of the dragon dream about the long night.

Doesn't exist in the books.

17 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

pasdarans

?

I look that up and I get: "(Islamic Revolutionary) Guard (Corps)". Did you mean something else?

[sifth]

There will be no second Dance of the Dragons. People keep saying this is going to happen, but I doubt it.

[KingAerys_II]

There is no Aegon dream that led to the Conquest, so according to you the producer of Hotd invented such an important thing. 

George RR Martin spoke about Aegon dream in an interview, so it is almost canonic

Edited August 12, 2023 by KingAerys_II

[KingAerys_II]

Before the Seven Kingdoms marriages among dornish marches families and stony dornish houses were impossible, the traditions in the Water Gardens, the Ironborns could not steal women all around Westeros as Euron is doing, Targaryen rule is bad, no matter if Daenerys frees thousands of slaves, she is the Mad queen, who was the good one? Renly? His strategy was the starvation of the smallfolk in King's Landing, it's impossible to keep order in Westeros without dragons, every lord with a large army can consider himself king

[Maegor_the_Cool]

2 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

Aegon and his sisters were the good ones, because of the dragon dream about the long night.
The dream stuff is almost canonic,  but the pasdarans start insulting, you must say that Targaryens were bad, Targaryen rule only brought destruction to Westeros, even though the War of the 5 kings are destroying the Riverlands, the North and the Reach, where Euron is doing his things

The War of the Five Kings would never have happened if the Kingdoms were independent

[Maegor_the_Cool]

11 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

16, actually.

I won't take corsairs in the early 2nd century AC as a measure for Cole and Daemon's personal combat ability.

Besides, 16-year-old Cole defeated Daemon in melee.

So does Daemon.

Yeah, I can see why this is a controversial hot take.

Roddy the Ruin seems to be more famous as a horseback combatant than a foot-soldier, so no idea how he would perform if taken out of his element and set up against Criston Cole.

He was 20 years old when he died, a year after the Dance

[SeanF]

Jaime is an engaging character, but there’s no real redemption there.  At heart, he’s an arrogant jerk, who feels bad about some of the bad things he’s done, but he is not truly willing to make amends.

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, Lord Domeric Bolton said:

The War of the Five Kings would never have happened if the Kingdoms were independent

More like the war of the Seven Kingdoms, as they vied for supremacy.

[Maegor_the_Cool]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

More like the war of the Seven Kingdoms, as they vied for supremacy.

Lol no. 

[James Steller]

3 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

 

What makes BR a monster? I ask it especially because you are an avid Stannis fan, and Stannis and BR both have used (or had Mel use) magic and engaged in kinslaying.

Stannis’ use of magic to kill Renly is a messy situation. Renly was usurping him, and was even preparing to kill him. Plus from what I recall, Stannis might not have been fully aware of what happened. And yes, he was bracing himself to sacrifice Edric Storm and he did stand by and let Mel sacrfice Alester Florent, but that is Stanni at his lowest, his most desperate. I will never say that stannis is a saint, and I never have. But he strikes me as a genuinely good man who was manipulated and enthralled to a sinister figure because he was ignorant or desperate or because his worst personality traits were awakened. Book 3 and onward has been his redemption, and he has shown that he is becoming his best self, and a worthy king. Plus he actually seems to have remorse (or at least, conflicted feelings) over the terrible things he sanctioned.

Bloodraven, meanwhile, actively murdered Aenys Blackfyre without any provocation. Aenys wasn’t invading, he asked permission to travel to King’s Landing and put his case before the Great Council. He was no threat whatsoever. Bloodraven could have easily said no and forbade him leave to return to Westeros, but that wasn’t enough for BR. He lured Aenys over with promises of safe conduct, then murdered him and threw his severed head onto the table as an intimidation tactic. Also, this is harder to prove, but I do believe that he genuinely killed off Baelor’s bloodline, possibly in the name of that stupid prophecy. And not once does Bloodraven show any sign that he regrets his deeds. He feels utterly justified in his actions, and gives the bs “greater good” defence, when all he’s really done is defend his own power.

 

2 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, especially because I feel Bloodraven - unlike Stannis - is willing to take full responsibility for his actions and they don't necessarily benefit him

Bloodraven didn’t take responsibility for his actions. He was forced to take responsibility, and again, I refuse to believe it was for altruistic reasons. He had no reason to murder Aenys unless Aenys might have actually stood a chance to be chosen king, and I’d say that Aenys would have deserved a chance if he was that promising. 
 

3 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

I hardly see how this makes them some of the worst people. The worst people have malicious intentions in the first place

 

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Because they eloped, I guess, breaking the rules.

They didn’t just elope. They helped to trigger one of the most devastating wars of the past 300 years.

Did all those people have to die? And it’s not like Rhaegar and Lyanna didn’t know what was going on. They spent months hiding away and honeymooning while the realm was torn apart. And the only thing Lyanna (allegedly) does is make Ned promise to sacrifice his own honour to protect her love child with Rhaegar? 
again, I am assuming that these two were both complicit in what happened, but if that’s true, it makes them utterly selfish. All those people dead for one stupid baby to be born?Rhaegar was such a fanatic for prophecy that he was happy to tear the world apart to make that third dragon head. I am tired of the whole “fulfilled prophecy justifies anything it takes to get there” storyline. It’s my least favourite part of ASOIAF, this idea that every awful thing that’s ever done is justified and necessary to make the prophecy come true to save humanity. Frankly, I don’t think humanity would be worth saving if that’s the cost.
 

But all that is one thing if it wasn’t for the fact that they’re hypocrites. The prophecy was just an excuse, at the end of the day. They did it out of selfish love for each other. Rhaegar didn’t seem to care at all for his mother, brother, wife, children, he literally only cares about this girl half his age whom he knew for what, a year at best? Did either of them have any concern for anyone in their lives, or all the people who were dying for their love story? 
 

The notion that these utterly selfish people will be vindicated by prophecy is a repulsive notion to me. At least Stannis is actively trying to be a better man, and he doesn’t actually believe in Mel’s ramblings. The abomination turned him into a religious maniac, which is exactly what rubs me so wrong with Rhaegar. Stannis rightly sees that the idea of gods is a cruel one, and not to be revered or loved. His affiliation with Mel is the worst part of him, and that’s correctly framed in the books. His redemption comes through Davos and Jon Snow and the fact that he recognizes his duties as a leader. 
 

I’ll admit, it’s not a clear cut thing. I fully recognise that Stannis has done awful things, but I don’t get the sense that he did those things out of malice or fanaticism. BR is the definition of malice, and Lyagar strike me as being  utterly selfish fanatics.

And yes, my stance is a hot take, hence why it belongs here.

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, KingAerys_II said:

There is no Aegon dream that led to the Conquest, so according to you the producer of Hotd invented such an important thing. 

George RR Martin spoke about Aegon dream in an interview, so it is almost canonic

GRRM said there was speculation that Aegon had seen the threat of the Others coming. That's very different from confirming the version of the dream-prophecy we see in the show, or even confirming that Aegon had a grander purpose than "conquer everything".

Showrunners invent things all the time, to explain plot points that aren't clear on screen, to simplify things, or just to better reflect their vision for the characters. To pick the most obvious thing from the show that isn't in the books, Laenor Velaryon's being alive is a potentially massive change, because it means Rhaenyra's marriage to Daemon is invalid and therefore Aegon III and Viserys II are bastards. I think it is unlikely we will see that come up, but it could happen. And that's something that either the showrunners invented, or GRRM came up with it as a show-only event.

I don't think we can take Aegon's dream as a book event with relevance to the historic or ongoing book plot until and unless it appears in print, because there's a decent chance that in the books it never happened. Best we can say is "maybe Aegon had a grander vision whereby he considered it necessary for the greater good to conquer the Seven Kingdoms" but we could say that before too.

[James Steller]

1 minute ago, Alester Florent said:

Laenor Velaryon's being alive is a potentially massive change, because it means Rhaenyra's marriage to Daemon is invalid and therefore Aegon III and Viserys II are bastards.

Polygamy is a thing. The Targaryens set that precedent at the very start of their realm, and several Targaryens have made use of it, including fan favourite Rhaegar, if that theory is to be believed.

[Craving Peaches]

12 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Renly was usurping him, and was even preparing to kill him.

He was preparing for the inevitability of Stannis' death in battle because Stannis wouldn't surrender, not ordering people to kill him. There is a difference. Also, if Stanni the Manni didn't want Renly to usurp him he should have told Renly what he knew earlier, not waited until months after Robert died.

13 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Plus from what I recall, Stannis might not have been fully aware of what happened.

It doesn't make much sense and has less dramatic impact if Stannis didn't know what was happening/going to happen though. It means he banked his campaign on an untried, untested piece of magic working, Renly accepting the parley, Renly not being in a place where the magic wouldn't work, etc...

17 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Bloodraven, meanwhile, actively murdered Aenys Blackfyre without any provocation. Aenys wasn’t invading, he asked permission to travel to King’s Landing and put his case before the Great Council. He was no threat whatsoever. Bloodraven could have easily said no and forbade him leave to return to Westeros, but that wasn’t enough for BR. He lured Aenys over with promises of safe conduct, then murdered him and threw his severed head onto the table as an intimidation tactic.

Yes, I don't see Stannis breaking guest right like that. He did technically break the terms of the truce with Renly, and is a kinslayer, but Stannis would probably not promise X safe passage in the first place and then kill him. He isn't manipulative like that. He would state his intentions upfront.

[James Steller]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

He was preparing for the inevitability of Stannis' death in battle because Stannis wouldn't surrender, not ordering people to kill him. There is a difference. Also, if Stanni the Manni didn't want Renly to usurp him he should have told Renly what he knew earlier, not waited until months after Robert died.

 

Renly could have travelled to Dragonstone and offered to join forces with Stannis instead of riding south to build his own base for kingship. Both brothers are equally at fault for not working together.

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It doesn't make much sense and has less dramatic impact if Stannis didn't know what was happening/going to happen though. It means he banked his campaign on an untried, untested piece of magic working, Renly accepting the parley, Renly not being in a place where the magic wouldn't work, etc...

I’m going by what I remember from the text. Stannis confides in Davos, so I don’t think he would lie to him. Again, I think Stannis was in a desperate place and he put his faith in Melisandre for the wrong reasons. 
 

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

 

Yes, I don't see Stannis breaking guest right like that. He did technically break the terms of the truce with Renly, and is a kinslayer, but Stannis would probably not promise X safe passage in the first place and then kill him. He isn't manipulative like that. He would state his intentions upfront.

What terms did he break??? They made no terms. Stannis gave Renly one chance to join him and Renly refused it. There were no terms broken, they were both preparing to kill each other that night. And Renly would have been a kinslayer the next morning if there hadn’t been a shadowbaby. Even if you argue that Renly wouldn’t have been the one to personally kill Stannis, the same could be said for Stannis, since he didn’t actually physically kill Renly either. Both would have been responsible for ordering the other’s death, Stannis just got there first.

[Alester Florent]

18 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Polygamy is a thing. The Targaryens set that precedent at the very start of their realm, and several Targaryens have made use of it, including fan favourite Rhaegar, if that theory is to be believed.

That Rhaenyra (in the show) felt the need to dispose of Laenor in order to marry Daemon strongly suggests that they don't think polygamy will be accepted. Likewise, Daemon was considered ineligible for marriage to Rhaenyra in part because he was already married. Only two Targ kings had multiple wives, both of them before the Doctrine of Exceptionalism which expressly permitted incest for the Targs but not polygamy.

If Viserys had really made the case for polygamy to be permitted within the royal family, he might have been able to push it through in the same way he did Rhaenyra's succession. But in the closing stages of the Dance, with most of the dragons dead, the revelation that the last surviving Black heir was the product of a bigamous marriage would be a massive revelation that would probably drastically change things. It would also have an impact on the Velaryon succession itself which was a major political factor at the end of the Dance: Corlys would no longer be reliant on a legitimised Addam and Alyn to continue his line if he knew Laenor were still alive.

It seems pretty clear that the show only went the direction it did to avoid the "bury your gays" trope (especially after the hash that GoT made of Renly and Loras), and indeed while I thought the surrounding politics were clumsily handled, I did much prefer the show edition of Laenor to the one we seem to get in the books - and was glad he got a happy ending of sorts.

[Alester Florent]

8 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Renly could have travelled to Dragonstone and offered to join forces with Stannis instead of riding south to build his own base for kingship. Both brothers are equally at fault for not working together.

I can't fault Renly for not going to Dragonstone. If he's going to stand against Joffrey he needs to act quickly and raise not only his own banners but use all his diplomatic energy to recruit the Tyrells before they side with Joff out of inertia. He can't do that from Dragonstone.

It would also be foolish of him to put himself in the hands of Stannis without knowing in advance what Stannis's position is. If Stannis is loyal to Joffrey, he's just jumped out of the frying pan and into the (possibly literal) fire.

He should perhaps have sent a raven to Stannis at the earliest opportunity informing him of his plans and requesting an urgent reply. And if Stannis had got back to him with similar urgency telling him the truth about Joff, that could potentially have changed the course of events. But knowing Stannis (or at least the AGoT/ACoK edition of Stannis), I can't even be sure that Renly didn't do that and Stannis didn't just go "look at him, running off and starting his own rebellion without getting permission from me, his rightful king, outrageous, he doesn't deserve a response."

In fact, there's my unpopular ASoIaF opinion/take: Stannis before he goes to the Wall is to all intents and purposes a villain.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Alester Florent

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, James Steller said:

What terms did he break???

No attack until dawn. When Catelyn comes out of the tent after the murder the sun is just starting to rise. Meaning that Renly is killed before Dawn.

5 minutes ago, James Steller said:

And Renly would have been a kinslayer the next morning if there hadn’t been a shadowbaby. Even if you argue that Renly wouldn’t have been the one to personally kill Stannis, the same could be said for Stannis, since he didn’t actually physically kill Renly either.

Not really, because one of Renly's soldiers killing Stannis after he refuses to surrender, is not the same as Stannis sacrificing >1/3 of his life essence to generate murderous spawn in a perverted black magic ritual for the specific purpose of slitting his baby brother's throat. In my opinion.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

Aegon III was a self-absorbed brat who might have been an effective king if he'd actually bothered to commit. Instead, he just spent his life brooding while millions throughout the realm suffered for the actions that his family had committed. Aegon V might not have succeeded at reforming the Seven Kingdoms but it wasn't for lack of trying. Aegon III really was a sullen boy who lashed out and humiliated one his closest allies instead of the actual people who were manipulating him and corrupting him. Viserys did more good in one year than Aegon did in twenty-six. 

[James Steller]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

No attack until dawn.

Was that a specific term they agreed on, or was that just a practical idea to avoid a confusing night fight? 
 

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Not really, because one of Renly's soldiers killing Stannis after he refuses to surrender, is not the same as Stannis sacrificing >1/3 of his life essence to generate murderous spawn in a perverted black magic ritual for the specific purpose of slitting his baby brother's throat. In my opinion.

That’s a lot of loaded language there. I’m no fan of Mel but her “Perverted black magic” was also used to bring Beric Dondarrion back to life so he could continue to fight for the smallfolk. Magic is a tool, to be used well or used badly. Also, baby brother? Renly was a full grown man who made his own bad choices, we’re not talking about Maelor Targaryen here.

[Alester Florent]

1 minute ago, James Steller said:

Was that a specific term they agreed on, or was that just a practical idea to avoid a confusing night fight? 
 

That’s a lot of loaded language there. I’m no fan of Mel but her “Perverted black magic” was also used to bring Beric Dondarrion back to life so he could continue to fight for the smallfolk. Magic is a tool, to be used well or used badly. Also, baby brother? Renly was a full grown man who made his own bad choices, we’re not talking about Maelor Targaryen here.

I think by conventional definitions, the magic used to bring Beric back to life was at least arguably white magic. The shadow assassins are undoubtedly black magic.