[ADWD Spoilers] Jon, Stannis, Melisandre

[Dio Forel]

Based on the set of morals that was drilled into you as a child. Different faiths have different levels of morality. It doesn't make it right or wrong. Just different. When it comes to Mother Nature, do you think that she cares what age you are? Do you think she cares how "good" of a person or how "innocent" you are? These are relative perceptions of reality and your definition of goodness and innocence may be completely different from someone else's.

There is an absolute difference between the murder of a child and the murder of an adult regardless of your faith/beliefs. I agree in saying there is no definitive black & white in the world only perceptions. With that said there are certain concepts that are 99.9% on one side of the spectrum. Murder is murder regardless of it being a child or an adult. Both of which are on the far side of the dark spectrum. But the difference between a child and an adult is the ability for that child to have their own perceptions as well and be able to defend their side in some fashion.

Both are horrible in my eyes but at least adults have the ability to protect themselves. Murdering a child has an extra layer of cruelty added to it no matter what morals you have. I guess you are saying in Mel's eyes and in her religious beliefs murdering a child is what has to be done so in her perception it isn't as wrong? I really don't know where your defense to this is. Even if it is part of her faith, it is an act of cruelty and unwilling sacrifice. It isn't an act she feels is innocent and acceptable it is something that is blatantly cruel to do. There is no way of saying a child is not innocent in some belief structures. That's the point of the sacrifice anyway, giving an INNOCENT life to the deity. The innocence is not based on perception at all its based on the fact that the child has no ability to defend or even understand what they are being forced to do. The concept of innocence being a biased POV doesn't apply here... If somebody breaks into your house and you fear for your life and kill the intruder then there is a question of intent and confusion. Murder is murder but when it is your last resort then there is that shade of gray.

You are looking at the wrong definition of innocent. If we are to look at the concept of innocence with regard to actions and morality then I agree it is perception because all actions of an individual are subject to judgment. But the other definition of an innocent is a young child. And yet another definition of innocence that applies to a little kid being sacrificed is being free of the moral wrongdoing they are being punished for. This wasn't a trial for some kid that did something wrong and was punished by death. This is a little kid where his/her only crime was being alive and a child. To be punished unwillingly for no wrongdoing is the epitome of innocence no matter what your moral fiber may actually be.

Let me ask you a question... if the little child being murdered is not innocent... what is it guilty of? If the answer is ____________.... aka nothing.... then they are innocent and don't deserve the sacrifice. ESPECIALLY since they can't do anything to stop it or even understand it. Naivete is a factor too.

[DoctorSwerve]

What is your point, exactly? You can devolve any conversation into abstract nonsense.. but what is it specifically, that good and evil is an abstract concept in itself?

This is a story about humans and human conflict. People are social animals not solitary beings, they need to be able to exist in a social setting. Which means you have to act a certain way to be accepted. People are born to fit in. They are also born with the ability to reason. While it's true your morals and perception of goodness are instilled upon you at an early age, it's only been developed that way because it's the optimum setting for advancement. Empathy plays a major role in this. You can't function in a social unit without it, and you can't determine what is right or wrong within that unit either.

People evole and so does society to match. Society creates laws to benefit the most people possible and create a better living environment. Mel is stupid, selfish, or both, and has put her needs before anyone else, and she thinks she is above this law because her god told her so...

Yes, my point is that good and evil are abstract concepts. I don't believe in good or evil. All actions undertaken by mankind that are considered good and evil are viewed that way based on their own particular perceptions.

How does society evolve? It takes one person that says that the status quo is not okay, and that person fights to change that perspective. This idea spreads or doesn't spread. This determines whether or not it'll change the societal norm. If the majority of society says a new perception is the right perception, it will be instilled on future generations.

If the majority of society does not perceive that new perspective as moral, it will attack those people that have that particular view until the idea is eradicated. That is how mankind has functioned over the hundreds of millennia.

Growing up, the vast majority of people didn't wear seatbelts, including myself. The idea that seatbelts got beat into our heads with the propaganda from the media and tickets from police. Nowadays, you are considered a bad person if you don't wear a seatbelt. If I forget to put it on, I feel naked without it. The most effective way to change is to beat an idea into someone's head over and over until it becomes a part of their persona, which is also known as brainwashing.

[DoctorSwerve]

There is an absolute difference between the murder of a child and the murder of an adult regardless of your faith/beliefs. I agree in saying there is no definitive black & white in the world only perceptions. With that said there are certain concepts that are 99.9% on one side of the spectrum. Murder is murder regardless of it being a child or an adult. Both of which are on the far side of the dark spectrum. But the difference between a child and an adult is the ability for that child to have their own perceptions as well and be able to defend their side in some fashion.

Both are horrible in my eyes but at least adults have the ability to protect themselves. Murdering a child has an extra layer of cruelty added to it no matter what morals you have. I guess you are saying in Mel's eyes and in her religious beliefs murdering a child is what has to be done so in her perception it isn't as wrong? I really don't know where your defense to this is. Even if it is part of her faith, it is an act of cruelty and unwilling sacrifice. It isn't an act she feels is innocent and acceptable it is something that is blatantly cruel to do. There is no way of saying a child is not innocent in some belief structures. That's the point of the sacrifice anyway, giving an INNOCENT life to the deity. The innocence is not based on perception at all its based on the fact that the child has no ability to defend or even understand what they are being forced to do. The concept of innocence being a biased POV doesn't apply here... If somebody breaks into your house and you fear for your life and kill the intruder then there is a question of intent and confusion. Murder is murder but when it is your last resort then there is that shade of gray.

You are looking at the wrong definition of innocent. If we are to look at the concept of innocence with regard to actions and morality then I agree it is perception because all actions of an individual are subject to judgment. But the other definition of an innocent is a young child. And yet another definition of innocence that applies to a little kid being sacrificed is being free of the moral wrongdoing they are being punished for. This wasn't a trial for some kid that did something wrong and was punished by death. This is a little kid where his/her only crime was being alive and a child. To be punished unwillingly for no wrongdoing is the epitome of innocence no matter what your moral fiber may actually be.

Let me ask you a question... if the little child being murdered is not innocent... what is it guilty of? If the answer is ____________.... aka nothing.... then they are innocent and don't deserve the sacrifice. ESPECIALLY since they can't do anything to stop it or even understand it. Naivete is a factor too.

You go in with the assumption that everyone has the right to live. Our laws may say so, but when you look in the grand scheme of things, no particular creature on this planet has more of a right to live than any other. Mankind has devised it's own code of conduct, since man feels it has more of a right to live than say a dog, tree, whale, or whatever. In the eyes of nature, death is a normal part of life, the continuous cycle. Mankind has tilted the balance of that cycle and that is the reason you're seeing the changes that we're seeing in the world. We may be "enlightened" as a species, but we truly don't know anymore about the world and the universe than any other creature. There only is the perception that we do.

[Dio Forel]

You go in with the assumption that everyone has the right to live. Our laws may say so, but when you look in the grand scheme of things, no particular creature on this planet has more of a right to live than any other. Mankind has devised it's own code of conduct, since man feels it has more of a right to live than say a dog, tree, whale, or whatever. In the eyes of nature, death is a normal part of life, the continuous cycle. Mankind has tilted the balance of that cycle and that is the reason you're seeing the changes that we're seeing in the world. We may be "enlightened" as a species, but we truly don't know anymore about the world and the universe than any other creature. There only is the perception that we do.

You can't compare advanced intelligent species with animals. And mother nature is not a force that can be controlled so that doesn't count either. And you contradict yourself with your argument. You say I have the assumption that everybody has the right to live... well you seem to go in with the assumption that NOBODY/NOTHING has the RIGHT to live. If I can't say we all have a right to life then you certainly can't say that we all don't have that right. I agree with you about killing dogs and animals like that don't get me wrong. I don't think people should have the right to kill anybody/anything. But you still haven't even given a reason why killing a child is acceptable. You speak of infant murder like its some kind of fad that our generation has created. This isn't a fashion statement of the times this is just cruelty. I will agree that killing anything is horrible no matter what, but I will never agree that it is acceptable anywhere to murder some child that has no ability to defend itself and no reason for it to even be condemned. This isn't some bug that will live for 3 days then die. This is a child that could have the ability to live an entire life and grow to a point where it can have its own perceptions.

[Fredwin]

Yes, my point is that good and evil are abstract concepts. I don't believe in good or evil. All actions undertaken by mankind that are considered good and evil are viewed that way based on their own particular perceptions.

How does society evolve? It takes one person that says that the status quo is not okay, and that person fights to change that perspective. This idea spreads or doesn't spread. This determines whether or not it'll change the societal norm. If the majority of society says a new perception is the right perception, it will be instilled on future generations.

If the majority of society does not perceive that new perspective as moral, it will attack those people that have that particular view until the idea is eradicated. That is how mankind has functioned over the hundreds of millennia.

Growing up, the vast majority of people didn't wear seatbelts, including myself. The idea that seatbelts got beat into our heads with the propaganda from the media and tickets from police. Nowadays, you are considered a bad person if you don't wear a seatbelt. If I forget to put it on, I feel naked without it. The most effective way to change is to beat an idea into someone's head over and over until it becomes a part of their persona, which is also known as brainwashing.

Are you honestly going to compare murdering a child to wearing seatbelts? The seatbelt law is very petty and was only introduced to generate profit for your local police department. I don't know how you can identify this as brainwashing. Obviously your brain wasn't washed very well if you dislike the concept of it so much.

So depending on where/when you were born, you may or may not view the world a little differently from someone else. Still doesn't advance your point at all. So cultures and civilizations clash and the winner dictates the new societal norm, and? Are you saying some prominent way of thinking is going to come around and advocate child sacrifice and everyone is going to accept it as being OK? People are kind of attached to their children you know, unless that part of your brain is broken.

[DoctorSwerve]

You can't compare advanced intelligent species with animals. And mother nature is not a force that can be controlled so that doesn't count either. And you contradict yourself with your argument. You say I have the assumption that everybody has the right to live... well you seem to go in with the assumption that NOBODY/NOTHING has the RIGHT to live. If I can't say we all have a right to life then you certainly can't say that we all don't have that right. I agree with you about killing dogs and animals like that don't get me wrong. I don't think people should have the right to kill anybody/anything. But you still haven't even given a reason why killing a child is acceptable. You speak of infant murder like its some kind of fad that our generation has created. This isn't a fashion statement of the times this is just cruelty. I will agree that killing anything is horrible no matter what, but I will never agree that it is acceptable anywhere to murder some child that has no ability to defend itself and no reason for it to even be condemned. This isn't some bug that will live for 3 days then die. This is a child that could have the ability to live an entire life and grow to a point where it can have its own perceptions.

My view is that all things have the right to live and all things have the right to die. That's the difference between you and me. My statement may sound contradictory, but it really isn't. You may call it indifference, but it really isn't.

When it comes to society, there are infinite layers. The first layer is an individual. The next layer may be his parents, brothers, sisters, or members of their household. The layers then divulge, where the next layer may be the neighborhood, the extended family, friends, school, or whatever. Then each of these goes to their next set of layers, and so on. Each of these layers develops there own "laws", or codes of conduct, and they may conflict with one of the other layers. When they conflict, obviously there is a causal effect. A child's life could be the necessary byproduct of said conflict, and it is not for me to decide whether it's right or wrong, because I don't understand the necessity that brought about the sacrifice of the child, since I am not a part of the layers that determined the baby's fate.

I'm sure next you will ask if it were my child, would I be upset, and yes, I would be. My layer would come into conflict with another layer, and I would defend my baby, but if I were to lose, then my baby would lose. When you look throughout history, the victors determine who was right and who was wrong. In the Christian bible, there are many stories in the Old Testament where their god commanded that entire cities be annihilated, men, women, and children. Did they have any less right to live than the baby in this book?

Chaos rules the universe. But life will always continue. My view is that one day all of the stars in this universe will collapse into a singularity, and one day this singularity will explode and redistribute you, me, and everyone and everything else in this universe in all directions and life will begin anew. It's the eternal cycle of life, and that is all that matters.

[DoctorSwerve]

Are you honestly going to compare murdering a child to wearing seatbelts? The seatbelt law is very petty and was only introduced to generate profit for your local police department. I don't know how you can identify this as brainwashing. Obviously your brain wasn't washed very well if you dislike the concept of it so much.

So depending on where/when you were born, you may or may not view the world a little differently from someone else. Still doesn't advance your point at all. So cultures and civilizations clash and the winner dictates the new societal norm, and? Are you saying some prominent way of thinking is going to come around and advocate child sacrifice and everyone is going to accept it as being OK? People are kind of attached to their children you know, unless that part of your brain is broken.

You are a bit naive, I think. Abortion...right or wrong? Some say yes, some say no, but it doesn't change the fact that countless children are sacrificed every day.

In most parts of China, they still have the one child law. Most Chinese prefer to have a boy, so if they end up having a girl, they a lot of times kill the baby (or abort it if they find out before it's born). Before the communist party instituted this law, I would say that the majority of Chinese would be horrified with the idea of killing a child, but here we are today.

So would you say that all Chinese are evil? Would you say it is okay in their case because they are overpopulated?

[sara_stk]

:blushing: let's go back to the topic. Is about mel killing a innocent baby. all because she wants save the world. But she really doing good. Maybe melissandre is wrong and unintentionally misleading Stannis.

Sorry my english. The last phrase i used google translate :blushing:

[Tammy]

:blushing: let's go back to the topic. Is about mel killing a innocent baby. all because she wants save the world. But she really doing good. Maybe melissandre is wrong and unintentionally misleading Stannis.

Sorry my english. The last phrase i used google translate :blushing:

It's pretty clear from her POV that she is unintentionally misleading Stannis. She truly believes he is AA.

[Fredwin]

You are a bit naive, I think. Abortion...right or wrong? Some say yes, some say no, but it doesn't change the fact that countless children are sacrificed every day.

In most parts of China, they still have the one child law. Most Chinese prefer to have a boy, so if they end up having a girl, they a lot of times kill the baby (or abort it if they find out before it's born). Before the communist party instituted this law, I would say that the majority of Chinese would be horrified with the idea of killing a child, but here we are today.

So would you say that all Chinese are evil? Would you say it is okay in their case because they are overpopulated?

So you're comparing sacrificing a child to the abortion debate now just to try and prove an obscure point?...And I'm naive? Saying abortion and child blood sacrifice and murder are one and the same actually is naive. The abortion debate takes place every day in our current world, the problem is the debate on whether a fetus is alive or not can only happen because of scientific advancements. One thing people can at least agree on with abortion is that the Fetus does not experience many stimuli so they can not know pain or suffering in the traditional sense. Do you always try to win debates by including the most abstract and drastic ideas possible? "Hey Doc, did you see the baseball game the other night, the Yankees suck, huh?" "No.., what good is baseball? It has no meaning, our solar system could cease to exist at any moment."

It's up to the Chinese people to dictate how they want to live. If you can't provide for your child than you should not have one. That is your responsibility as an adult. If you can't make a responsible decision than your child with suffer for it. If the Chinese government kills babies than yes, I would describe that as evil, and there is no excuse.

[violet storm]

If Mel loved Stannis, she would have gone with him. Instead she stayed on the Wall. I think in her POV chapter she started to have some little doubts that Stannis was not AA. She mentioned that her reading might be incorrect, and everytime when she asks to show AA, she sees Jon... In the future Mel might rethink her alligeance.

And I agree, she is not a sympathetic character...

[DoctorSwerve]

It's up to the Chinese people to dictate how they want to live. If you can't provide for your child than you should not have one. That is your responsibility as an adult. If you can't make a responsible decision than your child with suffer for it. If the Chinese government kills babies than yes, I would describe that as evil, and there is no excuse.

So you proved my point. And it's not just the Chinese government that are killing the babies, it's the parents. Many of these people can provide for their children, yet this law is there. This law was put into effect in 1978. Pretty recent. Imagine if this law went into effect in the USA. Would there be an uproar? Yes there would be. There was also a large uproar in China. But when you look at the numbers today, 3/4 of the Chinese endorses this policy today. It shows how easy it is to manipulate people.

Melisandre is a part of a culture that is alien to ours. You don't know the reasons why this child would be have to be sacrificed or what the outcome would be. You can't say whether it is good or evil, as those are perceptions based on the reality that you live in. But if the death of a child can save thousands, millions, or even just 2 other people, then it may be worth the sacrifice, depending on your point of view. Once that child is gone, it is gone. It won't have any recollection of what happened. The child will be at peace. The people remaining don't feel bad because the child is gone. They feel bad because it steals their own personal happiness, and nothing more.

[feast-of-fros]

zombies, zombies! ugh! i know a lot of people are zombie fans, but i have had enough of them. i am heartily sick of zombie stories and vampire stories. if all this saga is about is zombies, i will be hugely disappointed.

A scene I hope to see in TWoW or beyond:

Resurrected Jon-zombie: Yo.

Resurrected Lady Stoneheart: <gurgle>

J-z: So, uh, ironic huh?

[Flavius Aetius]

Cat was dead by the time that Jon was made Lord Commander.

Obviously Cat was dead. What is your point? She still didn't like him, my point being I don't like Cat Stark. As far as women go in "Game of Thrones" I think she was one of the stupidest characters who caused a lot of trouble in her blind rage that ultimately led Ned Stark's imprisonment and eventual death not to mention a civil war. For goodness sakes Tyrion was almost executed based on no evidence, but the lying words of her ex wannabe lover Littlefinger.

[Duskfire]

Obviously Cat was dead. What is your point? She still didn't like him, my point being I don't like Cat Stark. As far as women go in "Game of Thrones" I think she was one of the stupidest characters who caused a lot of trouble in her blind rage that ultimately led Ned Stark's imprisonment and eventual death not to mention a civil war. For goodness sakes Tyrion was almost executed based on no evidence, but the lying words of her ex wannabe lover Littlefinger.

Letting Jaime go was the worst. If it was anyone else they would have been accused of treason and then executed. Or at the very least confined to a cell for the rest of their lives. I still dont quite understand her logic in letting Jaime go. Sure Brienne would try and keep her word, but she was counting on Tyrion to let her girls go, the same Tyrion she had imprisoned and tried to have killed off. I just dont get it.

But anyway, thats derailing the conversation :P

[Jonsblock]

Mel sees visions in the flames but sometimes misinterprets them or doesn't fully understand them. To me, nearing the end of ADWD she was starting to see that Jon is significant somehow. I think Stannis is her path to Jon. She just hasn't realized it yet. She mistook Stannis for AA but I think she will soon come to realize that she needed him to get to Jon. I just wonder what will become of the relationship between Mel and Stannis when she realized that he is not the one she is looking for.

[LadyMary]

I agree Mel is not a sympathetic character. I'm also having trouble swallowing her red god's pill also. According to the red priests there is only R'hller or however you spell it and the Other. The Other is supposed to be tant amount to Christianity's Satan, yet Mel constantly is giving human sacrifices and encouraging her followers to do the same. She wants to do away with the old gods... The old gods have been helping men and the children of the forest for millennia battling the white walkers. Granted trees can't do much, but they allow the green seers to keep track of everything in the north which would prove very helpful for knowing where the white walkers are and what not. It sure as heck wasn't R'hllor who gave men and children of the forest the knowledge to create magical wards in The Wall to keep the White Walkers out. If R'hllor is the enemy of The Other where the heck has he been while the old gods gave aid against the Other!? However it could just be that the red priests are evil to some extent and give the god a bad name... I remember the red warrior priest never required human sacrifice to bring Dondarrion back to life. By the way the guy who commented on Dondarrion being over with once Caitlin was ressurrected... I don't remember reading anything about that. I remember that each time Dondarrion is ressurected he forgets parts of his life and his grievous wounds remain yet somehow he is sustained. Ressurecting Cat has no effect on Dondarrion whatsoever. At no point do I recall Dondarrion dying for good and so far he is the only one who can produce actual flames from using his blood on his sword. Does anyone know when the next book is due for release? I read Martin only plans on writing 7 novels in this series.

Comparing the Gods of ASOIAFverse to Gods worshiped in our world, I think the point is that all religions have their fanatics and most Gods are angry, jealous and vindictive towards those who are not true believes. People who practice one religion think those who practice other religions are heathens, heretics, infidels, unsaved, etc.

R'hollor is like the angry, jealous God of the Old Testament that demanded blood sacrifices, except that the method of sacrifice to R'hollor involves human sacrifice in fire.

The drowned god takes human sacrifices through drowning.

The religion of Miri Maz Durr required blood sacrifice to make magic (only a life pays a for life), and human sacrifice was most powerful of all to produce magic. Sacrificing Drogo and Miri Maz Durr in flame helped Dany give birth to dragons.

And then those who worship the Old Gods also practiced human sacrifice - blood letting at the roots of a Heart tree - at least in antiquity, as seen by Bran in his vision of the past through the weirwood internet.

The Faith of the Seven-faced God may not practice human sacrifice, although it justifies the torture and killing of people for committing alleged sins including worshiping other gods. It seems to be the only faith in Westeros that doesn't have any examples of magic attributed to it, such as the ability to see visions, gift of prophesy or other manifestations (glamors) and maybe it's because they don't practice blood sacrifice.

So it seems that the magic of the ASOIAFverse is impacted by blood. Maester Aemon - a Seven worshiper as far as we know, confirms what the Priestess of R'hollor says - that King's blood is powerful. I don't think it's the religion that matters, because the magic is part of nature for all of them - even for the Maesters who are trained in skepticism but deliberately killed the dragons in order to destroy the magic.

Melisandre is a true believer and thinks the magic is tied to R'hollor's power. She really believes that Stannis is the AA because she sought guidance from R'hollor and saw Stannis in the flames.

If she has any doubts, and I think deep down she does, she seems to be in denial about them. She fabricates the glamor that gives Stannis' sword it's light (but no heat), but she still seeks to make Stannis happen even after she starts seeing Jon Snow instead of Stannis when she seeks for AA in the flames.

Does that make Melisandre "evil"? I don't think so - at least not any more than any other religious person in Westeros who justifies human sacrifice to his or her God for whatever reason. She thinks what she does in R'hollor's name will save the world from the Great Other, eternal darkness, etc.

Does it Melisandre sympathetic? No, because she justifies the killing of innocent people on the theory that the good of the many justifies the sacrificing of the few to the flames. While she has power and sees things other than what she's expecting, she never questions her original belief about Stannis and that may have mislead her to do things that were actually counter-productive to her own professed beliefs.

[Arya Stalka]

I was hoping Wun Wun would go ballistic and crush/dismember all the turncloaks then scoop up Jon so he could be saved. If he does croak Mel may bring him back or he just wargs into Ghost finally giving in because he wants to live any way he can... just as Varamyr Sixskins. As for Mel loving Stannis. Eh. She's only concerned with bringing the prophecy to fruition and the power she'll gain with it. She just wants to make shadow babies.

[Nelapsi]

she never questions her original belief about Stannis and that may have mislead her to do things that were actually counter-productive to her own professed beliefs.

`

I think she does. IMO she found out she was wrong, understood Jon is AA and the whole Jon dying thing is linked to that. No idea how that would work out, tho.

[rumple9]

Un-Jon !