[ADwD Spoilers] Ice Dragon's

[David C. Hunter]

Dragons are a force of nature, only useful insofar as they can be managed, and unpredictably dangerous when not controlled. Could it be <crackpot theory> that the Others, whatever they are, are such a force—horribly destructive when unmanaged, but controllable, with the right knowledge? </crackpot theory>

Controlled by Bran Stark!!!!

[Ghost714]

An ice dragon would be "unrealistic"? What is this, The Wire? I thought this was the series that featured giants, unicorns, dragons, shape-shifting assassins, wargs, etc., etc., etc. What makes an ice dragon more unrealistic than the rest of the menagerie?

For the most part all of those things were introduced into the story since the beginning. What's awesome and realistic about Dany's dragons, is the fact that it took 3 books for them to be big enough to do anything credible. If an ice dragon comes into the story, it would need to be fully grown, or grow super fast, for it to actually do anything, and that is what would be contrived and unrealistic. There just isn't enough time to incorperate an ice dragon into the story, while making it realistic.

And yes there is such a thing as realistic for a fantasy series. That's why GRRM's books are so well done, none of it feels contrived or Deus ex machina, for the most part, and that's exactly what an "Ice dragon" would be.

Tell me one good reason why there should be an ice dragon in the story? Even though there has been no record of such a thing so far?

[HannibalStark]

uggh... I didn't mean to bump another ice dragon thread....I was trying to bump and talk about a new topic.

First of all, why does the Ice Dragon book have to have anything to do with this series? Does this mean an alien virus will start infecting Westeros now? Will there be Jokers and Aces running around with super human strengh and ability now?

If Black Crow "a.k.a. Ice Dragon" wants to refer to Jon as the Ice Dragon (although I prefer Fire Dire Wolf myself) who am I to argue about it? But where in the hell is an actual ice dragon going to come from? Is there any reference to anyone, ever having, taming, hatching or conquering with an ice dragon? There are tons of references to the Targs and their *fire* dragons and the Fields of Fire and dragon fire conquered Westeros.

I've given up caring about people talking about a metaphorical Ice Dragon as a way to refer to a person but honestly, an actual fricking ice dragon coming out of no where to "balance" Dany's fire dragons? Didn't the hatching of the 3 dragons bring the balance back into this world?

Why is Jon going to fight Dany? Why would he? Why would Dany fight Jon? She has so far been more than rational considering how batsh*t insane the rest of her family was shown to be and Jon would have way more reason to have a grudge against the Targs than Dany would against the Starks but that aside, why would Dany, for any reason want to personally harm Jon and Jon want to harm Dany?

Isn't Jon's biggest concern the unknown coming from the North? Hasn't he been looking for a way to fight whatever is coming? From what we have seen, doesn't it seem like Dany's dragons would be the best 'weapon(s)' to fight whatever is coming?

If you want to *refer* to whatever is coming from the north as an ice dragon, or even refer to Jon as the Ice Dragon ok, I can sorta see why people might like how that sounds...

Please, please please, for the love of the old gods and the new, an actual physical ice dragon though?

a) where would it come from? BloodRaven's fire dragon egg turned bad?

B) from inside the wall?

c) the others gave Craster magical powers to poop out ice dragon eggs everytime he sacraficed a son to them

d) dragonstone's stone dragons "awaken" *but Dragonstone was a Targ stronghold and everything I have seen shows Targs as only having fire dragons

We have seen how Dany's dragons have grown from the first book, and we have seen how after 5 books, they haven't been much use to this point in battle. (I'm not sure melting a slaver's face as a distraction when taking over the unsullied counted) and we have seen all of the problems that have resulted in raising these dragons. I am not sure how or where another full grown dragon could have rationally been hiding all this time... The north? As old Nan or anyone else said anything about the other riding great ice dragons down to attack the south? If there are ice dragons alive and thriving in the north, wouldn't the others have been able to conquer Westeros like the Targs did with their fire dragons? This current summer was 10 years long? Most of the characters are much older than 10 and have seen at least 1 if not 3 or more winters....if you say that ice dragons can only come down in the winter then where have they been? No one has ever mentioned seeing one. No one has ever mention crapping their pants as an ice dragon came to conquer their castle.

ok, so we have a dragon egg, that somehow becomes an ice dragon...it hatches....now what? What would the point of hatching the first ice dragon to fight against Dany's now full grown fire dragons?

[Ghost714]

uggh... I didn't mean to bump another ice dragon thread....I was trying to bump and talk about a new topic.

First of all, why does the Ice Dragon book have to have anything to do with this series? Does this mean an alien virus will start infecting Westeros now? Will there be Jokers and Aces running around with super human strengh and ability now?

If Black Crow "a.k.a. Ice Dragon" wants to refer to Jon as the Ice Dragon (although I prefer Fire Dire Wolf myself) who am I to argue about it? But where in the hell is an actual ice dragon going to come from? Is there any reference to anyone, ever having, taming, hatching or conquering with an ice dragon? There are tons of references to the Targs and their *fire* dragons and the Fields of Fire and dragon fire conquered Westeros.

I've given up caring about people talking about a metaphorical Ice Dragon as a way to refer to a person but honestly, an actual fricking ice dragon coming out of no where to "balance" Dany's fire dragons? Didn't the hatching of the 3 dragons bring the balance back into this world?

Why is Jon going to fight Dany? Why would he? Why would Dany fight Jon? She has so far been more than rational considering how batsh*t insane the rest of her family was shown to be and Jon would have way more reason to have a grudge against the Targs than Dany would against the Starks but that aside, why would Dany, for any reason want to personally harm Jon and Jon want to harm Dany?

Isn't Jon's biggest concern the unknown coming from the North? Hasn't he been looking for a way to fight whatever is coming? From what we have seen, doesn't it seem like Dany's dragons would be the best 'weapon(s)' to fight whatever is coming?

If you want to *refer* to whatever is coming from the north as an ice dragon, or even refer to Jon as the Ice Dragon ok, I can sorta see why people might like how that sounds...

Please, please please, for the love of the old gods and the new, an actual physical ice dragon though?

a) where would it come from? BloodRaven's fire dragon egg turned bad?

B) from inside the wall?

c) the others gave Craster magical powers to poop out ice dragon eggs everytime he sacraficed a son to them

d) dragonstone's stone dragons "awaken" *but Dragonstone was a Targ stronghold and everything I have seen shows Targs as only having fire dragons

We have seen how Dany's dragons have grown from the first book, and we have seen how after 5 books, they haven't been much use to this point in battle. (I'm not sure melting a slaver's face as a distraction when taking over the unsullied counted) and we have seen all of the problems that have resulted in raising these dragons. I am not sure how or where another full grown dragon could have rationally been hiding all this time... The north? As old Nan or anyone else said anything about the other riding great ice dragons down to attack the south? If there are ice dragons alive and thriving in the north, wouldn't the others have been able to conquer Westeros like the Targs did with their fire dragons? This current summer was 10 years long? Most of the characters are much older than 10 and have seen at least 1 if not 3 or more winters....if you say that ice dragons can only come down in the winter then where have they been? No one has ever mentioned seeing one. No one has ever mention crapping their pants as an ice dragon came to conquer their castle.

ok, so we have a dragon egg, that somehow becomes an ice dragon...it hatches....now what? What would the point of hatching the first ice dragon to fight against Dany's now full grown fire dragons?

Truly great post. This is my thoughts exactly, especially about Jon and Dany and why they would fight each other, I have never understood that line of thinking.

And I couldn't agree more about how random and ridicules an ice dragon would be. People seem to want something that would not be a good addition to a great story, that's what I don't understand about this ice dragon stuff. So I have tried to come up with reasons for why people are willing to sacrifice the good of the story, for ice dragons, and I can't really come up with a good answer.

Is it because they hate Dany and her dragons, so they want something capable of killing Dany and her Dragon's? Because if so, surely the Others fit this bill? So why is there a "need" for an ice dragon?

Is it because they think Jon needs something cool to fight Dany with? If so, you must first answer why Jon and Dany would fight each other in the first place.

Is it because they think there must be ice dragons to balance Dany's fire dragons, that way there is a balance of ice and fire? Because Dany's dragons are what fixed the balance- not what broke it- when the Others came into the picture, Dany's dragons restored the balance of ice and fire.

So what good reason is there for an ice dragon to come into the story?

One might say, what was the good reason for bringing giants, faceless men, etc into the story, but those things became apart of the story in the beginning so they are ok. An ice dragon would be completely random and out of the blue, and I can't think of any reason why there needs to be one or more ice dragons.

Anyway, great post HannibalStark", I am glad I am not alone when it comes to this subject.

[Guest]

Could the Wall actually be an Ice Dragon? Melted down and forged into a wall by Brandon the Builder? Ygritte did say the Wall was made of blood, not ice-maybe the iceblood of this/those dragon(s)?

This is exactly what I was thinking. And it would fit with Mel's "stone dragon" prophecy (if its not referring to Dany)

[Black Crow]

... answer why Jon and Dany would fight each other in the first place.

Because an epic story needs to climax in an equally epic conflict between real protagonists rather than some faceless Great Other who so far has not even had a walk-on part. Jon represents Ice and Dany Fire and because I'm a heretic (and far from the only one around here these days) I believe that the whole business of the the Others is nothing like as straightforward as it first appeared. :cool4:

[Euphail]

... So why is there a "need" for an ice dragon?

I am really not a fan of the ice dragon idea, but one place where I think it would be advantageous is in balancing ice and fire. Dragons fighting the Others seems silly. From what we've seen of them, the white walkers are entirely ground based, and while extremely quick and formidable on the ground, they lack any air power.

Dragons are the opposite, but fortunately they have a wall to fall behind in-between bombing runs of nuking the north beyond the wall. They would just rain fire and fly back to eat, before rinsing and repeating.

The one downfall I see to this is with conflict between dragon riders.

The major problem I have with Ice dragons is: what do they eat? How do they sustain themselves? But I guess the same can be said of the white walkers as well.

[Ghost714]

I am really not a fan of the ice dragon idea, but one place where I think it would be advantageous is in balancing ice and fire. Dragons fighting the Others seems silly. From what we've seen of them, the white walkers are entirely ground based, and while extremely quick and formidable on the ground, they lack any air power.

Dragons are the opposite, but fortunately they have a wall to fall behind in-between bombing runs of nuking the north beyond the wall. They would just rain fire and fly back to eat, before rinsing and repeating.

The one downfall I see to this is with conflict between dragon riders.

The major problem I have with Ice dragons is: what do they eat? How do they sustain themselves? But I guess the same can be said of the white walkers as well.

The Others have there own type of armor and swords, who's to say they don't have any projectile weapons(bows, etc)? Not to mention they can control any dead thing, so that's thousands of birds, eagles, hawks etc. I know eagles and stuff are no match for dragons, but it's potentionally thousands of dead things vs three dragons. One might think that crows wouldn't be effective in stopping dozens of Wights, but when Coldhands saves Sam and Gilly, we see thousands of crows tearing apart a group of Wights. Who is to say the Others can't use something like this to fight the dragons?

I just think its a little premature to say that the Others could not be a serious threat against dragons. Let's not forget, the Others have giant ice spiders, and actual dead giants. The dragons would have to be fairly close to shoot fire at anything, so that would put them at risk of getting hit by a giants club, and by anything a giant might throw at them.

I can think of plenty of ways that the Others would be a serious threat to the Dragons.

Not to mention, like any zombie hord, the Wights have numbers for their strength. Your talking very few, against so so so many. That evens the odds quite a bit... And I know Ned always told Jon that discipline beats numbers nine out of every ten times, but the Others seem to be very disciplined too.

And my response to "Black Crow", about why Jon and Dany must fight against each other.

I understand what you are saying about there needing to be a battle against actual protagonists for the climax etc etc, but why does that mean it has to be Jon vs Dany ?

You pointed out that Dany represents fire, and Jon ice, but that's not really correct. Jon is both ice and fire, so where does it say he must fight on the side of "ice" instead of "fire"?

And are you saying that Jon will fight on the same side as the Others, against Dany? Because if so that's a whole other bag of crazy that doesn't make any sense.

With Jon being both ice and fire, surely there is someone more qualified to be the protagonist for the ice side? Say someone who is just "ice", and not "fire"???

I really don't think think there is any indication that Jon and Dany would fight against one another, but there is a bunch of evidence that Jon will be on the same side as Dany, and Dany on the same side as Jon. I actually think that Jon is one of the heads of the dragon, and most likely Azor Ahai, and I don't think I am alone in believing this, So that doesn't really work with Jon fighting with the Others against Dany. For that reason, and many others, I don't think there is any way that Jon will end up with an ice dragon, fighting with the Others, against Dany.

[Black Crow]

And my response to "Black Crow", about why Jon and Dany must fight against each other.

I understand what you are saying about there needing to be a battle against actual protagonists for the climax etc etc, but why does that mean it has to be Jon vs Dany ?

You pointed out that Dany represents fire, and Jon ice, but that's not really correct. Jon is both ice and fire, so where does it say he must fight on the side of "ice" instead of "fire"?

And are you saying that Jon will fight on the same side as the Others, against Dany? Because if so that's a whole other bag of crazy that doesn't make any sense.

With Jon being both ice and fire, surely there is someone more qualified to be the protagonist for the ice side? Say someone who is just "ice", and not "fire"???

I really don't think think there is any indication that Jon and Dany would fight against one another, but there is a bunch of evidence that Jon will be on the same side as Dany, and Dany on the same side as Jon. I actually think that Jon is one of the heads of the dragon, and most likely Azor Ahai, and I don't think I am alone in believing this, So that doesn't really work with Jon fighting with the Others against Dany. For that reason, and many others, I don't think there is any way that Jon will end up with an ice dragon, fighting with the Others, against Dany.

Take yourself over to the Heresy thread and you'll find there is an awful lot of evidence in the books that the Starks have a dark past; that they and the Others (Children as well as White Walkers) are connected and that Jon's destiny is not to be Azor Ahai but to slay Azor Ahai in order to restore the balance upset by the victory of Fire first time around. I don't want to hijack this thread by preaching heresy that goes way beyond the single issue of Ice Dragons, so come across, read, and then argue. :fencing:

[HannibalStark]

This is exactly what I was thinking. And it would fit with Mel's "stone dragon" prophecy (if its not referring to Dany)

except Dany already 'hatched' dragons from stone, remeber, in the first book? She had three dragons eggs that had turned to stone. Then the first star she saw before lighting Drogo funeral pyre (and the eggs) was the red comet...

Mel knows dragons from stone is part of the prophecy. She doesn't know Dany already fulfilled that part of the prophecy by hatcing 3 DRAGONS FROM STONE so she keeps going on thinking she can fullfill that part of the prophecy, which she can't becaust it was already done.

Does each part of the prophecy actually have to be fullfilled 3x over?

And if there was a dragon in the wall ( btw, why would someone go to crazy lengths to build this wall only to trap a dragon in it (an ice dragon mind you, a dragon that no one talks about ever existing) a wall that is used to prevent the others from crossing, only to have the dragon inside come alive and bring down the entire wall-how does this make sense?) oh and the wall is ice, not stone, ice=water so the prophecy would have to say you wake a dragon from water, wouldn't it?

Brandon the Builder- " I''m going to build this epic wall, but wait, there is a magical ice dragon- lets stick it in there"

Random guy "Hey Brandon, why would you put a dragon in the wall? Won't it make the wall fall down when it wakes up?"

Brandon the Builder "Of course it will. But who cares. Oh and lets not tell anyone about it. Won't it be funny when everyone craps their small clothes when a magical ice dragon springs from the wall at some pre-determined time?

and you think anyone could keep an ice dragon in the wall a secret? Think about the Night King. The NW did everything they could to strike him from history that they couldn't, but it doesn't seem to have done any good because everyone knows about him. Then think about the secret tunnels in the Red Keep. The king that built that castle (had it built) had everyone killed so they couldn't tell people about these tunnels....so, how many people know about these tunnels?

But all of this is pointless because a huge deal was made about Dany's eggs being stone, and then she woke 3 dragons from them. If she hadn't done that in the first book I might be thinking, hmmm you know, there is that dragons from stone dealy, I wonder how that is going to happen. But we don't have to wonder because it already happened.

[HannibalStark]

I am really not a fan of the ice dragon idea, but one place where I think it would be advantageous is in balancing ice and fire. Dragons fighting the Others seems silly. From what we've seen of them, the white walkers are entirely ground based, and while extremely quick and formidable on the ground, they lack any air power.

Dragons are the opposite, but fortunately they have a wall to fall behind in-between bombing runs of nuking the north beyond the wall. They would just rain fire and fly back to eat, before rinsing and repeating.

The one downfall I see to this is with conflict between dragon riders.

The major problem I have with Ice dragons is: what do they eat? How do they sustain themselves? But I guess the same can be said of the white walkers as well.

ice dragons don't exist.

[HannibalStark]

Take yourself over to the Heresy thread and you'll find there is an awful lot of evidence in the books that the Starks have a dark past; that they and the Others (Children as well as White Walkers) are connected and that Jon's destiny is not to be Azor Ahai but to slay Azor Ahai in order to restore the balance upset by the victory of Fire first time around. I don't want to hijack this thread by preaching heresy that goes way beyond the single issue of Ice Dragons, so come across, read, and then argue. :fencing:

Who doesn't have a "dark past?" Isn't that what is so good about these books is that everyone has both good and bad, light and dark?

and the Starks are Wardens (before that Kings) of the North which meant they are the predominant authority in the north. If crazy sh#t is happening in the north, i.e. the others, then they are going to be involved with it, aren't they? Personally I wouldn't say that makes Starks dark, but if you think the Starks are dark, evil, whatever I guess that is up to you. You have one family, the Starks responsible for and dominant over a huge area, an area that is where the children of fhe forest fled to, an area where most if not all of the magic in Westeros seems to come from or was banished to, it seems to me that a lot of "stuff" tends to happen in this area, stuff that requires the Starks to interact with. Compared to the rest of the kingdoms there is a disportionate about of stuff going on here so we are going to hear about this stuff and the Stark much more than anyone else. Just because the Starks have to deal with this stuff, and because we hear about a Stark being the Night King doesn't, IMO make the Starks dark. What if the Lannisters were there instead? Or if the Boltons where in charge instead Its seems like the Starks are one of the only families that try to do the right thing, that try to be honorable and look at all of the tragic crap that has happened to them. They seem to be honorable to a fault and it seems like this is their greatest weakness, is that they are good and honorable to a fault.

Sure, a couple Starks over the last 8,000 years might have done some dark stuff, but that is because the Starks are the ones that are there and in a unique and "magic" and unknown place. Again, what if another family were there instead of the Starks? I think they have protected the realm well, and if it wasn't the Starks there, it seems the floodgates to crazy crap coming from the North and beyond the wall would have been opened long ago if i wasn't the Starks there to stop it.

Compared to what they have had to deal with, the couple stories we hear about Dark Starks over the length of time they have been up there doesn't seem like they would or should show the Starks are dark, bad, evil or whatever. But then that is my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Ghost714]

Take yourself over to the Heresy thread and you'll find there is an awful lot of evidence in the books that the Starks have a dark past; that they and the Others (Children as well as White Walkers) are connected and that Jon's destiny is not to be Azor Ahai but to slay Azor Ahai in order to restore the balance upset by the victory of Fire first time around. I don't want to hijack this thread by preaching heresy that goes way beyond the single issue of Ice Dragons, so come across, read, and then argue. :fencing:

You make it sound like your bringing up all these points about why the Starks are bad, and I just have no idea what your talking about because I have never read the Hersey thread on why the Starks are bad. However, that's not the case, you haven't brought up any points on why the Starks are bad, or were bad, you insinuated that Jon would be bad, and that's it. So what makes think I need to read the "Heresy" thread, or that I haven't???

Besides wether the Starks were bad or not, that doesn't mean that any of the current Starks have to be, especially Jon, who is most likely half Targaryen. There are a few things that support some Starks being "bad" in the past, but there are also things pointing towards many "good" Starks in the past. Saying all Starks must be bad because some were in the past, is like saying all Targaryen's must be crazy, because there were some crazy ones in history. There is nothing to indicate that any of the recent Starks are "bad", and only very little to indicate that there were a few bad ones in the past. That is no different than any other family in Westeros, and GRRM does a good job at showing that nobody is just good, or evil, but shades of grey. However there are still some characters that tend to be more bad than good, and more good than bad, so why would it be any different for the history of the Starks.

I still don't see how this means Jon will be "bad", or how Jon will some how get a stupid ice dragon.

Apparently your an expert on the subject, so you should have no problem teaching the ignorant guy who has "never read" the Hersey thread.

[HannibalStark]

If people don't like that Staks, or like the Boltons, Freys, or think the Starks are bad, evil whatever I don't think there is much anyone can really say, if that is what someone thinks or feels that is how they feel, there is no reason they can't be entitled to their opinion and free to discuss it. I just don't think that compared to other families in this series, on a scale of good /evil the Starks seem to be closer to the good side then the evil. Any "dark Starks" that there may have been, I think that maybe they were exposed to much more than other familes have been and might have been more in the spot light than other familes.

I also don't think that the Starks will make choices in the future that could be considered dark or evil. I think Ned, Sansa, Arya and Rob have all made decisions that were bad for them or their family but would not be considered to be dark, evil or bad. Sure Ned killed Robert and Sansa killed Ned and Arya and Sansa killed Lady and Robb killed himself and Grey Wind and Cat...but look at the reasons for each. It seems like each thought they were doing the right thing. How many other families have been punished for doing what they felt was right or was honorable.

[tze]

ice dragons don't exist.

Old Nan told Jon stories about ice dragons, and speculating that perhaps GRRM keeps mentioning ice dragons for a plot-related reason doesn't strike me as unrealistic, within the confines of this kind of story. Westeros extends much farther north than Essos----if ice dragons actually exist, or existed at one point, it would make perfect sense that they wouldn't have been known in as many places as fire-breathing dragons, because there appear to be more warm places than cold places in this world. We've seen fire dragons native to the Fourteen Fires of Valyria---ice dragons native to the Lands of Always Winter is a logical parallel. The existence of something that breathes cold/ice would clarify how on earth a sorcerer like Brandon the Builder managed to raise a giant ice wall in the first place. And although the children's story "The Ice Dragon" does not take place in Westeros, there are a load of parallels between the two (the Lands of Always Winter, dragonriders, fire-breathing dragons, the ice dragon defeating three fire-breathing dragons, etc.) and it's very possible that this earlier story contains themes and ideas that are being expanded upon in ASOIAF.

Introducing ice dragons would be exactly the kind of plot twist GRRM loves. They've been referenced since AGOT, but everyone's been so worried about the fire-breathing dragons, so sure that the fire dragons are the ultimate weapons, that nobody's ever even considered ice dragons as a potential threat. It fits in with the repeated theme of winter and the cold throwing everybody a curve ball, and if the Others have ice dragons, it might clarify how they bring winter with them and possibly how the Long Night was brought about in the first place.

You make it sound like your bringing up all these points about why the Starks are bad, and I just have no idea what your talking about because I have never read the Hersey thread on why the Starks are bad. However, that's not the case, you haven't brought up any points on why the Starks are bad, or were bad, you insinuated that Jon would be bad, and that's it. So what makes think I need to read the "Heresy" thread, or that I haven't???

Besides wether the Starks were bad or not, that doesn't mean that any of the current Starks have to be, especially Jon, who is most likely half Targaryen. There are a few things that support some Starks being "bad" in the past, but there are also things pointing towards many "good" Starks in the past. Saying all Starks must be bad because some were in the past, is like saying all Targaryen's must be crazy, because there were some crazy ones in history. There is nothing to indicate that any of the recent Starks are "bad", and only very little to indicate that there were a few bad ones in the past. That is no different than any other family in Westeros, and GRRM does a good job at showing that nobody is just good, or evil, but shades of grey. However there are still some characters that tend to be more bad than good, and more good than bad, so why would it be any different for the history of the Starks.

I still don't see how this means Jon will be "bad", or how Jon will some how get a stupid ice dragon.

Apparently your an expert on the subject, so you should have no problem teaching the ignorant guy who has "never read" the Hersey thread.

"Dark" and "bad" are not necessarily the same thing, you know. Melisandre sees them as synonyms; Bloodraven does not. The Starks are heavily associated with winter (Kings of Winter) and darkness (the hour of the wolf is the darkest part of night, the greenseers dwell in the darkness beneath the earth, etc.), just like the Others are associated with winter and darkness, but this association does not automatically make the Starks "bad", as neither winter nor darkness is inherently evil. (There's no guarantee that the Others are inherently evil, for goodness's sake.)

[Lady of Long Lake]

No one has ever seen an ice dragon but Bran saw something HORRIFIC when he flew with Bloodraven. It was when he was in a coma and Bloodraven took him north and north and north and they looked into the heart of Winter.

"He looked deep into the heart of winter, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned his cheeks.

Now you know, the crow whispered as it sat on his shoulder. Now you know why you must live.

"Why" said Bran, not understanding, falling, falling.

Because winter is coming

I wonder gleefully if Bran saw an ice dragon in the heart of winter :eek: . I think for a 7 year old kid to be THAT scared, he had to have seen something "monster-like". White Walkers aren't really that scary in appearance. I don't think Bran would cry out and weep if he saw those but he sure would if he saw a massive pale blue ice dragon!

[Ghost714]

No one has ever seen an ice dragon but Bran saw something HORRIFIC when he flew with Bloodraven. It was when he was in a coma and Bloodraven took him north and north and north and they looked into the heart of Winter.

"He looked deep into the heart of winter, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned his cheeks.

Now you know, the crow whispered as it sat on his shoulder. Now you know why you must live.

"Why" said Bran, not understanding, falling, falling.

Because winter is coming

I wonder gleefully if Bran saw an ice dragon in the heart of winter :eek: . I think for a 7 year old kid to be THAT scared, he had to have seen something "monster-like". White Walkers aren't really that scary in appearance. I don't think Bran would cry out and weep if he saw those but he sure would if he saw a massive pale blue ice dragon!

Yes but that makes it sound like Bloodraven was telling bran he must live to fight against the "coming winter", not for it. The Starks have always prepared for winter, to survive it, not thrive in it. When they say winter is coming its not a happy thing like "oh! Goody Winter is coming!"

Its's more like--"fuck, put your big boy pants on, because winter is coming..."

So I don't understand all this talk of Bran or Jon, or both, being on the side of winter, same goes for the Starks in the past. If that was the case, then why did Brandon the Builder build the Wall in the First place?

If Bran saw an ice dragon, don't you think that would be something that he could comprehend, something that would still be horrible to look on, but not something he would be clueless about. Had Bran seen something resembling an ice dragon, I have to believe he would be able to recall what he saw, because dragons are not something impossible to comprehend in this story. That's what makes me think Bran saw something new, something unimaginable. Also if the Others had an ice dragon, or ice dragons, why has the Wall been able to stop them for so long? Why would there be no record of it during the age of heroes, or something? I mean I get that an ice dragon can't go somewhere hot, but why didn't it show up during the first long night?

And just because old Nan told a story of an ice dragon, that doesn't mean it must be real, she also told stories of Grumpkins and Snarks, but those where not real. It is possible that some of old Nan's stories, were just stories.

[Black Crow]

You make it sound like your bringing up all these points about why the Starks are bad, and I just have no idea what your talking about because I have never read the Hersey thread on why the Starks are bad. However, that's not the case, you haven't brought up any points on why the Starks are bad, or were bad, you insinuated that Jon would be bad, and that's it. So what makes think I need to read the "Heresy" thread, or that I haven't???

Besides wether the Starks were bad or not, that doesn't mean that any of the current Starks have to be, especially Jon, who is most likely half Targaryen. There are a few things that support some Starks being "bad" in the past, but there are also things pointing towards many "good" Starks in the past. Saying all Starks must be bad because some were in the past, is like saying all Targaryen's must be crazy, because there were some crazy ones in history. There is nothing to indicate that any of the recent Starks are "bad", and only very little to indicate that there were a few bad ones in the past. That is no different than any other family in Westeros, and GRRM does a good job at showing that nobody is just good, or evil, but shades of grey. However there are still some characters that tend to be more bad than good, and more good than bad, so why would it be any different for the history of the Starks.

I still don't see how this means Jon will be "bad", or how Jon will some how get a stupid ice dragon.

Apparently your an expert on the subject, so you should have no problem teaching the ignorant guy who has "never read" the Hersey thread.

Try reading it for the simple reason that we have gone into all of this in great detail over there, so there's no need to hijack this thread just to repeat those discussions.

As to Jon at no point have we heretics suggested that Jon or Bran is bad or will go bad - quite the contrary. The whole point of the heresy thread and why its called heresy is that going beyond a superficial reading of the story it soon becomes clear that things are not as simple as they appear and the other side are not the embodiment of pure evil.

[Ghost714]

Try reading it for the simple reason that we have gone into all of this in great detail over there, so there's no need to hijack this thread just to repeat those discussions.

As to Jon at no point have we heretics suggested that Jon or Bran is bad or will go bad - quite the contrary. The whole point of the heresy thread and why its called heresy is that going beyond a superficial reading of the story it soon becomes clear that things are not as simple as they appear and the other side are not the embodiment of pure evil.

You were saying that the Starks have a "darker" background then what we think, but I still don't know why that is some how proof that Jon will end up fighting Dany. Do you believe that there will be a battle against the Others, if so, how does Jon and Dany play into this? And before you tell me to go read the Heresy thread again, I am not talking to the "Heretics-R-US-Organization", I am talking to you. If the Heresy thread has so much compelling evidence, it should be easy for you to spare some edification on the subject. Yes?

And I am not new to the idea about the "other side" not being "the embodiment of pure evil". Nothing is just black or white in this story, and I have never said differently. But that's not to say that there aren't characters that tend to be more on the "bad side", just like there are characters that tend to be more on the "good side". So there isn't pure evil vs pure good, but there is still bad vs good, when you look at the overal big picture. For example, Tywin Lannister isn't pure evil, we have seen him show forgiveness etc, but he is still an over all "bad" character. Just like Arya has killed people, but I believe she is still an over all "good" character.

[Black Crow]

GRRM has told us that Jon will be a greyer character. Sure up to the point he had the knives stuck into him he was being a firm, pragmatic Lord Commander but he was also the same Jon we've always seen, not yet a "grey" character, that's still to come.

The Starks were Kings of Winter and now that winter is coming will be so again and that means Jon.

As for the rest we've been discussing it since November over 7 successive Heresy threads, so as I keep saying I don't propose to hijack this one