The Citadel's Grand Conspiracy

[LuisDantas]

Might be. And that might make them all the more dangerous, or less, depending on how much they crave food. A starving beast is dangerous. A starving beast that will not die of hunger is scary. A beast that only eats once in a great long while when it feels like it may well be a blessing.

[Tini]

Melisandre didn't mention starving - just that R'hllor provides all the sustenance she needs. The young dragons seemed certainly eager for food - but then they had to grow a good bit before being out of danger of getting eaten by larger predators.

[Fire Eater]

My point is that it is as legitimate for humans to try to ensure their continued existence as it is for lions or rabbits.

Of course, I failed to state the parameters that make it so that extinction of dragons is acceptable.

On second thought, I don't know much at all about the ecology of dragons. Do they grow indefinitely until dying of violence or starvation, or do they die of old age and natural disease like other animals? How often do they produce eggs? How long may they last while still being viable (apparently quite a while)? How often do they actually hatch living specimens (apparently not often at all)? Are they sentient (and therefore worth of actual diplomatic relations and probably their own territory)? Do they become sentient over time? Is it possible to tame them, and if so, how effectively? Are they normal carnivores that must eat to survive (apparently so, but I don't think we know for sure)? If dragons grow indefinitely and draw their nurture from what they hunt, then Balerion, Vharax and Meraxes back in Aegon the Conqueror's days must have been constant threats to livestock and smallfolk. Worse still, they would only become more dangerous with time until their unavoidable slaying.

The core question is: without human intervention, are they likely to become extinct by their own due to lack of reproduction? Or instead, to grow and reproduce to the point of having to starve after eating everything that could nurture them on the planet? Are they even capable of avoiding those two extremes on their own?

In ASoS, Balerion died of natural causes at age 200, I think you're forgetting evolution here, would mother create animals that grew so large they could eat everything, thus really damaging the ecological balance? The history of evolution proves Mother Nature isn't stupid, and probably had it all worked out. For example, when there is an abundance of prey, a mother coyote has a litter of four pups, in lean years she has one or two pups..

P.S. You're ignoring the fact of when it comes to humans. When you ask:

grow and reproduce to the point of having to starve after eating everything that could nurture them on the planet

Humans are the ones demonstrating that behavior, with increased population growth as Tini pointed out.

[Fire Eater]

I was offended by being called a defender of "Specism", that sounds really bad in my ears. Considering that what I think is the reason the aSoIaF world's magic must end is that it is the cause of the extreme seasons and the Others attacking, and in extension the whole of at least Westeros being covered by 40ft of snow, I think you are being unfair.

I don't believe the Others can be defeated without the dragons getting the same treatment. That is the balance I think needs to be restored. These dragons were forced into existance by blood magic, woken to life from stone, they are not part of Westeros fauna anymore so I don't think it compairs well to our modern way of thinking of biological diversity.

And I got upset with the gun reference, because firstly it was totally incorrect to pin that to my argument as I said in my previous post, and secondly because I think it is low to use that infected debate to weaken my arguments. It really felt like you wanted to make me look like a G&A advocate, and that is not OK to me.

I will try to not be so upset if you try to use fair play.

I play fair, although I don't recall post of rules anywhere. Remember my reference to AGoT with Pycelle, that alone proves that dragons and the Others have nothing to do with the long seasons. Even so, I don't see anything bad with longer seasons, as long as they save up a year of food from each harvest to survive winter, it'll be okay.

As for getting upset, remember the most repeated line in ASOIAF: words are wind. In the gun quote, I never indicated that you were a Guns and Ammo advocate, I was comparing the dragons to guns, you said to get rid of all weapons, in effect I was saying dragons like guns shouldn't be blamed, but the people using them.

[LuisDantas]

In ASoS, Balerion died of natural causes at age 200, I think you're forgetting evolution here, would mother create animals that grew so large they could eat everything, thus really damaging the ecological balance?

Evolution isn't sentient. I take it you believe in some variety of Gaia?

Anyway, leaving aside the "mother" part of your question (which I'm not sure how to deal with), yes, it is of course possible for animals to arise that damage the ecological balance. Pretty much all animals damage the ecological balance to some extent. That is why maintaining such a balance is an important goal in the first place.

The history of evolution proves Mother Nature isn't stupid, and probably had it all worked out. For example, when there is an abundance of prey, a mother coyote has a litter of four pups, in lean years she has one or two pups..

You are indeed misunderstanding (biological?) Evolution to some sort of manifestation of Gaia's Will or something, then.

Sorry, but Evolution is indeed stupid. It is, in fact, completely lacking in will or intellect. While it is true that the effects of Selective Pressure may well appear to have been the result of a purpose, we shouldn't confuse the appearance with fact.

P.S. You're ignoring the fact of when it comes to humans. When you ask:

Humans are the ones demonstrating that behavior, with increased population growth as Tini pointed out.

Oh, I quite agree. I'm quite nervous about the human tendency to assume that everything will accomodate to our desire to multiply and scorch the Earth just because.

Still, that is no reason to believe that Dragons are more naturally attuned to ecological harmony than humans. Or, for that matter, that they are at all ecologically sound.

As for Balerion's death, I'm very interested in the source for his cause of death. I see that his age was established in chapter 8 of ASOS, but I don't think a cause of death was mentioned.

[Parwan]

Parwan, Really?

I feel like you are just trying to make lot of fuss about nothing.

Jape said, as a conclusion of the post, that they could do wonders with magic. The conclusion is usually the statement that one wants to emphasize. I was saying that they can not use it for good.

If you think that magic can be used in a positive way, fine, I don't. Ends does not justify means to me generally, there are always exceptions but I don't think the magic they have access to is one of those acceptable exceptions.

...

I think the masters need to study the Others, and the history of magic, I am not disagreeing here. But Marwyns statement is not necessarily the truth just because he said so to Sam. If the maesters where so against the studies of magic so that they would kill Sam for even speaking of it, how is it Marwyn is still alive? His studies of magic were well known, he was given the name Marwyn the Mage, and he is an archmaester. If we are to believe what the characters say without doubt we are going to have to believe Qyburn too, he was expelled for trying to use his knowledge of necromancy, something he studied in the Citadel.

I agree that is seems like most maesters do not care to learn much of magic, but I can't say I know for sure, we don't have their POVs.

The maesters are denying the existance of Others when speaking with uninitiated. We still don't know what they are up to inside the walls of the Citadel.

The question of whether Marwyn's statement to Sam is accurate or not is, at best, a minor point. You said, "We know that 'magic' is a subject they study. Marwyn is the senior of that field in the Citadel." My reply was "Obviously, the supposed senior researcher does not believe that magic is any sort of 'field' of study in the Citadel." My assertion stands up very well. It does not matter whether Marwyn was telling a bald-face lie, was saying the absolute truth, or was only partially correct. Jape says that the maesters believe that the study of magic is a bunch of crap. I agree. Stark@Heart says that by discounting magic and shunning its use they might be endangering the realm. I agree (though I might not use the term "shunning").

If someone says that University X thinks that paleontology is a bunch of crap, and you maintain this is not true, that they study the subject seriously there, you need to back up this assertion. Perhaps you say that Professor Joe is the head of the department. I go to Professor Joe and tell him I'd like to study paleontology. He tells me that he is leaving, that the other professors are a bunch of sheep, and that if I use words like "fossil" and "dinosaur" in their presence, they will try to kill me. It does not matter whether the guy is lying or not. Your argument that University X takes the study of paleontology seriously is essentially destroyed. It is centered on a man who obviously agrees with people like Jape and Stark@Heart. He does not believe that there is some "they" who want to do serious work on the subject at the institution. And if Professor Joe is such an incredible liar, why should I put any trust in the value of his work? Why shouldn't I assume that any claims he makes about his research also contain serious lies?

My view and those of others who are critical of the maesters on the subject of magic is further backed up by the general relationship between Marwyn and his colleagues. This relationship appears to be one of contempt, or at least something very close to that. There are lots of passages in the text detailing how Marwyn is thought to be unsound, how he consorts with undesirables, etc. The names "Mage" and "grey sheep" are not terms of endearment. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any other maester who is doing any kind of serious study of magic. We are told, for example, that Archmaester Ryam once told Pate, "Leave spells and prayers to priests and septons and bend your wits to learning truths a man can trust in." That's not the same as saying "Most archmaesters either denigrate or flatly refuse to study magic," but it goes a ways along that line. There are other examples in the text that support this idea; I find it hard to locate anything in the text that significantly challenges it.

My feeling (just a feeling) is that Marwyn told Sam the truth. It's not hard to see how Sam might be in danger though Marwyn is not. There are a number of possibilities. To pick one: Marwyn is clearly a powerful and dangerous man. Anyone moving against him might well be afraid of a counter attack. The situation is not the same for, say, young acolytes like Alleras. It is certainly not the same for pure novices like Sam.

Of course we can't be sure what the maesters are doing. We can't be sure that Bravos isn't moving to take over the Citadel. That city ( or at least some of its citizens) definitely has an interest in what's going on in the place. Maybe they'll take over and tell the welching Westerosi, "Pay up or we'll destroy the place." I couldn't swear this is not true, but there is nothing in the text that really indicates it. There is also nothing that indicates that the maesters have a truly responsible attitude toward magic. If they have managed to find out anything at all of significance about the Others and are still denying the existence of the entities when talking to the uninitiated, then they are absolutely behaving in an irresponsible manner. People like Eddard Stark and the rangers of the NW needed good information about what is clearly a threat. Holding critical information secretly within the walls of the Citadel? I believe Stark@Heart would call that endangering the realm. I certainly would.

[Fire Eater]

Evolution isn't sentient. I take it you believe in some variety of Gaia?

Anyway, leaving aside the "mother" part of your question (which I'm not sure how to deal with), yes, it is of course possible for animals to arise that damage the ecological balance. Pretty much all animals damage the ecological balance to some extent. That is why maintaining such a balance is an important goal in the first place.

You are indeed misunderstanding (biological?) Evolution to some sort of manifestation of Gaia's Will or something, then.

Sorry, but Evolution is indeed stupid. It is, in fact, completely lacking in will or intellect. While it is true that the effects of Selective Pressure may well appear to have been the result of a purpose, we shouldn't confuse the appearance with fact.

Oh, I quite agree. I'm quite nervous about the human tendency to assume that everything will accomodate to our desire to multiply and scorch the Earth just because.

Still, that is no reason to believe that Dragons are more naturally attuned to ecological harmony than humans. Or, for that matter, that they are at all ecologically sound.

As for Balerion's death, I'm very interested in the source for his cause of death. I see that his age was established in chapter 8 of ASOS, but I don't think a cause of death was mentioned.

The view of evolution in that it is random is clearly flawed as Michael Crichton put it:

If you believe the current theory, then all the wonderful complexity of life is nothing but the accumulation of chance events--a bunch of genetic accidents strung together. Yet when we look closely at animals, it appears as if many elements must have evolved simultaneously. Take bats, which have echolocation--they navigate by sound. To do that, many things must evolve. Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, they need specialized ears to hear echoes, they need specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and they need specialized bodies to swoop and catch insects. If all these things don’t evolve simultaneously, there’s no advantage. And to imagine all these things happen purely by chance is like imagining that a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747 airplane. It’s very hard to believe.”

Name times in history where evolution went wrong where animals that evolved severely damaged their ecosystem, there aren't any unless organisms are removed from the environment where they came from. Animals, predator and prey, evolve alongside one another. We know that dragons lived in Valyria, but almost nothing about the rest of the ecosystem, such as other animals, including those that were the primary prey of dragons.

[LuisDantas]

Evolution isn't random, indeed. To think that it is is a common, yet very flawed, misunderstanding. It is not random because it is directed by the environment, in which is often called Selective Pressure.

In the other extreme, equally flawed, there are those who think it is directed by a higher purpose. That is simply not supported by the available evidence, but Creationism did not survive this far by paying attention to evidence.

Name times in history where evolution went wrong, there aren't any unless organisms are removed from the environment where they came from. Animals, predator and prey, evolve alongside one another. We know that dragons lived in Valyria, but almost nothing about the rest of the ecosystem, such as other animals, including those that were the primary prey of dragons.

Evolution does not "go wrong", because it doesn't "go right" either. If you insist in presuming that it has a purpose, I will have to keep turning you down, I fear.

I can suggest a forum or two if you would like. Perhaps the best would be this:

http://www.religious...-evolution.html

That aside, you are of course right; we know precious little about the ecosystems of the world of Song, and even less about how Dragons fit in it. There isn't much to go by in order to speculate if it is ecologically sound to try and let them survive indefinitely.

[tjm335]

Wow, can we say off topic much? Lets eave the evolution debate for a different forum.

Anyway, I think that the maesters have appeal to the higher houses for a number of reasons:

-Status: the maesters only go to established (and usually wealthy) houses.

-Healing: the maesters are essentially the doctors of Westeros. Why wouldn't you employ one?

-Communication: The maesters tend to the ravens and send/recieve correspondences.

-Council: the maesters are educated and well read, and therefore have a sort of wisdom. They often provide good council in many areas (this may be debatable if the maesters do actually have a secret agenda).

Having listed all the appeal for the maesters, I think we can see why the houses have maesters. Their ultimate goal and antidragon/antimagic attitude is curious. Did they know more of the prophecies? Probablly. Perhaps it is know that magic will cause a second "doom," only in westeros this time? It could be anything or nothing at all.

[Capon Breath]

Wow, can we say off topic much? Lets eave the evolution debate for a different forum.

Anyway, I think that the maesters have appeal to the higher houses for a number of reasons:

-Status: the maesters only go to established (and usually wealthy) houses.

-Healing: the maesters are essentially the doctors of Westeros. Why wouldn't you employ one?

-Communication: The maesters tend to the ravens and send/recieve correspondences.

-Council: the maesters are educated and well read, and therefore have a sort of wisdom. They often provide good council in many areas (this may be debatable if the maesters do actually have a secret agenda).

Having listed all the appeal for the maesters, I think we can see why the houses have maesters. Their ultimate goal and antidragon/antimagic attitude is curious. Did they know more of the prophecies? Probablly. Perhaps it is know that magic will cause a second "doom," only in westeros this time? It could be anything or nothing at all.

Hmmm, I agree to a point but,

Status - they are all over the place inc NW, not just major houses

Healing - We see lots of milk of the poppy from Maesters but not much else? We see more effective (of sorts!) healing from Moqqoro and we also are led to believe MMD knows healing. Septons also heal. They are indeed the doctors of the day but there are plenty of Alternative therapies available

Communications - Yep, but people like Sam can use Ravens so it doesnt seem exclusively Maesters.

Counsel - Yes they provide that, as do many others. ( I dont recall Maesters in any war councils?)

Its clear there are many reasons why a house would want one but for them to be so universally accepted In Westeros but then not outside still seems odd.

[tjm335]

Hmmm, I agree to a point but,

Status - they are all over the place inc NW, not just major houses

Healing - We see lots of milk of the poppy from Maesters but not much else? We see more effective (of sorts!) healing from Moqqoro and we also are led to believe MMD knows healing. Septons also heal. They are indeed the doctors of the day but there are plenty of Alternative therapies available

Communications - Yep, but people like Sam can use Ravens so it doesnt seem exclusively Maesters.

Counsel - Yes they provide that, as do many others. ( I dont recall Maesters in any war councils?)

Its clear there are many reasons why a house would want one but for them to be so universally accepted In Westeros but then not outside still seems odd.

Ill agree that what the Maesters offer can be found elsewhere -- but not all in one person. Think of the list you described, and how many different people one would need to fill all of those rolls?

It as if there is a specialized school where people are trained in every knowledge know. Now if you have a fiefdom, why wouldnt you want one of these said people?

And as to status, I could be remiss, but I believe I recall something somewhere (either in one of the books or in an interview, etc.) about Maesters only belonging to established houses. Petyr Baelish, for example, has no maester in his court.

[LuisDantas]

Maesters are usually the best medicine men available, even when a Septon is nearby. We have evidence of that at least as far back as the time when Lysa sent a Septon to Catelyn instead of a Maester. Several ACOK Tyrion Chapters show us that they also know a lot about drugs (and poisons) other than Milk of the Poppy.

The Citadel is very much the Higher Learning of its time. It is usually possible to find other people with knowledge in those areas, but you will rarely prefer them to a Maester. IIRC Sam knew how to handle the ravens because, as Maester Aemon's Steward, it was his duty to learn that and help Aemon.

Moqqoro is, by all appearances, a very unusual man. His abilities are as impressive as they are atypical.

Maesters are also, from all appearances, very reliant on their knowledge of Westeros culture (and books). I don't find it at all surprising that Essos has few Maesters. It is a very straightforward culture shock (unless it isn't, of course... )

[tjm335]

I read a theory earlier which stated that Marwyn my actually be Morroqo (disguising himself). Personally I don't buy it, but it's possible I suppose

[Fire Eater]

I wonder when Marwyn reaches Dany and/r Tyrion, he will give a history lesson of the Citadel's actions that involved the deaths of the last dragons?

[Hear Us Roar]

I think they simply wanted more power for themselves. They have a maester whispering in every noble's ear, holding al their secrets and taking care of the medical issues. They are power players

[Armand Gargalen]

I think you are on to something here. There is definitely a connection between the Children and the Maesters, or at least the First Men. In ADwD, Bloodraven tells Bran:

Also, there are a couple of intriguing descriptions of maesters in the Dunk & Egg stories. The maesters are described as slight men, with big, "beak-like" noses. Not much to go on, but to me it hints of a CotF-Maester-Raven connection, at least at the Citadel's inception.

I also agree with you that the Maesters Order has perhaps forgotten its true purpose, mirroring the gradual dissolution over time of both the Night's Watch and the Kingsguard. What's not clear (yet) is what the Citadel's original purpose was. "Citadel" means fortress; if the Maesters are purely scholars, why not "Academy" or "Lyceum"? And if the Maesters are anti-dragon, why the two Valyrian sphinxes flanking the Citadel's main entrance? That said, Maegor the Cruel is said to have executed three Grand Maesters. Wonder what that was all about?

So many questions, so much time... :bawl:

There seems to be at least 3 of us who see a connection between the COT and the Maesters. I just reread that Bran chapter today and silly me, did not think of that, but it makes complete sense.

As i have suggested in another thread, the Citadel seems to me as a mirror to the Night Watch, and that, like it, has forgotten its true purpose

[NoBoldVillain]

I'm rereading Clash of Kings and found a line where Tyrion is talking about going to the maesters because of his elbow issues, it says

"Perhaps he should see a maester, get some potion for the pain... but since Pycelle had revealed himself for what he was, Tyrion Lannister mistrusted the Maesters. The gods only knew who they were conspiring with, or what they had mixed in those potions they gave you."

Probably nothing, but it caught my attention because he's not just singleing out Pycell, but all maesters.

Edit: I haven't read through this whole thread (I'm at work and on break), so apologies if this has already been brought up earlier on.

[Lion of Judah]

Archmaester Marwyn revealed it was the maesters of the Citadel who killed off the last dragons of the Targaryens, and are secretly working to eradicate magic. This made me think that when Aegon the Conqueror forged the Iron Throne, the Archmaesters met together and in secret formed a two-part plan.

The first phase of the plan was to eradicate the dragons, possibly through poison and bad advice to the Targaryens on caring for dragons. After phase one was complete, jump to phase two where the Citadel now turns on the Targaryens themselves. To overthrow the Targaryens, they would need combined forces of several regions. Maester Walys, according to Lady Dustin, gave Lord Rickard Stark the idea of marrying his heir to Catelyn Tully to forge an alliance between the North and the Riverlands.

This is just speculation, but maybe Walys even suggested Eddard be sent to foster at the Eyrie with the Lord of Storm's End to create friendship between the Eyrie, Winterfell and Storm's End.

For those who believe R+L=J, I always thought, why didn't Lyanna leave behind a letter to explain everything when decided to run off with Rhaegar? I am thinking maybe she did leave a letter, but she entrusted it to Maester Walys to give it to her father, but instead Walys hid the letter or burned it, knowing that it would lead to her family thinking she was abducted, and could lead to conflict between the Starks along with her bethrothed, Robert Baratheon and the Iron Throne with the Starks and Baratheons having allies in the the Arryns, who out of honor would help the Starks get their sister, like Elbert Arryn proved in going with Brandon to King's Landing, and the Tullys who would be bound to the Starks by marriage. Throw Mad King Aerys into the mix, and you have a recipe for war.

What are your thoughts?

I agree with this and Marwyn seems to be against this notion of killing the dragons.

[The Dragon has three heads]

I have always thought they are at the centre of bringing about the downfall of house Targaryan.

I see them as Comstar(mechwarrior/battletech quasi religious order in control of communications).

But not only do Maesters write the histories, they teach them a well, they have unlimited access to the lords personal writings, plots, and ear.

I fail to see how they could not be doing exactly as Marwyn says.

[NotSoSilentSister]

I do think there's a genuinely altruistic element to the Citadel-agenda (based on the dragons=nuclear weapons analogy), misguided as it may be. People here have made rather good arguments why the chosen approach might not be all that reasonable, considering that magic is a fact of this world and it's rarely a good idea to blind yourselves to the facts. I read ASOIAF very much as a narrative about institutional failure, and the Citadel is certainly one example of it.

But I also think that the Citadel's motives are not entirely pure.

But, on the flip side, there is also an elitist/Darwinian aspect to it as well. Magic (theoretically) can empower the weak. Even a slave like Moqorro has access to it. It is much like firepower in today's world. One small man with a gun has the ability to kill one large man with a sword. The Children of the Forest, for example, were able to combat the First Men and Andals, who were not only larger and stronger than they were, but also more technologically advanced, with magic. Destroying magic, therefore, would take power away from the "weak" and place it back into the hands of the "strong", i.e. brawn over brain. Magic, in that sense, has the potential to subvert "survival of the fittest".

But why would the learned mæsters want to do that (brawn over brain)? Because they're part of the club. They themselves are not "weak", nor do they serve the "weak". The mæsters serve the nobility, and the nobility wields power through physical strength and intimidation, therefore making the destruction of magic (i.e. a counter to physical strength and intimidation) in their interests.

I couldn't say whether the maesters themselves are conscious of such ulterior motives, but conscious or not (it's probably not how they rationalize their actions to each other), such considerations may well play their part in the plot.

And I wonder how this may affect speculations about another institution often suspected of plotting against Dany and her dragons: the Faceless Men. Because, at least officially, the FM are all about empowering the weak. They are often seen as elitist and exclusive, because of the exorbitant prices for their services, but we should not forget that these prices are not always paid in money. The FM don't discriminate based on wealth but on on despair.

The Bravoosi may hate the Targs because of their historic role in slavery, but now Dany is using those dragons to free slaves. I think that should make a difference for the FM. But even if they maintain their anti-dragon stance, they would hardly support any agenda directed against magic in general (espcially since they themselves rely on it rather heavily). So even if the FM start out on the anti-targ side, finding out how the anti-dragon-campaign ties into the Citadel-anti-magic plot might well change things

As to the endgame:

Name times in history where evolution went wrong where animals that evolved severely damaged their ecosystem, there aren't any unless organisms are removed from the environment where they came from.

The time is now. If evolution cared about biodiversity, humans would have never evolved as far as they did. There are definite advantages to being on top-of-the-food-chain, and there's no built-in protection for humans against being replaced by dragons in that regard.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, I am not in favour of a dragon-based Targayran restoration - Dany might make more or less good use of them, but who can guarantee for her descendants?

Yet I don't think that the utter banishment of magic form this world is entirely feasible either.

I think that self-regulation of magic users (and mutual control of different factions of each other) is the way to go.

The COTF and the magic of the Old Gods is often perceived as the least problematic form of magic in Westeros. But there's nothing inherently less destructive about it. Think of the hammer of the waters for instance, used to by the COTF to shatter the arm of Dorn and create the swamps in the Neck. Warging and skin-changing can be extremly morally problematic, as we've seen with Varamyr. But at least the wargs and skinchangers have pretty strong taboos in place against such abuses of this power. And COTF magic used to be enhanced by human sacrifice too. The practice might have been dropped over the centuries, but that also coiniceded with a significant loss of power for the COTF. It seems to me that COTF gave up a lot of their power voluntarily.

And the other magical parties in Westeros might have to follow their example.

The faceless men for instance also at least claim to follow a rather strict code as to the use of their powers. No killing for personal reasons, for instance. And they only take voluntary human sacrifices.

We don't know about any internal regulations for Red Priests and dragon-breeding Targs, but they will have to be put in place, in order to allow for a sustainable balance of power. (No burning people alive to make the magic stronger; limiting the growth of dragons by keeping them chained and feeding them less). Dany has already shown a certain willingness to do that - of course she'll probably abandon that approach due to her most recent ephiphany in the next book, but she might return to it in times of peace.

The Red Priests will also need to curtail their power. That's why I don't think they can be the dominant religion by the end of the series (which is why I assume they'll never officially acknowledge Jon as AA - because being right about AA would make them to powerful)