Did Melisandre/The Lord of Light actually cause Robb, Joff, and Balon to die?

[ab aeterno]

Davos, the person who knows him best, thinks he is taking it seriously. I think people often ignore the fact that both Davos and Jon felt it necessary to go to extreme measures to protect Edric Storm and Mance's baby from Stannis/Mel. If they hadn't thought he would allow Mel to burn Edric and the baby alive, they wouldn't have smuggled them away (and poor Master Aemon). They truly believe he is willing to do it! And he must take the leech ritual seriously as well, because we can see that he is slowly being won over as each targeted "usurper" dies.

I didn't mean that he wasn't seriously going to burn Edric Storm. I just don't think that Stannis seriously expected it to work. I think that he just went along with it because Mel said it would work and he had nothing to lose. He had seen that some of the things she could do seemed to work, so he gave it a shot. I think you're right that he was willing to do it, for a time at least. He may begin to take it more seriously later, but I think when Mel want to perform the ritual, Stannis isn't convinced. That was my impression anyway.

[The Bloody Boar]

I believe Melisandre caused the three usurpers to die. Other hands may have blood on them, but IMO Mel's magic is what doomed them.

Just because the plots were going on doesn't mean they would have succeeded. Joffrey could have dropped the cup with the poison or someone else could have drank from it. Robb could have been tipped off at the last minute by one of the Freys. With Balon, who even knows the truth of how he died? I believe he was thrown, which is the simplest and probably therefore most likely to succeed plot, but even then it isn't like Balon was a pushover (no pun intended). He could have put up a fight.

Melisandre's magic guaranteed their deaths. Made every plot go off without a hitch, or possibly, a simple act of nature killing an usurper with the absence of plots to cause their demise. Maybe a gust of wind really did kill Balon.

I agree with this.

You can't really prove that she did or didn't seal their fates either way, but perhaps the strongest argument against the theory that she was merely using her power to foretell the future is her mixed record in that regard elsewhere, i.e. we know her visions aren't always clear and can be misinterpreted - but suddenly she gets a perfect 3 out of 3?

[Lady Winter Rose]

Personally, I think it was coincidence. I'm not 100% on the precise timeline, but I think that the Tywin/Roose/Westerline plot resulting in the Red Wedding; and the LF/Tyrells plot to kill Joffrey were already in motion before Mel did this ritual. Robb died, in the end, because he broke his vow and married Jeyne Westerline; Joffrey died because he was a vicious monster and made himself a target for too many people, especially devious people such as the Tyrells and LF. The most popular theory on Balon is, I believe, that Euron hired a FM to kill him. As butterbumps said, I suspect that this is probably Mel trying to prove that she/the Red God has real power after Stannis left her behind before the Blackwater.

Can you be cetain that Balon murdered by Euron, Robb murdered in cospiracy and Joffrey in Tyrell plot were all not be part of magic. Can you be 100% certain that that magic didn't have efect on Tywin, Roose, Euron, Oleana to realise how to kill them? Or affect their action by avoiding them to get caught or fail? Can you be sure magic didn't seal their fates?

That's why this is bad argument, even if I like theory that Mel just predict this fates.

[ab aeterno]

Can you be cetain that Balon murdered by Euron, Robb murdered in cospiracy and Joffrey in Tyrell plot were all not be part of magic. Can you be 100% certain that that magic didn't have efect on Tywin, Roose, Euron, Oleana to realise how to kill them? Or affect their action by avoiding them to get caught or fail? Can you be sure magic didn't seal their fates?

That's why this is bad argument, even if I like theory that Mel just predict this fates.

The burden of proof is on the believer. It is up to you to prove that it did have an effect, not me to prove that it didn't.

https://en.wikipedia...Russel's_teapot

https://en.wikipedia...aghetti_Monster

The best argument is usually the simplest, requiring the fewest assumptions. That's why the argument is a good one, because otherwise we have to assume that Mel's magic works, and that it had an effect on something that was already in motion. The simplest explanation is that these events happened irrespective of Mel's ritual. Robb was killed because Tywin is an exceptionally clever man, because Robb violated his oath and because Roose Bolton is an opportunistic schemer with his eye on Robb's power. Joffrey died because he was a psychopath who everyone hated and most people around him wanted him gotten rid of. Balon either had an accident of was killed because his brother desired his position. None of these require the assumption that Mel's magic played any role.

[Jolene Brown]

To play devil's advocate a bit, we have seen Mel's magic work. She did kill Cortney Penrose and Renly. We know that she has real power.

[ab aeterno]

To play devil's advocate a bit, we have seen Mel's magic work. She did kill Cortney Penrose and Renly. We know that she has real power.

True, but this actually supports my position. If she could have just used leaches to kill them, why did she need to be smuggled in to Storm's End? Why did she need to use a shadow baby? It would have been easier to leech some of Stannis' blood, for example. We've seen no evidence that she can have an effect over great distances, something which would often come in very useful for her and Stannis. Why didn't she kill Tommen and Myrcella as well? They were both Stannis' enemies and Tommen would be king after Joffrey. Her killing Joffrey alone accomplishes little, other than making Stannis' job harder.

Even if we took this as proof that her powers could be used to kill people over distances, this is still a more complicated explanation. Especially where Joffrey and Robb are concerned, their deaths are somewhat predictable, anyway.

[Barty]

What will be the reaction of the North when they hear about this?? We might very well see the north turning on Stannis after they've dealt with the Boltons.

[ab aeterno]

What will be the reaction of the North when they hear about this?? We might very well see the north turning on Stannis after they've dealt with the Boltons.

Personally I don't think it will be an issue really. Firstly, I don't think they'll find out. Secondly, if they do, I doubt they'll believe in the Red God's magic. Thirdly, they already know that Stannis and Robb were enemies during the war, and they'll likely know that Roose either killed Robb or conspired to have Robb killed. Can't see them thinking: "Well, Roose killed Robb but seeing as Mel cursed Robb then it was her fault."

[Barty]

Personally I don't think it will be an issue really. Firstly, I don't think they'll find out. Secondly, if they do, I doubt they'll believe in the Red God's magic. Thirdly, they already know that Stannis and Robb were enemies during the war, and they'll likely know that Roose either killed Robb or conspired to have Robb killed. Can't see them thinking: "Well, Roose killed Robb but seeing as Mel cursed Robb then it was her fault."

Very much possible that they never find out. But the Northmen probably believe in blood magic(seeing as they offered blood sacrifices and all) so they might not be as lenient as one might think. To many men Robb was a hero - undefeatable in battle and the first free king in the north in 300 years. It's much easier to blame the supernatural for the death of heroes than to admit that these heroes are only mortal and they die because of the mistakes they make.

[ab aeterno]

Very much possible that they never find out. But the Northmen probably believe in blood magic(seeing as they offered blood sacrifices and all) so they might not be as lenient as one might think. To many men Robb was a hero - undefeatable in battle and the first free king in the north in 300 years. It's much easier to blame the supernatural for the death of heroes than to admit that these heroes are only mortal and they die because of the mistakes they make.

They don't have to believe that Robb died because he made a mistake though. They need to believe that Roose and the Freys were responsible for Robb's death. I don't think that it is too much of a reach. Blaming Stannis partially absolves Roose and the Freys, and they wouldn't want to do that.

[Barty]

They don't have to believe that Robb died because he made a mistake though. They need to believe that Roose and the Freys were responsible for Robb's death. I don't think that it is too much of a reach. Blaming Stannis partially absolves Roose and the Freys, and they wouldn't want to do that.

True - which is why I stated they might turn on him after he has dealt with the Boltons. On the other hand if Stannis puts Rickon in Winterfell as Warden of the North then I don't see the North turning on Stannis no matter what they hear about the man.

[ab aeterno]

True - which is why I stated they might turn on him after he has dealt with the Boltons. On the other hand if Stannis puts Rickon in Winterfell as Warden of the North then I don't see the North turning on Stannis no matter what they hear about the man.

That's what I mean. They really gain very little from turning on Stannis, and it is easier for them, even after they have dealt with Roose, to blame it all on Roose. They won't need or want any more explanation, so they're unlikely to go looking for one, I think, and unlikely to give it much thought if they hear it. In the end though it'll come down to GRRM as always.

[Lady Winter Rose]

The best argument is usually the simplest, requiring the fewest assumptions. That's why the argument is a good one, because otherwise we have to assume that Mel's magic works, and that it had an effect on something that was already in motion. The simplest explanation is that these events happened irrespective of Mel's ritual. Robb was killed because Tywin is an exceptionally clever man, because Robb violated his oath and because Roose Bolton is an opportunistic schemer with his eye on Robb's power. Joffrey died because he was a psychopath who everyone hated and most people around him wanted him gotten rid of. Balon either had an accident of was killed because his brother desired his position. None of these require the assumption that Mel's magic played any role.

Best argument is logical one.

I believe that Mel just predict these events, but your arguments are bad. Tywin could want Robb dead, Frey might want Robb dead, Roose might want Robb dead, they might all be more capable than Robb, but Mel magic may seal Robb fate. We don't know how magic fuction in Westeros, but am I sure Robb's death, Joffrey's death and Balon's death doesn't be any weirder, doesn't need to take magical form, it can take form of Euron, form of Tyrell, form of Roose... You see things to litteral.

[ab aeterno]

Best argument is logical one.

I believe that Mel just predict these events, but your arguments are bad. Tywin could want Robb dead, Frey might want Robb dead, Roose might want Robb dead, they might all be more capable than Robb, but Mel magic may seal Robb fate. We don't know how magic fuction in Westeros, but am I sure Robb's death, Joffrey's death and Balon's death doesn't be any weirder, doesn't need to take magical form, it can take form of Euron, form of Tyrell, form of Roose... You see things to litteral.

The evidence that magic is involved is circumstantial at best. My argument is far more logical than yours. I'm not arguing that magic couldn't have played a part. It could have. Having said that, the simplest explanation is that it didn't. As your claim is unfalsifiable, the burden is on you to prove that magic did play a part, not on me to prove that it didn't. This is one of the most basic concepts of reasoning. Where is your proof that magic sealed their fates? You could just as well argue that Robert and Ned were killed because Dany wished them dead. Just because Mel says that she will bring about their deaths, that doesn't mean that she was actually responsible. The simpler and hence more likely explanation is that she wasn't. It is simpler to assume that the Tyrells and LF; Roose and Tywin, and Euron all had their own reasons to kill Joffrey, Robb and Euron than it is to assume that they killed them because Mel wished it or "magicked" it.

[kissdbyfire]

To play devil's advocate a bit, we have seen Mel's magic work. She did kill Cortney Penrose and Renly. We know that she has real power.

I'd say she has some real power(s) - shadow-binding; visions, misinterpreted as some seem to be - but certainly not all the powers she claims to have.

[Lady Winter Rose]

I don't think Mel magic was real deal. I am just arguing that you can't say 'Robb was murder by Roose, so magic didn't take a part', because magic doesn't work that way. You have wrong perception od magic. Magic doesn't work as you imagine it would work. It's fictional word, for godsake.

Prove that you argument is more logical than mine. I said it's not true.

And... You said it's simpliest argument that magic didn't take a part because... why?

[ab aeterno]

I don't think Mel magic was real deal. I am just arguing that you can't say 'Robb was murder by Roose, so magic didn't take a part', because magic doesn't work that way. You have wrong perception od magic. Magic doesn't work as you imagine it would work. It's fictional word, for godsake.

Prove that you argument is more logical than mine. I said it's not true.

And... You said it's simpliest argument that magic didn't take a part because... why?

Because the simplest explanation for a person's actions is that their actions are in their own best interests. Killing Robb, Joffrey and Balon are all in the respective culprits' best interests. Therefore it is simpler to assume that they acted in their own self interests and that magic was not involved because there is no evidence that magic is involved.

I'll try to be gentle about this: I'm making no assumption about how magic works. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that magic was involved other than Mel's word, and we know that Mel has been wrong more than once. Regardless of how magic works there is no evidence that it was involved. I'm not saying that magic definitively didn't play any role, I am saying that there is no evidence that it was responsible, and that the simplest explanation, as I have said, is that they were merely acting in their own self interests.

I can argue that: "Robb was murdered by Roose, and that this was arranged by him and Tywin before Mel's ritual, therefore magic most likely wasn't involved," in the same way that I can argue that "natural selection and evolution over millions of years adequately explains the development of plant and animal species without the need to resort to the idea of an intelligent designer." Just like the intelligent designer, magic is not necessary to explain what happened, therefore, in the absence of more compelling evidence, we can say that it is unlikely to have played a role.

[ab aeterno]

Also, to be pedantic, magic, as you say, is not logical. Therefore any explanation that doesn't involve magic is technically more logical.

[butterbumps!]

The idea that Mel's magic either caused or cemented the deaths in question kind of negates the issue of human agency in those murders. In addition to the fact that Mel ought to be able to reproduce the ability to murder via leech and doesn't, we have a problem of free will that I think makes for a much less interesting story than not taking the leech burning as causal in any kind of way.

To say that Mel's leech burning in any way caused or "cemented" this to happen is to say that Roose, Tywin, the Tyrells, Euron/ Balon's own stupidity are not responsible for those murders. So I don't think the logic works well to believe that leech-burning has any effect on anything whatsoever, nor do I believe it's in line with the sort of magic that Mel actually does know and use effectively, and further, I think it yields a far less satisfying implication for the personal responsibility of those behind the murders.

[Lady Winter Rose]

Because the simplest explanation for a person's actions is that their actions are in their own best interests. Killing Robb, Joffrey and Balon are all in the respective culprits' best interests. Therefore it is simpler to assume that they acted in their own self interests and that magic was not involved because there is no evidence that magic is involved.

Yes, they have their own interest. That doesn't exlude magic.

I'll try to be gentle about this: I'm making no assumption about how magic works. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that magic was involved other than Mel's word, and we know that Mel has been wrong more than once. Regardless of how magic works there is no evidence that it was involved. I'm not saying that magic definitively didn't play any role, I am saying that there is no evidence that it was responsible, and that the simplest explanation, as I have said, is that they were merely acting in their own self interests.

Mel made mistakes in predicting future events, but suddenly, she was able to predict three deaths? No evidence that magic was involved. Dude, there are literaly no evidence it didn't. Mel said magic worked, but nobody said it didn't.

Simplest solution, is what? Just because someone had interest and wanted to do it, it doesn't mean he will success.

Yes, Roose stick a sword in Robb hearth and wanted him dead. That doesn't mean magic didn't take a part.

I can argue that: "Robb was murdered by Roose, and that this was arranged by him and Tywin before Mel's ritual, therefore magic most likely wasn't involved," in the same way that I can argue that "natural selection and evolution over millions of years adequately explains the development of plant and animal species without the need to resort to the idea of an intelligent designer." Just like the intelligent designer, magic is not necessary to explain what happened, therefore, in the absence of more compelling evidence, we can say that it is unlikely to have played a role.

Of course magic isn't neccesary. More often in life, things are complicated, filled with lots of non-neccesary things. But not everything in life is simple, even if it had simpliest solution. Simpliest solution deosn't mean the true solution. You can't say my argument is valid because it's the simpliest.

Also, to be pedantic, magic, as you say, is not logical. Therefore any explanation that doesn't involve magic is technically more logical.

I am saying that logical argument isn't valid. Yes, any explanation not involving a magic is logical, but invalid, and can's be used as argument.

I am just saying you can say magic didn't take a part because I see Roose stick a sword in Robb hearth