[TV] House of the Dragon

[RH92]

This is the second time you called for the "removal" of a member of this website from a thread because of a debate. Nothing more.

If you suggest this thinly-veiled thought policing a third time, I'm going to personally message every single moderator and administrator I can find on MMO-Champion and provide links to your posts. Your line of reasoning isn't just absurd - it sets a dangerous precedent. "Conform to the majority opinion or else."

I've never once, in over 20 years of posting on forums of all kinds, run into a poster who made a general appeal to "get rid of someone" because of a disagreement in a thread: moreover, a disagreement that you're not actively engaging in. No one is breaking any of the rules of this forum; your reasoning is based on the incredibly flimsy "this thread was peaceful until he arrived" nonsense. This is a forum. Debating is not only expected, it's commonplace.

Grow up and get used to it.

Go ahead and do that.

I am just tired of this guy ruining every thread. He is not debating, just rephrasing the same paragraphs over and over again to push his own agenda. Whenever I've seen him post, it always turned into an absurd whirlwind of words. Multiple people called him out for twisting their words, just check the last 10 pages of this thread alone. It's not a debate, it's his own echo chamber.

He can have his opinions, I don't care about that. It just pisses me off that whenever I come back to this thread, it's still the same crap that's been already said a dozen of pages before. It's a massive bloat full of shit you have to dig through to find anything at least interesting and that's killing the conversation.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This is the second time you called for the "removal" of a member of this website from a thread because of a debate. Nothing more.

Personally, I don't believe that the individual being referred to is posting in good faith. That can, potentially, be seen as "trolling"...though that is not up to me, you, or RH92 to determine.

I will agree that posting a "get rid of this person" is not a very meaningful way of affecting action leading to that goal. I would suggest that @RH92 start reporting the posts of the individual in question or messaging the mods to take a closer look at the posting habits of that person and decide if they are acting in good faith. Sometimes a single post all by itself, may not be breaking any rules...but taking a step back and looking at their posts at a whole can provide some insight.

to you, Jinnobi, I would suggest the same thing. If you believe that RH92 is posting in a way that breaks the rules of the forum...report his posts. Making threats is unseemly.

[Jastall]

This is the second time you called for the "removal" of a member of this website from a thread because of a debate. Nothing more.

If you suggest this thinly-veiled thought policing a third time, I'm going to personally message every single moderator and administrator I can find on MMO-Champion and provide links to your posts. Your line of reasoning isn't just absurd - it sets a dangerous precedent. "Conform to the majority opinion or else."

I've never once, in over 20 years of posting on forums of all kinds, run into a poster who made a general appeal to "get rid of someone" because of a disagreement in a thread: moreover, a disagreement that you're not actively engaging in. No one is breaking any of the rules of this forum; your reasoning is based on the incredibly flimsy "this thread was peaceful until he arrived" nonsense. This is a forum. Debating is not only expected, it's commonplace.

Grow up and get used to it.

- - - Updated - - -



I hate this line of reasoning. Asking/telling your near-adult daughter to take a book and read to the king in his grief isn't "ensuring" anything. Otto put his daughter in a position where she could spend some time with Viserys alone. It's made very clear - both in the show and the books - that Alicent wasn't some prostitute who tempted Viserys to make bad choices. She won him over by being herself. If anything, Viserys married for love and duty, not duty alone: if he was only interested in duty, he would have married Laena, as he already stated to Rhaenyra.

The only time Viserys was playing the "you set me up with Alicent on purpose" card was when Viserys was in the process of conjuring reasons to fire Otto as Hand; along with the incredibly flimsy implication that Otto somehow made Baelon's appendix burst. If you actually think both reasons Viserys gave Otto for firing him, it becomes clear that Otto exclaiming "that's absurd" is entirely correct:

1) You manipulated me into marrying Alicent because I was sad and vulnerable (6 months after his wife's death)
2) You made my dad die of a burst belly (the Westerosi term for "appendicitis")

There's a reason Viserys immediately reinstated Otto as Hand of the King after Strong Sr. died: Viserys didn't even believe his own excuses. He was "forced" by Rhaenyra to fire Otto or else she wouldn't marry Laenor.

The perspective that Otto somehow manipulated Viserys into marrying Alicent is feeble. It's also something practically everyone has considered in-universe and has apparently been rejected as no one ever mentions it again (even in opportunities where it would be potent ammunition for furthering argument).

Yeah, I also don't agree with anyone being removed. If I find someone too much of a bother to talk to, I'll just stop engaging them. Varodoc has done nothing worthy of any sort of moderating action.

As to the rest, think the point was less that Viserys was somehow forced, and more that Otto successfully put her forward at the right time; Viserys married her later, but she was sent to him very soon after Emma died, the framing of the scene IMO making no secret that Hightower was seizing an opportunity.

It's not a mark against Otto anyway. Corys and perhaps others offscreen certainly had similar ideas. No lord doesn't want to see his daughter wed the king. And Alicent genuinely helped Viserys go through his hard pass in any case, that's made clear.

[Varodoc]

I hate this line of reasoning. Asking/telling your near-adult daughter to take a book and read to the king in his grief isn't "ensuring" anything. Otto put his daughter in a position where she could spend some time with Viserys alone. It's made very clear - both in the show and the books - that Alicent wasn't some prostitute who tempted Viserys to make bad choices. She won him over by being herself. If anything, Viserys married for love and duty, not duty alone: if he was only interested in duty, he would have married Laena, as he already stated to Rhaenyra.

The only time Viserys was playing the "you set me up with Alicent on purpose" card was when Viserys was in the process of conjuring reasons to fire Otto as Hand; along with the incredibly flimsy implication that Otto somehow made Baelon's appendix burst. If you actually think both reasons Viserys gave Otto for firing him, it becomes clear that Otto exclaiming "that's absurd" is entirely correct:

1) You manipulated me into marrying Alicent because I was sad and vulnerable (6 months after his wife's death)
2) You made my dad die of a burst belly (the Westerosi term for "appendicitis")

There's a reason Viserys immediately reinstated Otto as Hand of the King after Strong Sr. died: Viserys didn't even believe his own excuses. He was "forced" by Rhaenyra to fire Otto or else she wouldn't marry Laenor.

The perspective that Otto somehow manipulated Viserys into marrying Alicent is feeble. It's also something practically everyone has considered in-universe and has apparently been rejected as no one ever mentions it again (even in opportunities where it would be potent ammunition for furthering argument).

Why was this even a bad thing for Viserys? It was Alicent who basically sacrificed her life and is the true victim, Viserys only gained from marrying Alicent.

It's pretty clear that Viserys enjoyed Alicent's company during his time of grief. Alicent also proved to be a person who genuinely took care and showed affection to Viserys. While Rhaenyra was busy having illegitimate bastards with Harwin Strong, Alicent was taking care of Viserys and doing her duty. While Rhaenyra was spending time with her groomer uncle in Dragonstone (the groomer uncle who has no problem choking and almost killing her over a political disagreement btw), Alicent was always by the king's side, attending his every need. Why was it a bad thing for Viserys to get married to Alicent? Alicent proved to be an amazing and good-natured person; despite not being loved by Viserys, and sacrificing personal pleasure for duty, she still showed genuine affection to Viserys.

This is demonstrated several times in episode 8. When Viserys cries in pain on the Iron Throne, Alicent rushes to his side to help him. Later on, at the dinner, Rhaenyra publicly thanks Alicent for having been such a good consort to the sick king. When Viserys is in pain at dinner, Alicent is once again the first one who calls for help. In Viserys' final moments, we see Alicent comforting the king and trying to lessen his pain.

After Viserys' body is taken away, Alicent is seen genuinely crying. She confronts her father and the whole council and protects Rhaenyra from the assassination plot because that's what Viserys would have wanted. Even after Viserys is dead and she can do whatever she wants, Alicent still decides to respect the late king's wishes. When Lord Jasper Wylde tries to imply that Viserys never truly cared about Rhaenyra, Alicent immediately cuts him off and threatens him to send him to the Wall if he accuses the late king one more time.

It's pretty obvious that the love and affection that Alicent felt towards Viserys was genuine. Viserys was lucky to have remarried with her. Sadly I don't think Viserys ever realized just how much affection Alicent truly felt for him. He didn't even apologize when he was publicly corrected for having mistaken Alicent for Aemma.

So in short, even if you wanted to argue that Otto orchestrated events so that his daughter would marry the king... I mean, Alicent proved to be a dutiful and affectionate wife to Viserys, so I don't see how this was a bad thing for anyone but Alicent (who unfortunately had to give up a life of pleasure and passion).

[eschatological]

Stanning a character, and/or having different opinions of which characters are "better" in a work of fiction is not only not against the rules of this subforum, but also might be considered the main thrust of this subforum. As long as you keep real life social agendas and that stuff out of it, it's all within the scope of Cinema/TV.

[Adamas102]

Each parent, not each lineage, Rhaenyra was not 100% Targeryan for her son to be 50% targeryan, Targeryan blood was diminished with each generation and her sons are one generation down.

Yeah sure, it's great that you dropped the original argument about blood purity somehow determining dragon control, but a lot of bizarre misinformation was still being tossed around (not just by you). I mean, simply using the term "pureblood" to refer to people (as if they were dogs or horses) is pretty outdated and ignorant, especially since even Viserys and Daemon have non-Targaryen ancestors only 3 generations back. Your argument also seemed to hinge on the idea that one single physical feature might determine how much of a particular lineage an individual inherited which is kind of absurd given how narrow a scope that is.

[Syegfryed]

Yeah sure, it's great that you dropped the original argument about blood purity somehow determining dragon control, but a lot of bizarre misinformation was still being tossed around (not just by you). I mean, simply using the term "pureblood" to refer to people (as if they were dogs or horses) is pretty outdated and ignorant, especially since even Viserys and Daemon have non-Targaryen ancestors only 3 generations back. Your argument also seemed to hinge on the idea that one single physical feature might determine how much of a particular lineage an individual inherited which is kind of absurd given how narrow a scope that is.

I mean, what are you even trying to accomplish here, are you fighting disinformation, are you fighting "outdaded" terms - in a show that have incestuous family and political marriages - or this is just you trying to please your ego to nitpick something we already know it was not truth and were merely discussing out of curiosity just to try to paint me as "ignorant" despite you being wrong about Rhaenyra sons not being 50% targeryan?

You are ignoring whole bits of conversation, give a rest, we already closed that discussion, and we already know blood-purity is not a thing here but their sorcery shenanigans.

[Alteiry]

The show changes actually make the civil war a "tragedy", like GRRM intended. Book!Aemond is just your stereotypical evil crazy psychopath, Show!Aemond doesn't start off as this. Maybe he will become this war criminal in the future, but at the beginning he wasn't out for blood. Hence, it's a tragedy that civil war erupted because of a misunderstanding between the rider and his dragon.

Just like Book!Alicent is just the stereotypical evil powerhungry stepmum; while Show!Alicent sincerely believes that Viserys changed his mind at the end. Hence, it's a tragedy that civil war erupted because Alicent, not knowing about the Conqueror's prophecy, mistook Viserys' dying words for a change of heart.

The civil war was caused by a series of unfortunate misunderstandings. Like a Greek tragedy, all the death and destruction happens because of misunderstandings.

It should be noted that the Fire & Blood book is written in-universe by Archmaester Gyldayn who lived into the reign of Robert Baratheon almost two centuries after the events of Fire & Blood/House of the Dragon events. So not only did Gyldayn not personally witness the events of the Dance, he probably came into the project of writing Fire & Blood with his own misconceptions, expectations and agendas concerning what went down during the Dance.

[Varodoc]

It should be noted that the Fire & Blood book is written in-universe by Archmaester Gyldayn who lived into the reign of Robert Baratheon almost two centuries after the events of Fire & Blood/House of the Dragon events. So not only did Gyldayn not personally witness the events of the Dance, he probably came into the project of writing Fire & Blood with his own misconceptions, expectations and agendas concerning what went down during the Dance.

That's fine and his flawed testimony can be reconciled with the show (which is how the events really played out). Aemond will be too proud to admit that he could not control Vhagar, that would also reflect terribly on the Greens (not being able to control the largest nuke on the continent), so Aemond will just claim that he always planned to kill Lucerys to save face. He will be remembered by history as a kinslayer and no one will know the truth (that he never wanted to kill Lucerys). For this reason, the history of Aemond is a tragedy.

It's a shame, however, that history will never remembered that it was Arrax who dealt the first blow. And that his fire blast could have easily killed Aemond, instead of hitting Vhagar.

[Adamas102]

I mean, what are you even trying to accomplish here, are you fighting disinformation, are you fighting "outdaded" terms - in a show that have incestuous family and political marriages - or this is just you trying to please your ego to nitpick something we already know it was not truth and were merely discussing out of curiosity just to try to paint me as "ignorant" despite you being wrong about Rhaenyra sons not being 50% targeryan?

You are ignoring whole bits of conversation, give a rest, we already closed that discussion, and we already know blood-purity is not a thing here but their sorcery shenanigans.

I wouldn’t say fighting misinformation, merely pointing it out. And yes perhaps I misspoke when responding using all the different terms that have been thrown around (lineage, parentage, blood, genes, traits, etc), but saying Rhaenyra’s children could be 50% Targaryen is merely a rounding error. If we make the assumption that silver hair is dominant then her children with Harwin could very well still have 49.9999% Targaryen DNA. Meanwhile Alicent’s children can max out at 50% Targaryen DNA but could also be significantly lower. Basically, the point is that there is no way to say which of those kids has more “Targaryen blood” based only on their hair color.

Making such determinations of “pure bloodedness” based on a small handful of visual characteristics is what I was pointing out as outdated since it borrows heavily from things like colonialism and nazism.

[Koriani]

I already know you posters arguing about intent and coups and how the last couple of episodes played out (or didn't) have put more thought into all this then the show writers ever did =D

As much as I enjoy this show - it has far more plot holes and 'plot armor' logic than the original GoT ever did. I already picked apart the first half of the season for the multiple 'wtf - why/makes no sense' moments ALL the characters were engaging in and the plot that was being forced to 'fit' no matter what 'logic' (or lack thereof) the characters had to display in order to make the plot get where it needed to go. (And posted several posts about it in the earlier pages)

You guys arguing for pages about something explained by superficial tv writing - which IS the reality of this show. This show is NOT being written with as much thought behind motivations and character logic as was displayed in the first 5-6 seasons of GoT. I've not read the original book so I don't know if GRRM just didn't work the logic when he wrote it and handwaved it all (and lost some of that talent from when he was writing the early books), or if the show writers are doing it.

But there are tons of decisions, statements, and other little 'moments' in this show that proved to me by the half-way mark that I was going to have to be ok handwaving some of this "huh" logic in order to enjoy the show. But you guys can keep arguing like either side knows what really 'happened' with the writer's room logic.

THE BIGGER QUESTION HERE I wanna know is -

Who the Hell was that giant/old Dragon Damon went into the basement (pit?) to sing to?

Are we suppose to already know who this dragon is from earlier in the show - or is this a 'surprise' reveal for Second Season? Because I missed where this dragon came from =D. Or was that Daemon's "normal" dragon and I just didn't recognize the creature from the way the scene was shot/lit underground? (Which makes me wonder wth the scene was for if it was his normal dragon).

If its a surprise reveal - you don't have to spoil who the dragon 'is', just let me know we aren't suppose to know yet - as the scene just left me confused.

[Syegfryed]

Basically, the point is that there is no way to say which of those kids has more “Targaryen blood” based only on their hair color.

Like i said, i know that, dude, we talk about that too, we only used the hair as a point of reference in the discussion early because is one and prob only one of the few phenotypes we can actually see, since there is no purple eyes or other big characteristics.

Making such determinations of “pure bloodedness” based on a small handful of visual characteristics is what I was pointing out as outdated since it borrows heavily from things like colonialism and nazism.

lmao, gonna just stop here, i know what you are trying to do.

[RH92]

Who the Hell was that giant/old Dragon Damon went into the basement (pit?) to sing to?

Are we suppose to already know who this dragon is from earlier in the show - or is this a 'surprise' reveal for Second Season? Because I missed where this dragon came from =D. Or was that Daemon's "normal" dragon and I just didn't recognize the creature from the way the scene was shot/lit underground? (Which makes me wonder wth the scene was for if it was his normal dragon).

If its a surprise reveal - you don't have to spoil who the dragon 'is', just let me know we aren't suppose to know yet - as the scene just left me confused.

The name of dragon is Vermithor, he is one of the oldest and biggest dragons. He was King Jaehaerys' dragon and is currently without a rider.

Daemon was constatnly talking about multiple riderless dragons, I think he is calling them to war. Vermithor will be a part of huge storyline to come.

[Syegfryed]

The name of dragon is Vermithor, he is one of the oldest and biggest dragons. He was King Jaehaerys' dragon and is currently without a rider.

Daemon was constatnly talking about multiple riderless dragons, I think he is calling them to war. Vermithor will be a part of huge storyline to come.

He does mention Vermithor and Silverwing, two riderless dragons

[RH92]

He does mention Vermithor and Silverwing, two riderless dragons

Vermithor, Silverwing and three wild dragons that are yet to be claimed are living on Dragonstone; and Daemon specifically said Seasmoke is still residing on Driftmark.

As I said before, Vermithor was king Jaehaerys' dragon while Silverwing was of his wife 'the good queen' Alysanne and we all know by now that Seasmoke belonged to Laenor Velaryon.

However I am interested in how will they handle the wild dragons. Cannibal is very old and pretty big, the others are Sheepstealer and Grey Ghost.

[Syegfryed]

However I am interested in how will they handle the wild dragons. Cannibal is very old and pretty big, the others are Sheepstealer and Grey Ghost.

From what i read not much, they are kinda side-side story and only sheepstealer is a bit more relevant because of its raider.

[RH92]

From what i read [spoilers] not much, they are kinda side-side story and only sheepstealer is a bit more relevant because of its raider. [/spoiler]

I think it would be interesting to explore a difference between 'tamed' and wild dragons.

Is there really a big difference at all? It is not really about the dragons themselves but an interesting way to expand Viserys' thought about Targaryen's not really controlling dragons. They are a family whose whole indentity is built around having dragons. In a way it is quite arrogant from them to assume they possess full control over them and yet you see guys like Daemon and Rhaenyra having incredible bond with their dragons.

I remember Matt Smith explaining in an interview that Caraxes is like an avatar of Daemon, almost like an extension of himself. And yet in final episode we saw two young dragon riders struggling to control their dragons. Why is that really? Aemond doesn't strike me as weak minded and his dragon is an experienced war machine.

[MCMLXXXII]

In horse-riding a rider and his horse have a bond. There are emirs and sheihks buying expensive, prizewinning horses to compete with them in jumping events and can't do jack shit with them.

[Koriani]

Vermithor, Silverwing and three wild dragons that are yet to be claimed are living on Dragonstone; and Daemon specifically said Seasmoke is still residing on Driftmark.

As I said before, Vermithor was king Jaehaerys' dragon while Silverwing was of his wife 'the good queen' Alysanne and we all know by now that Seasmoke belonged to Laenor Velaryon.

However I am interested in how will they handle the wild dragons. Cannibal is very old and pretty big, the others are Sheepstealer and Grey Ghost.

AHh okey - I was thinking about that scene you referenced with Daemon, and the 'unclaimed' dragons he was talking about when he went down there singing. I just didn't realize they had riderless dragons *captured* and being held. I had assumed, falsely obviously, that any 'riderless' dragon would be free-ranging rather than just kept in a basement all the time. (poor draggie!) I also wasn't aware that it was a King's Dragon that was riderless and hanging around (or realized what "still residing on Driftmark" meant).

I think it would be interesting to explore a difference between 'tamed' and wild dragons.

Is there really a big difference at all? It is not really about the dragons themselves but an interesting way to expand Viserys' thought about Targaryen's not really controlling dragons. They are a family whose whole indentity is built around having dragons. In a way it is quite arrogant from them to assume they possess full control over them and yet you see guys like Daemon and Rhaenyra having incredible bond with their dragons.

I remember Matt Smith explaining in an interview that Caraxes is like an avatar of Daemon, almost like an extension of himself. And yet in final episode we saw two young dragon riders struggling to control their dragons. Why is that really? Aemond doesn't strike me as weak minded and his dragon is an experienced war machine.

Man I would love it if they would get more into this - but I doubt they will! (The Wild Vs. 'Tame' Dragon stuff).

Though to me, as with someone else mentioning horses and their bonds, your question about Caraxes/Daemon Bond vs. the two young dragon riders - is a 'simple' explanation. Daemon has been riding Caraxes far, far, longer than either of the other two young dragon-riders. Now the Westeros Lore may come up with something more complicated or 'magical' for this - or it could be /this/ simple.

Bonds are formed over time. Daemon has simply had more time to bond with his dragon (DECADES more) and, as a result, they are more in sync and he's more likely to get compliance to an order because of that. Luke is roughly between 10-13 years old (yes?) and, assuming he mounted his dragon around age 4-6 (no idea but I wouldn't think younger than that?), means he's been bonding with Arrax for about 5-7 years. Aemon has had even less time with his big girl, Vhagar - so maybe about 5 (?).

Just from years spent riding with each mount - regardless of other temperaments of dragon or rider - Daemon's Bond and how his dragon responds to him is in a class above where Luke or Aemon are with their dragons.

In addition - Arrax is far younger dragon than either of the other two and so probably less likely to be as compliant in general as well as less aware of how his behaviors would be effecting the other dragon, or how deadly it was to piss off that far larger dragon. One might think it would have known better - but the animal kingdom is filled with baby and young-adult animals making such stupid mistakes simply because they are young and inexperienced and being killed by older animals because of that.

And as much as Vhagar is far, far, older than the other two dragons - all the more reason to be why this Elder StatesDragon's Rider (Aemon) perhaps hasn't earned the full respect, and therefore command compliance, of his more mature dragon. That Elder Dragon had no reason given to her at all as to why she needed to "obey" before chomping at the (literal to the dragon) CHILD upstart who dared to insult her with his fire. You'd probably have to ride Vhagar for many, many, years to earn that type of respect/compliance.

And we really don't actually know if Daemon's dragon IS better behaved/responsive/would have acted differently had it been Daemon/Caraxes in that chase rather than Aemon/Vhagar. Just because we haven't been given a scene where Caraxes defies (or attempts to defy) Daemon doesn't mean he Wouldn't. If Arrax had fired at Caraxes's face like that, perhaps Daemon also wouldn't have been able to stop his dragon from engaging in that fight.

Like they quoted - When Dragon's Fight, Westeros Burns. The Dragon doesn't give a shit about the human politics. The dragon cares it was attacked/attacking and therefore it will defend/attack/kill back. And I have no doubt that the 'truth' of this Bond, of the "control" they 'believe' they have over their dragons, is really entirely because the Dragon is volunteering its compliance. And part of the reason they are warned away in 'old quotes' from doing war like this, is because it also showed everyone else who's really in control. And it ain't the humans.

[Jastall]

I think it would be interesting to explore a difference between 'tamed' and wild dragons.

Is there really a big difference at all? It is not really about the dragons themselves but an interesting way to expand Viserys' thought about Targaryen's not really controlling dragons. They are a family whose whole indentity is built around having dragons. In a way it is quite arrogant from them to assume they possess full control over them and yet you see guys like Daemon and Rhaenyra having incredible bond with their dragons.

I remember Matt Smith explaining in an interview that Caraxes is like an avatar of Daemon, almost like an extension of himself. And yet in final episode we saw two young dragon riders struggling to control their dragons. Why is that really? Aemond doesn't strike me as weak minded and his dragon is an experienced war machine.

Dragons are, per Martin, about as intelligent as dogs, maybe a bit more. While most dogs are loyal to their masters, it goes only to a point, some never lose their instincts and others can be quite unruly if not brought to hell in the right way.

Vhagar in particular has seen many riders and is very, very old. Bond or not, her not respecting the one who's just the latest in a list of riders makes sense to me. Caraxes only had one other rider, and it has been decades since Daemon was his only master. It makes sense that he would have more hold over him than Aemond over Vhagar.

My personal theory is that the dragons obey whatever magic is in the Valyrian blood that compels them to do so, at least as much as they obey their actual rider. If the rider holds not that much sway over them, only the magic remains and it only works to a point, especially in the heat of the moment when instinct takes over.