User blog comment:Fimber/Things that went wrong in "The Death Song of Uther Pendragon"/@comment-7285162-20130415005522/@comment-7285162-20130603185635

To be honest, the workings of that special power over life and death were never 100% clear to me, although I guess it wasn't all explained in too much detail. Still, a couple points I can point out.

Firstly, as I said, there wouldn't be too much of a sacrifice and a "great price" should just a random stranger die, would it? It's my belief that *someone* close must part with his or her life anyway.

You try to show me that Nimueh is elusive and doesn't deny those accusations directly. That I do know very well, but she doesn't confirm it either. If anything, she vaguely hints that she most likely couldn't take Merlin's life even if she wanted to. Besides, Gaius himself offered his own life, that's quite different from pointing someone from the crowd, isn't it?

Actually, the same pertains to all "The Darkest Drama", almost like a reprise, so it seems pretty consistent to me.

Secondly, where did you get that "life for a healing" thing from? That never was the case, I think you're making it up.

An ordinary wound or whatever doesn't automatically make you a dead man, you see. Even if they seem lethal in those conditions, it's probably nothing some surgery and blood transfusion wouldn't eventually fix.

The power of the old religion is a rather different matter: you die for sure (although the means can vary, be it a poison, a desease or even death by childbirth), it's only a matter of time (technically speaking, Igraine had approximately nine months, no less!). That particular power which requires a life for a life has only been used on special occasions to cure infertility (which counts as creating a new life) or undo those effects the same power caused in the first place.

And Uther with his "Machiavelli-style" - in the dark ages with enemies and powerful kingdoms all around (e.g. Cenred and Caerleon) who would conquer other kingdoms at any time in order to gain power, territory, ressources and whatnot, a softie as king would have never worked.

Should it have been the real world, you'd have a point. But you see, "Merlin" is quite on the opposite side of the Sliding Scale of Idealism vs Cynicism, if you know what I mean.

Most of his life Arthur is... being Arthur, i. e. doing extremely stupid, although benevolent things. In fact, that makes him so special and always bears him success (even Camlann was not a failure as many fans percieve it). Ironically, it's mostly the antagonists who are always very cynical and practical in the most terrible sense, but they generally fail against the naive dollophead Arthur and his sly big-eared friend. Moreover, when Arthur tries ruling in a "proper" way like Agravaine advises him, it doesn't turn out too well. Ultimately, even Merlin's "growing up", i. e. his intention to finally get rid of Mordred, leads him to failure.

''Yes, of course! Even Gwen and Gwaine told Arthur what they thought of Uther. ''

Oh, you're such a wide-eyed idealist! (Gives a rose) You've never tried living in a real-world society where being overheard disagreeing with the government on your kitchen would result in severe repression of you and all your family, have you? ;)

Arthur, Gwaine and even Gwen (though it pains me to admit it --- I still hate her :D) were all quite special, although I believe even Arthur would likely waste anyone (apart from those significant to him, of course) speaking disrespectfully of his daddy with his sword on the spot.

--

You mention several Kings apart from Uther who were against magic. The thing is, none of them apart from the Fisher King was a sorcerer, therefore magic was a major force that jeopardized their authority.

''Align, the Witchfinder, Cenred  and the bandits weren't magical creatures but humans (oh, and I forgot the assassin who wanted to kill Arthur). The Sidhe, the pixies, the Anhora and the ghost of the druid boy weren't monsters. And Cornelius Sigan had nothing to do with Uther whatsoever but with one former king of Camelot. The creatures, monsters as you say, were created/invented/used by the Old Religion which wasn't quite a club of charity-lovers. And Valiant and Trickler/Align were good examples for those humans who abused magic.''

''And they all didn't attack Camelot out of revenge on Uther. ''

This is the irony --- several adversaries like the Bandits, Alined, Valiant or Myror didn't have magic at all, but they were evil. The druid boy was restless and vengeful "thanks" to Arthur actually. Anhora didn't quite attack anyone or take pleasure from it, he seemed only as a guide and a messenger of some other force.

As for non-humans (any of them), I just say that human standards can't be applied to them. Wolves can attack villages and eat the livestock, but you don't really call them villains, do you?

Ultimately, it's not weapons, poison or magic that kills anyone or is evil, it's humans. Who knows, if, say, Nimueh or another magic authority like a High Priestess or a powerful Warlock ruled the land instead of Uther, maybe Camelot would fare much better, who knows, and those oh-so-noble Knights of Camelot would then be a threat and a destructive force.

''I actually don't understand your question. Do you mean "what" I think he should have done? ''

Yes, that's what I meant. Just a simple misprint, happens to all of us, doesn't it? Sorry for the inconvenience.