User blog comment:Fimber/Things that went wrong in "The Death Song of Uther Pendragon"/@comment-5102537-20130604105953

To avoid scrolling until doomsday, i'll respond here. Our conversation below has become a really huge one.

ReganX wrote: I think that you're giving the writers a bit too much credit.

''I'd say that it's more likely that it was no longer convenient for them to acknowledge the established canon that the Law of Magic required that the Balance of Life and Death be maintained because they didn't want there to be a serious ethical barrier to the healing of any of the major characters by magical means, as it would mean that Merlin was sacrificing somebody's life if he healed Arthur of a mortal wound. Can't have the Designated Hero doing that sort of thing. I was horrified to see the Druids heal Sir Leon with the Cup of Life, given that they were supposed to be a peaceful people, and had just killed somebody''.

I suppose you're right, ReganX. However, they could have clarified it all if they had just mentioned at some point that Nimueh and the Questing Beast were responsible for the particular law of magic that a life had to be taken in exchange for another. I'm still not sure whether this was their intention or whether the writers/showrunners simply ignored it due to plot convenience.

Ambrosius wrote: "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."''

Indeed. And Nimueh, as Uther's friend, should have told him that Igreine's death was more than possible. Yet she didn't even tell Merlin later that his request will cause the death of a loved one.

"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?"

Gaius confirmed it when he told her to atone for the death of Igraine. Instead of saying that it wasn't her who chose Igraine, Nimueh says that she saved Arthur's life. Why would she let others believe that she was responsible for Igraine's death when it wasn't true? Gaius was there back then and he was the one who asked for magical help on Uther's behalf. And Merlin confirmed it too when he spoke to Nimueh. Again she didn't object but simply changed the subject. And yes, Gaius offered his life and Nimueh was able to take it. How when she wasn't the one who chooses the one to die? If it was only the Old Religion, so only coincidence, so to speak, Nimueh couldn't have chosen Gaius in exchange for Hunith. If I was a doctor and a patient was about to die, I wouldn't be able to just choose another patient to die because nature would do its job and I would be helpless, as anyone else. Same with Nimueh if it was "nature"/the Old Religion who chose a life. She wouldn't be able to change the laws of physics, so to speak. But she was. She chose the ones who had to die.

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

Absolutely not. In "Le Morte d'Arthur" it is more than clear that a life has to be taken in order to heal someone's life when only magic can help, which is why Nimueh almost killed Hunith and Gaius when Merlin requested Nimueh's help to heal Arthur. Look at what ReganX wrote, it explains quite well why this rule was ignored later when both Arthur and Morgana were healed by magic. And they would have died without magic for sure. What you say about surgery, such things weren't possible at that point of time. Magic was the only thing that could heal them, therefore, accordng to the rule, another life had to be taken. I don't know why you think I'm making things up. On the contrary, the first season showed us quite well that healing people with magic wasn't just a simple thing to do. It was either conventient to change it later or they really intended to show us that Nimueh and the Questing Beast were responsible for it all. In case that this rule only referred to wounds caused by magic, the show could have mentioned it at some point. And actually, Morgana was fatally wounded by magic because Merlin used magic to prevent her from killing Uther. Not to mention Arthur's final wound in the finale when he was stabbed with the sword forged by Aithusa's breath. If Merlin had succeeded to heal him on the Isle of the blessed, who would have died for him? The only difference between season one's Arthur almost dying and the rest of the show was that Nimueh and the Questing Beast were still alive. So either way, the rule was no subject anymore all of a sudden and the show failed to clarify the reasons for it.

"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."

I would agree if it hadn't been for all the kings and sorcerers who tried to take advantage of the supposedly weakness of Camelot every time that Uther was out of order. Remember when Arthur rescued the witch from the mob in "The Death Song..."? The people of the village didn't respect Arthur's kindness but considered it to be weakness. All those mentionings of Gaius and others that now that Uther is weak, Camelot is in danger, also proved that a strong king was more than necessary. Caerleon didn't dare to cross the borders while Uther was still alive but he did when Uther was dead. And when Morgana used the mandrake root, Cenred and the M&M sisters attacked Camelot because Uther wasn't capable of leading. For some reason, Arthur was just an inconvenient piece of trouble but in their opinion no match for them all - unlike Uther.

''2Oh, 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? ;)''"

Not where I come from. But even when considering that there are still countries that persecute people of whom they think they are enemies of the state, Arthur surely would have heard of different stories during his lifetime. Gaius wouldn't have told Merlin about the destructive powers of magic in the past (and present) if it wasn't true. Merlin would have heard different stories, from Balinor or Kilgharrah at the latest. We, as the audience, would have heard a different story in order to let us know that it wasn't true. Arthur was around 30 years when he died. During his lifetime he would have heard otherwise one way or another. There are people in our time and in the real world who fight against their states, no matter the consequences, so why should there have not been people on the show who told the "truth" if magic was just a fluffy cute harmless thing? You can't hold back the truth for centuries without just anyone speaking up. And the showrunners never ever showed us just any sign that what Gaius said and what Arthur and everyone else knew was a lie. Like it or not, Uther was the one who ended the ongoing wars and who brought peace to Camelot (sadly also by the Great Purge), which was already mentioned by Gaius in season one. Just rewatch the show and you will get hints and comments in every season that proves that magic almost destroyed the land before Uther ended it all.

"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."

I don't see any benevolence in persecuting sorcerers and in denying them a proper burial. But since the dragon always told us that Arthur is the messiah and since Merlin loves Arthur like a brother, we are supposed to believe that what he does is alright whereas the same things done by Uther are evil. Arthur was described as being naive beyond belief, which was another big failure of the show. And Agravaine only manipulated him (like Merlin and Gaius did) in order to reach his goal. It didn't have anything to do with proper ruling. Right, Merlin "growing up" led to his and Arthur's ultimate failure, so I don't understand why you feel that Camlann wasn't a failure. On the other hand, if Merlin had just killed Mordred before it all happened, Arthur wouldn't have died at his hands. Actually, the message of it all was that Merlin's hesitation to kill Mordred himself (as you know, he always wanted others to do the job) caused Arthur's death and the ultimate failure to fulfill the destiny. A very questionable message.

"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."

Arthur never really defended his father when others spoke ill of him, except for a lukewarm comment towards Gwaine once. Every other time he just let people rant about Uther, which I think was inappropriate. He wasn't the type of person who would have killed anyone who had told him things ther wouldn't want to be told and the people knew that. And again: why did Gaius tell the things to Merlin and why did Merlin never even question it but accpeted it completely?

"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."

Or a major force that could have helpled them to gain even more power. Imagine a powerful sorcerer like Merlin or sorcererss like Nimueh would have helped those kings defeating other kingdoms? This is what happened at the time before Uther took Camelot and what caused the destruction. Every king with the help of powerful magic-users/sorcerers would have an advantage over others.

"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?"''

The point was that you said that all the sorcerers/magic-users who attacked Camelot did it out of revenge on Uther. I listed the attackers that didn't seek revenge on Uther but had own agendas. Whether they themselves were evil or became evil due to the magic they used, it all contributed to Uther's point of view that nothing good can come from magic. And the creatures you mentioned were used if not created by the Old Religion, which is another treason why he thought that magic/the Old Religion was evil. Except for the unicorn we never saw just any creature that wasn't a threat and equipped with magical powers that only had the purpose to destroy others. I'm not blaming the creatures but the ones who created and/or used them.

"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."

But this is what happened before the ban of magic. The land was ruled by magic and brought nothing but destruction. Aside from the fact that humans are not evolved enough to use great powers reasonably (as we can see even today with all our destructive weapons), the Triple Goddess proved very well that she/the Old Religion demanded unconditional obedience, otherwise people are doomed. The Old Religion didn't tolerate freedom of choice as was evident when she blackmailed Arthur and punished him when he rejected her dogma. I think it's pretty obvious that such a power would never rule any better than a human king/non-magic user.

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

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

Never mind, happens to all of us indeed :-) Just overlook my own  typos/errors. I'll answer your question in another post, if you don't mind.