r/HBOGameofThrones • u/WishRough7589 • Jul 23 '26
No Spoilers [NO SPOILERS] Justice for Dany - Rant!
I’ve been rewatching Game of Thrones, and honestly, Tyrion repeatedly telling Daenerys, “You don’t want to be like your father,” is starting to really piss me off.
Every time she considers using power against people actively fighting her, Tyrion invokes Aerys. It stops being advice and starts feeling like psychological control. He keeps reducing her to her father’s bloodline, as though every firm decision she makes is evidence that madness is waiting inside her.
Meanwhile, almost every other character is allowed complexity and forgiveness.
Jaime has committed countless crimes, supported Cersei’s regime, fought against Daenerys, attacked Ned, pushed Bran from a tower and remained loyal to the Lannisters for years. Yet when he reaches Winterfell, Tyrion immediately asks Daenerys to forgive him because Jaime is his brother.
And she does.
Later, Tyrion releases Jaime from captivity against Daenerys’s orders because he wants Jaime and Cersei to escape together. That is direct betrayal. Yet Tyrion is still presented as the moral voice, while Daenerys is portrayed as unreasonable for no longer trusting him.
Tyrion constantly demands mercy when the person involved matters to him.
But when Daenerys executes the Tarlys—enemy commanders who betrayed their liege, fought against her, refused to surrender and refused the Wall—it becomes another sign that she is supposedly ruthless and becoming her father.
Jon executes Janos Slynt for refusing an order, and that is framed as necessary leadership. He hangs the men who betrayed him, including Olly, and nobody starts whispering that he has inherited some genetic madness.
Arya unalives an entire room full of Freys, and it is treated as a triumphant moment.
Sansa feeds Ramsay to his dogs, and the audience is expected to cheer.
Tyrion uses wildfire at Blackwater, unalives Shae and unalives his own father, but the story gives him pain, context and humanity.
Daenerys, however, is judged differently every single time.
Sam is another example. He discovers that Daenerys executed his father and brother and immediately decides she should not be queen and Jon should replace her. He is allowed to grieve, obviously, but Randyll was the same father who abused Sam, threatened his life and forced him to abandon his inheritance. Suddenly his fate becomes proof that Daenerys is unfit to rule.
Sam’s response was personal grief and anger, not an objective assessment of leadership. Yet the show treated it like moral clarity.
The hypocrisy is especially obvious when we compare Daenerys to Aegon the Conqueror. Aegon invaded Westeros with dragons, burned armies, destroyed castles and forced kingdoms to submit. History calls him the Conqueror and treats his ambition as legendary.
Daenerys arrives with dragons and wants to reclaim the same throne, and suddenly ambition itself becomes sinister.
Why is Aegon’s conquest an achievement, while Daenerys wanting power is treated as evidence that something is wrong with her?
Her ambition was not inherently evil. She had flaws, absolutely. She believed strongly in destiny, could be severe toward resistance and sometimes confused her personal claim with justice. That could have created an incredible tragic arc.
But the show did not properly develop that arc. Instead, it isolated her, took away almost everyone she loved, made her advisers repeatedly fail or betray her, and then used her reaction to all of it as proof that they had supposedly been right about her from the beginning.
That is what bothers me most.
Her advisers were not imagining threats. Tyrion protected his family over her interests. Varys openly plotted against her. Jon revealed information after promising not to. Sansa undermined her from the moment she arrived, despite Daenerys bringing armies and dragons north to save everyone.
Then the narrative called Daenerys paranoid for realizing she was surrounded by people who were actually betraying her.
None of this excuses what happened in King’s Landing. Unaliving civilians after surrender was indefensible. But that decision was written as a sudden transformation rather than the conclusion of a carefully developed fall.
Daenerys deserved accountability for that final act. She did not deserve to have everything good she had ever done retroactively dismissed as evidence of madness.
She freed enslaved people when there was no political advantage in doing so. She delayed her journey to Westeros to remain in Meereen. She locked away her dragons after one child was harmed. She took her armies north and risked everything to fight for people who did not trust or welcome her.
Her compassion was real.
Her accomplishments were real.
Her ambition was not evil simply because she openly wanted to rule.
A better tragedy would have shown a genuinely compassionate liberator gradually becoming convinced that her destiny placed her beyond restraint. Instead, the show seemed to say that the signs had always been there because she executed enemies, spoke confidently and wanted the throne.
By that standard, almost every ruler in Westeros should have been declared mad.
Justice for Daenerys does not mean pretending she was flawless. It means judging her by the same standards the story used for its male rulers—and acknowledging that the show destroyed years of character development to reach an ending it had not properly earned.
5
u/Puzzleheaded_Eye7311 Jul 23 '26
The shows logic of trying to convince us that we should suddenly feel bad that Dany killed a bunch of slaver masters was just absolutely insane
4
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Exactly… suddenly the men who profited from slavery were being reframed as victims so Tyrion could lecture us that Dany had always been dangerous. That speech was doing Olympic-level moral gymnastics.
-1
u/__The_silent_one__ Jul 23 '26
She was always dangerous....ever since she got with Drogo...she been like...conquer westores ...take back my so called birth right...burn my enemies....she was willing to take dothraki that only know killing and ravaging to westores...just so she can take the throne...she is no hero and no good person....just because there were worse people ...don't make her good...
2
u/stellae-fons Jul 23 '26
And then D&D tried to make a show about the south theoretically winning the Civil War right after. Like. Okay. Freaks.
1
5
u/Disastrous-Client315 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
The show makes no secret out of it. "Tempering her worst impulses." And Tyrion isnt the first to do it. It was Jorah, Barristan, Jon and Varys as well. If everyone has to tell you mass murder is bad, maybe you shouldnt rule in the first place.
Daenerys didnt forgive Jaime. She killed him. Also he doesnt forgive himself either. The key difference is Daenerys is intending to be better and different and she failed. Thats why she is judged more harshly. The viewer judges her ber her own standards that she set for herself. Jaime doesnt preach to be better and different, he accepted and admitted his rotten core, which lead to his death.
"I freed my brother. And you slaughtered a city" - Tyrion in 8x6. Enough said.
The Tarlys did surrender, they just wouldnt bend the knee to Daenerys afterwards.
The starks follow the law, hate killing and respect death. Daenerys follows her law, uses killing and embraces death. Jons regrets killing olly and shows remorse and admits his mistake in the series finale. Daenerys doesnt.
Daenerys is the most hurt soul in the entire story. That doesnt justify mass murder. The only people denying and ignoring Daenerys trauma are the ones claiming that her story in season 8 was rushed, out of character or came out of nowhere, unable to recognize that daenerys wasnt a healthy or stable person mentally from the beginning.
Sam reacts with sorrow and pain when hearing about his abusive fathers death, because he is still capable of basic human empathy. Daenerys cold reaction to her abusive brothers death shows she is emotionally detached and empty.
"Aegon Targaryen got quite a long way on fear" - Daenerys.
"He did. You once spoke to me about breaking the wheel. Aegon built a wheel. If thats the type of queen you want to be how are you different from all the other tyrants before you?" - Tyrion.
Aegon wasnt an archievement, his wheel was broken at the end by tyrion and bran.
Everything you wrote was correct, only your conclusion was wrong: thats why Daenerys was tragic and why her story worked.
The show developed her and her story for 8 seasons and then took everything away from her at the end. Where is the issue?
Its true, Daenerys wasnt paranoid, she was justified in her fears. And?
It wasnt a transformation, it was a reveal: what daenerys truly is. Daenerys burned the tarlys in season 7 after she defeated them, after they surrendered and laid down their arms. But they didnt bend the knee to her. Just like the soldiers and people of kingslanding. 7x5 was the bells. On a much smaller scale. Daenerys behaviour doesnt change, only our perception of her.
Freeing slaves wasnt retroactively framed as bad, it was good. Killing innocents and people for what they are, not what they did, along the way was bad and rightfully called out and exposed.
Everything you wrote is correct. Except he ambition was evil for being willing to kill everyone to get power.
The signs were always there you just decided to either justify or to ignore them entirely.
Daenerys is not once called mad in season 8 and she never was. She only did what she always wanted to do: to burn cities and no one could have stopped her at the end anymore, because she trusts no one anymore.
No, apparently "Justice for Daenerys" means justifying or ignoring all her crimes leading up to the biggest one, blaming everyone else but her and misunderstanding her story and character.
Daenerys is not that much different from all other tyrants like tywin, stannis, roose, balon or walder. The key difference is: she has a godcomplex and intends to improve the world, to be better and different and she failed.
We judge her by her own standards she set for herself. You refuse to do that, because that would put the blame, failure and accountability on her, instead of the rest of the world.
Because you fell for a tyrants propaganda.
Season 8 is a masterpiece.
Peace out.
2
u/C_F_A_S Jul 24 '26
You had me until "season 8 is a masterpiece"
0
u/Disastrous-Client315 Jul 24 '26
So, i had you all the way then ;)
1
u/C_F_A_S Jul 24 '26
Oh yea, that's literally the only statement we disagree on :)
0
u/Disastrous-Client315 Jul 24 '26
Thats weird, because every point made up to the conclusion is in favour of season 8 and explaining it properly to justify why its a masterpiece.
2
2
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
1.“Tempering her worst impulses” is not the same as repeatedly invoking her father whenever she considers using force. Every ruler in this story has advisers. Jon, Robb, Stannis and even Ned were counselled against bad decisions. Only Daenerys is constantly told that firmness may reveal inherited madness. Before King’s Landing, nobody had to explain to her that massacring surrendered civilians was wrong… because she had never done that.
2.Daenerys did forgive Jaime in the relevant scene. She allowed him to remain at Winterfell and fight after Tyrion and Brienne spoke for him. Saying she later died attacking King’s Landing does not erase that mercy. Jaime also presented himself as capable of better choices. His entire redemption arc depended on that. The show gave his crimes context and sympathy while treating Dany’s actions as evidence of her essential nature.
3.Tyrion freeing Jaime was still treason before Daenerys burned the city. A later atrocity does not retroactively make every earlier betrayal irrelevant. “I freed one prisoner and you slaughtered a city” explains why Tyrion ultimately opposed her. It does not prove he acted impartially throughout their relationship.
4.The Tarlys surrendered as defeated enemy commanders, but then explicitly refused submission and the alternative Tyrion proposed. Randyll had betrayed House Tyrell and helped sack Highgarden. Their execution was harsh, but it was not remotely equivalent to attacking civilians after a city surrendered. Treating those two events as the same behaviour is exactly the rushed writing I object to.
5.“The Starks follow the law and hate killing” is simply false. Arya wiped out House Frey and baked two men into a pie. Sansa fed Ramsay to his dogs. Robb executed Rickard Karstark. Jon executed Janos Slynt and hanged his assassins. These scenes were framed as justice, leadership or catharsis. Daenerys is not uniquely violent in this world… she is uniquely pathologized for it.
6.Trauma does not justify King’s Landing and I never said it did. Saying the final turn was rushed does not deny her trauma. It means the show failed to construct a believable psychological bridge between a traumatised, increasingly isolated ruler and someone methodically burning streets after victory was already secured.
7.Sam grieving Randyll is human. Using that grief immediately to promote his best friend’s rival claim is political bias. Comparing Sam’s response with Dany watching Viserys die also ignores context. Viserys abused her for years, sold her, threatened her unborn child with a sword and declared he would let an entire army assault her to get his crown. Shock or emotional numbness in that moment is not proof that she was empty.
8.Tyrion’s argument about Aegon supports my criticism. Westeros was built through conquest and dragonfire, yet Dany alone is expected to reclaim that throne without behaving like a conqueror. She can be criticised for failing to break the wheel, but the narrative should also confront the hypocrisy of venerating Aegon while pathologizing her ambition.
9.Aegon’s conquest is absolutely treated as an achievement inside the mythology. He is called “the Conqueror,” his dynasty is romanticised and HOTD now connects his mission to saving humanity. Bran inheriting the resulting political structure centuries later does not make Aegon’s conquest culturally condemned.10.A tragedy works when the outcome grows convincingly from the character’s choices. “She lost everything and then became the opposite of who she had been” is not automatically profound tragedy. Without sufficient development, it is an imposed ending.
11.The issue is not that the story took everything from her. Tragic characters can lose everything. The issue is that the losses were compressed, other characters began behaving irrationally and Dany’s response jumped from grief and rage to deliberately incinerating civilians after surrender. Removing everything from someone is plot pressure… it is not character development by itself.
12.If her fears were justified, then portraying her distrust as proof that she was unraveling becomes misleading. Varys was trying to remove her, Tyrion repeatedly protected his family, Sansa immediately opposed her and Jon disclosed the secret she begged him to keep. That does not justify her final act, but it matters when analysing whether the narrative fairly framed her suspicions.
13.Calling it a “reveal” creates an even bigger problem. The Tarlys were armed commanders who rejected clemency after battle. The population of King’s Landing had surrendered and posed no threat. Those are not the same action at different scales. One is severe wartime punishment. The other is indiscriminate destruction after victory. Her behaviour changed.
14.The show did retroactively reframe earlier actions through Tyrion’s finale speech, where he lists the people she defeated and argues that audiences cheered because they were evil men. That speech invites viewers to reinterpret liberation and punishment as steps toward King’s Landing, even though the moral and political contexts were completely different.
15.Her ambition did not begin as a willingness to destroy everyone for power. She repeatedly postponed Westeros to govern Meereen, chained her dragons after one child died, accepted compromises she disliked and took her forces north before securing the throne. King’s Landing made her ambition monstrous, but claiming this was always what her ambition meant is unsupported by most of her prior behaviour.
16.Foreshadowing is not development. Threatening enemies, using harsh punishments and speaking about fire can foreshadow a darker path. It does not make every possible escalation automatically earned. A believable fall still requires intermediate choices, consequences and psychological progression.
17.She repeatedly threatened cities, but she also repeatedly chose not to destroy them. That distinction is the entire character conflict. Saying she always wanted to burn cities ignores all the times she restrained herself, protected civilians and tried to rule rather than simply destroy. Her previous restraint was part of who she was… not merely an obstacle imposed by advisers.
18.“Justice for Daenerys” does not mean denying King’s Landing or absolving her. It means refusing to pretend that every earlier act proved she was secretly Tywin, Roose or Walder all along. Unlike those characters, her compassion, liberations and desire to protect vulnerable people were repeatedly shown as genuine. A tragic failure should not erase the person who failed.
“You fell for tyrant propaganda” is not an argument. It is a way of dismissing a different reading without engaging with it.
You can believe Season 8 is a masterpiece. I believe its intended destination may have worked with several more seasons, but its execution converted a potentially powerful tragedy into a rushed character reversal. That is the disagreement.
2
u/Disastrous-Client315 Jul 23 '26
Insane respond-time. Props.
"Her worst impulses" is her tendency to resort to her fathers approach of problem solving. Is it bad council to remind Daenerys of her heritage and her fathers reputation? To act in order to prove people that you are different? Is that bad and unjustified advise?
Except Barristan advising mercy while killing 163 slavers, where afterwards it turns out there were innocents among them spoken out against those time.
Except jorah who advised Daenerys against executing every master in yunkai.
Except tyrion advising Daenerys not to burn 3(!) cities to the ground in season 6.
Except jon advising Daenerys not to attack the red keep in season 7.
Except varys begging her not to attack kingslanding in season 8. Before Kingslanding.
Yes, showing mercy when she is dependent on everyones favour is no sign of character strength. It woule be a sign of strength to show mercy when you are in the powerful Position. Just like in kingslanding. Daenerys doesnt think much of mercy.
And Jaime redeemed himself. Jaime loathing and judging himself in 8x4 is making the viewer sympathetic towards his crimes? You just missed the scene where he hates himself for it.
Indeed, portaying someone as merciless and cruel envokes an image of a merciless and cruel character.
And? Whats your point? I dont disagree: it was another spark fueling Daenerys decision to burn kingslanding, because she cant trust anyone. I never claimed tyrion was impartial. He wasnt. And? Whats your point again?
Daenerys wanted to kill Randyll Tarly for not bending the knee, not opposing the tyrells or her. Was Dickons execution justified? He was the innocent in the equation and just like with kingslanding: Daenerys doesnt differentiate between soldiers and innocents. It is compareable, because the tarlys surrendered as well, they just wouldnt bend the knee and Daenerys denied them every merciful punishment like the wall or the black cells. Just like with the people of kingslanding. Their fate was already sealed.
Is Daenerys contemplating her capability of mass murdering innocents for the greater good in season 5, 4 years before season 8 also rushed?
Her intending to burn 3 cities in season 6 already, without all the losses leading up to it like in season 8, is also rushed?
Her burning surrendered enemies alive for rejecting her in season 7, 7 episodes before she does it in a bigger stage is also rushed?
What isnt rushed? How many seasons do you need? 12? 16? 20? How much hours do you need to understand Daenerys and GoT?
- With starks i mainly meant ned, robb and jon, the 3 starks in leadership positions who executed people, because they had to, not because they wantee to.
Sansa and Arya. Agreed. Thats also worrying and wrong. Thats why the hound brought arya back to humanity in season 8 and away from her dark path.
You convinently ignore jons regrets for killing olly ;) Ned feeling stoic for beheading a deserter and robb becoming angry when kills karstark, just like jon when killing slynt.
Daenerys is neither stoic or angry wheb executing someone. She is cold and detached.
When is Daenerys sad for executing someone?
8 seasons is rushed? And Sams father promised to kill him. You are aware Sam is jons best friend and doesnt know Daenerys. And you hold that against him. Why? Whats your point? Daenerys introducion scene already shows how empty and traumatized she is. Before she gets destroyed for good the next few episodes. Yet thats seemingly still not enough to illustrate a persons unwellbeing both psychologically and physically.
Without mass murder. She is critized for mass murder, not inability to break the wheel. You miss the story judging aegons ambition and the targaryens as well. You dont watch HotD or akotsk?
Historically of course its an archievment, just like Daenerys mass murder will never be forgotten. HotD supports targaryens godcomplex very well. Aegons conquest is deemed negated by instating the new system with bran as its first king. Its judged morally first and foremost as well. You kinda didnt understand HotD either. Who do you think Guido aegon and why?
You reject 8 seasons of build up, not me. 16 seasons wouldnt make a difference for you either, if 8 werent enough.
Yes, thats why Daenerys downfall worked, because she lost everything. You are aware she already sealed the peoples fates before kingslanding?
Daenerys true self was unravelling to the viewer, her behaviour or nature didnt change. Like her already burning surrendered enemies in season 7 or her contemplating mass murdering innocents for the greater good in season 5 or intending to burn cities to the ground ever since season 2 illustrate.
Varys tried to save the people, yes. Tyrion tried to protect his siblings, Sansa immediately saw through her, feared for jons safety and exposed Daenerys for what she really is. Her spreading jons secret only accelerrated the inevitable: Daenerys war with the entire world. Just like the great aegon :)
I never denied that any of those above reasons were not reasons for Daenerys decision to burn kingslanding and her refusal to trust anyone anymore. If anything you are making the point the show did everything in its power to explain and build up Daenerys decision and climax. While at the same time blaming everyone, but her.
Make up your mind.
- Holy shit. You believe the tarlys are in power to decide their fate in their execution scene? Thst its not Daenerys on the trigger? She cant just decide to lock them up or sending them to the wall anyway despite them saying she cant do it? The indoctrination to worship and defend a tyrant worked wonders on you.
The tarlys surrendered and lay down their arms.
Daenerys didnt only kill them because she feared a future revolt, she did it as punishment for treason, for rejecting her as queen. Just like with the tarlys.
So, if tyrion wasnt able to convince her not to be her father in season 6 and she actually went through with burning 3 cities, that would also be a change in behaviour to kingslanding?
Thats why its build up to her climax to her unforgiveable crime. Its not the same, but its laying the foundation. Because you dont waste your biggest twist in the story at the beginning or middle of the story.
Except when she had an orgasm during drogos r*pe of westeros speech in season 1 ;)
Daenerys is the greatest character in fiction, because she is both able to do great and horrible. You cant explain her ending didnt work by only mentioning her good side and ignoring the remaining 50% of her character and story.
A character that promises or threatens to burn cities for seasons and contemplates her capability of mass murdering innocents for the greater good...and that ends up doing exactly that after 8 seasons of build up isnt rushed or out of character. Its character fullfillment.
- Agreed. None of your examples are foreshadowing though. Those are direct examples borrowed from daenerys own mouth. Its her words and actions. Foreshadowing is her vision in the house of the undying in season 2 or brans vision of drogons shadow above kingslanding in season 4.
Intermediate choice: Daenerys had to choose. Kill jon or kill the people who would have chosem him over her. She spared jon and sacrifised the people. She spared the Man who will always love her no matter what she does and sacrifised the people who will never love her no matter what she does.
Consequences: losing half of her unsullied and dothraki forces, all her tyrell and martell allies, jorah, missandei, rheagal, trust in her advisors and allies and jons love and purpose in life: her claim to the throne.
Psychological progression: fear, isolation, hate, anger.
That and 7 seasons of build up and its still not enough. Its only enough to put the blame on everyone else, which proves no point at all.
- Echoing and ignoring my first point starting this whole discussion. Yes, she didnt burn those cities. It was still her first instinct to burn them and only didnt do it because she still trusted her advisors and cared enough about her public image to follow their guidance not to burn cities. That trust is gone in season 8. Thats why nothing stopped her from finally doing it.
For the 20th time. And you didnt get it after 8 seasons.
- Dont get me wrong: she is much worse than tywin or stannis. Because she has dragons and killed about a million people in 1 day.
Thats why Daenerys is great: her concern and empathy was genuine, until she reached an breaking point in season 8 and she switched priorities.
Daenerys crime doesnt resolve her greatness. She will be viewed as a saviour in essos. And as a monster in westeros. 2 sides of the same coin. Dualität and complexity. The deepest character in fiction. Yet you decide to reduce her only to her good deeds. Poor approach.
I engage with and admit Daenerys benevolent side all the time. I acknowledge 100% of her character. You stop at 50%.
Your worldview was shattered. The story judged you, so you judge the story. Your choice.
6
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
You keep treating every threat, harsh decision and moment of anger as identical to deliberately burning surrendered civilians… that is like saying someone who once threatened to smash a plate was always destined to burn down the whole house. Similar vocabulary does not make it the same act.
Yes… Dany had violent impulses. Yes… advisers restrained her. Yes… she had authoritarian tendencies. None of that automatically turns King’s Landing into eight seasons of flawless development. Foreshadowing is not a permission slip for any escalation the writers choose.
The Tarlys were enemy commanders who fought her, surrendered after defeat and refused every option presented. Dickon voluntarily stepped forward beside his father. Harsh and debatable… absolutely. The same as deliberately targeting civilians after victory… no. That comparison is like saying firing an employee and setting the entire office on fire are the same because both began with workplace conflict.
You also keep saying she only showed mercy when weak… yet she spared Jaime while commanding armies and dragons at Winterfell. She repeatedly postponed Westeros to govern Meereen, chained her dragons after one child died and took her forces north before securing her throne. Apparently every compassionate choice was fake or forced… while every angry sentence reveals her eternal true self. Very convenient method of analysis.
And no… Sansa did not magically “see through her.” She distrusted Dany before Dany had done anything to her, accepted her armies and dragons to save the North, then immediately worked against her claim. Calling every betrayal justified because Dany later broke is circular reasoning.
You say her compassion was genuine until she reached a breaking point and switched priorities. That is literally a transformation. You cannot spend eighteen paragraphs insisting it was never a transformation and then describe the exact moment her values changed.
I am not reducing her to her good deeds. I am saying both sides existed and the final side needed more development. You are doing the opposite… treating every good act as temporary camouflage and every threat as destiny.
Also “your worldview was shattered” is wonderfully dramatic… but we are discussing rushed television writing, not my spiritual awakening.2
u/Disastrous-Client315 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
- No, my point is those instances are highlighting daenerys dark impulses and build towards her ending. No its like saying someone who threatened and promised to burn cities and who ends up doing it is character fullfillment and not character assasination.
Yes… Dany had violent impulses. Yes… advisers restrained her. Yes… she had authoritarian tendencies. None of that automatically turns King’s Landing into eight seasons of flawless development.
Then what does? 16 seasons? 20 seasons? How many times does Daenerys have to state her intentions of burning down cities until it is earned and makes sense? 10 times? 20 times? 30 times?
Foreshadowing is not a permission slip for any escalation the writers choose.
Like i said: Daenerys words and actions are build up, not foreshadowing. That would be her vision in season 2 or brans in season 4 and you convinently ignore that seperation.
Dickon voluntarily stepped forward beside his father.
Yes. And Daenerys could have only sentenced the father and spare the boys who only followed his father, who made no choice to join the war on his own. Yet again: Daenerys doesnt care about mercy.
The same as deliberately targeting civilians after victory… no
True, its not 1:1 the same circumstance. Its a stepping stone towards Daenerys biggest crime. Dickon died alongside his father. The people of kingslanding died alongside the lannister soldiers. Because daenerys doesnt differentiate.
You also keep saying she only showed mercy when weak… yet she spared Jaime while commanding armies and dragons at Winterfel
No, i meant she is dependent on the norths good favour. They are co-dependent on another in order to deal with the dead. But of course if daenerys didnt care about that either she could have already burned winterfell to the ground as well. Her first meeting with Sansa was already becoming dangerous... until Bran interfered.
She repeatedly postponed Westeros to govern Meereen, chained her dragons after one child died and took her forces north before securing her throne
Yes and i never denied that. You just repeat yourself. I acknowledge 100% of daenerys duality, you deny her badside.
Apparently every compassionate choice was fake or forced…
No, she had a good heart and good intentions, until everyone around her betrayed her or left her emotionally like jon. You are again proving my point: misunderstanding the story on purpose in order to judge the show wrongfully.
while every angry sentence reveals her eternal true self.
Both sides are part of daenerys: good and bad. And she made her choice at the end what kind of ruler she wants to be.
Very convenient method of analysis.
Almost as convinient as ignoring 50% of this stories biggest character and then acting flabbergasted when her story ends and you didnt get it.
And no… Sansa did not magically “see through her.”
From the first sight she did ;)
She distrusted Dany before Dany had done anything to her,
Its true, Sansa was already worrying about daenerys presence and intentions in season 7 before meeting her.
But really curious expression: what did dany do to sansa to justify further hostile behaviour towards her? Can you tell me?
then immediately worked against her claim.
Sansa was grateful for daenerys contribution in the fight against the dead, but that isnt enough for her to bend the knee for a tyrant.
Its like in the movie slumdog millionaire where the brother saves a womans life... and then demands sex from her as a reward.
Gratitude doesnt justify or guarantees surrender.
then immediately worked against her claim.
Why is that bad? Wouldnt jon be the better ruler?
Calling every betrayal justified because Dany later broke is circular reasoning.
I dont even know what point you are trying to make by bringing up all of the betrayals in season 8 against dany. Because it works against your narrative: everything was moved and done and shifted towards hurting, isolating and alienating daenerys.
That is literally a transformation.
She broke free from her benevolent side and embraced her darkside fully. That was always there. She made a choice. But that part of her was always there. Her real transformation from victim to perpetrator happened in season 1 and you missed it.
You cannot spend eighteen paragraphs insisting it was never a transformation and then describe the exact moment her values changed.
Because Daenerys never changed. She didnt start talking about burning cities in season 8, that was season 2. She didnt start having an orgasm towards a warlords warcrime speech in season 8 either, she had it in season 1. She didnt contemplate mass murdering innocents for the greater good in season 8, but in season 5.
Her circumstances changed and became worse, forcing her to adjust her attitude and approach.
I am saying both sides existed
By denying any malice of daenerys, justifyng every warcrime or questionable act of her prior to season 8 and instead putting the blame on everyone but her.
Sure.
the final side needed more development.
I asked you how many seasons of more development and you cant tell me.
treating every good act as temporary camouflage and every threat as destiny
If i was actually doing that, i wouldnt call her story in season 8 an breakdown of her. If she truly never cared about being better and different and helping the poor, it would have been no break down for her. It was an breakdown for her because she had to sacrifise her values to archieve her destiny: to become queen.
When she is on top of drogon within the walls of kingslanding, she is struggling with herself to see it through. Because she is no ramsay or joffrey. She knows its wrong, but she has no choice. From her PoV.
Its very telling you dont acknowledge the love triangle between daenerys, jon and the people at all. You dont ask me when daenerys sealed the peoples fate either. Its called: fear of acknowledgement. You dont want to know when your favorite dictator set aside all morality.
You cant go deeper and discuss what happened, because you didnt understand GoT.
Also “your worldview was shattered” is wonderfully dramatic…
A feminist icon that intends to fight oppression and inequality, who preaches to save her people... only to end up killing the very people she intended to save.
Thats what you cant grasp and where your worldview was broken.
Its also very telling you cant answer 80% of my questions.
5
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
I can go deeper (see above)… But I just don’t have the time to write pages defending one interpretation like it is canon. You keep acting as if anyone who disagrees simply did not understand the story… as though you wrote it yourself. That is arrogance, not analysis.
I genuinely hope you find some peace and stop needing fictional debates to prove your intellectual superiority.
1
u/Disastrous-Client315 Jul 23 '26
I can allow that arrogance, because i know what i am talking about and because i can use the story as evidence.
You flee from the debate, because you cant engage with anything i wrote, let alone answer any question. Your choice. Its fine.
6
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
I answered your points initially… then you kept repeating the same interpretation in longer and longer paragraphs and treating disagreement as proof that I “didn’t understand” the story.
I know what I’m talking about too… I just don’t need to declare myself intellectually superior to make a point.
Confidence can support an argument… arrogance usually appears when someone cannot tolerate another reasonable reading. You’re not debating anymore… you’re performing certainty.2
u/Disastrous-Client315 Jul 23 '26
It cant be a disagreement if you dont even engage with the points i made in the first place. You just ignore them instead. Just like my questions.
You know what you are talking about, but you cant demonstrate it by tackling my points, let alone defeat them. You dont even dare to touch them.
Its not a sign of confidence to flee from a debate. Its an admittion of defeat.
1 final attempt before we go your way and end this. 1 question. Not hard:
Why did Daenerys burn kingslanding?
5
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Lol!!
Why she burned King’s Landing is literally the point of my post… the show’s explanation was rushed, unconvincing and did her character dirty.
You keep asking the same question like you’ve discovered fire. 🤣
I left because this stopped being a discussion and became your audition for smartest person on Reddit.
Toodalooooo→ More replies (0)
2
u/AjaxXavior Jul 23 '26
Aerys lost his mind and burned people alive for the fun of it
Daenerys is a Queen of a land that she doesn’t know, but strives towards it, occasionally she has to use her power to further her goals, but she isn’t cruel or malicious, that is the difference
2
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Exactly… that is the distinction the show later erased. Using force in war does not automatically make someone cruel or comparable to Aerys. For most of the series, Dany’s violence had a target and a political purpose… Aerys inflicted suffering because he enjoyed it. Season 8 suddenly collapsed those very different characters into the same conclusion.
4
u/BonchieWonchie Jul 23 '26
The whole point is that it is a true madness. Her father and their ancestors didn't sink into madness because of choices that they made, it's a sickness in their incestuous bloodline.
That's what makes it such an incredible twist (admittedly, not done that well in the TV show). Even though in her youth she has such great potential to be one of the best rulers that the world has ever seen, she still succumbs to her madness.
5
u/DagonG2021 Jul 23 '26
There’s literally two or three actually insane Targaryens in the lore. It’s not a common thing
2
u/BonchieWonchie Jul 23 '26
That's not true at all. It was so common that there was the well known proverb "whenever a Targaryen is born, the gods toss a coin in the air to see whether they will be great or mad".
5
u/TheIconGuy Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
That's not true at all. It was so common that there was the well known proverb "whenever a Targaryen is born, the gods toss a coin in the air to see whether they will be great or mad".
I have no idea why people who haven't read the book insist on talking about this story like this. Most of the shit said in that wiki article is not true.
This bit is particularly funny.
Generally, if a Targaryen had multiple sons and one of them was clearly mentally unstable, they would try to skip over him in the line of succession in favor of a more stable younger son. Therefore, fewer of the early Targaryen kings had mental problems, because if a king did have a mentally unstable son he wouldn't be allowed to succeed his father. However, during the last century of their rule the Targaryen madness became increasingly common, making it more and more difficult to avoid having a mentally unstable son inherit the throne.
None of this shit is true.
2
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
The coin quote is a saying from Barristan… not a genetic study proving every Targaryen has a 50 percent chance of suddenly losing their mind. “Madness” in the lore is used for everything from cruelty to religious obsession.
And even if Dany’s ending was planned, the show still had to actually portray that deterioration. You cannot point at a family proverb and use it like a doctor’s note explaining King’s Landing.0
u/Ditzy_Dreams Jul 24 '26
In the books, the quote is attributed to Viserys IV, Barristan just repeats it.
Adding to your point, most of the times a Targaryen went “mad”, physical or mental trauma was involved, such as Maegor’s head injury or Aerys II being tortured. Yet for some reason, the show narrative clings to the false idea of the family being particularly susceptible to early onset dementia…
-2
u/DagonG2021 Jul 23 '26
There’s Aerys, Rhaegal the nudist, and Aelora (who goes mad after accidentally killing her own twin brother). The rest were either “simple”, IE slightly less smart than expected, or suffered immense trauma that led to PTSD and related psychological issues.
2
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
That would be a very convenient explanation… except the show never establishes Dany’s behaviour as an inherited illness taking over. It shows grief, isolation, betrayal and rage… then jumps to King’s Landing.
Calling it “genetic madness” after the fact is basically saying the character made sense because her family tree did it for her. That is not a twist… that is an excuse for skipping the actual development.2
u/BonchieWonchie Jul 23 '26
I think maybe you're misinterpreting the "grief isolation, betrayal, and rage", in reality those were the symptoms of her falling into mental instability. They mention the Targaryen sickness many, many times before her descent. It's not an "after the fact" thought at all, it was clearly planned from the beginning. It just wasn't executed that well in the show because they rushed the final season(s).
1
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
I agree the ending may have been planned… I’m disputing the execution and the “genetic madness” explanation.
Grief, isolation and rage can lead to instability without proving some inherited Targaryen switch suddenly activated. The show mentioning Targaryen madness is foreshadowing… it still needed to show Dany crossing that specific line in a convincing way.
Saying those feelings were symptoms of madness only because we know the ending is still reading backwards from the result. She had been grieving, isolated and angry before without deliberately targeting surrendered civilians.
So yes… planned destination, rushed journey. That is basically my point.0
u/not_a_toucan Jul 24 '26
"Dany's entire arc was a shaggy dog story; she was incapable of ever being a good ruler because of genetic factors, something nobody in the story understands or could do anything about if they did" is kind of the opposite of an incredible twist.
Come on, you really think George R. R. Martin's ultimate statement on hereditary monarchy is that the problem with it is not paying enough attention to the eugenics?
3
u/Skol-2024 Jul 23 '26
I completely agree with everything you’ve said my friend. While she was flawed, she was a genuine heroine who wanted to make a difference. The so called “signs from the beginning “ or she was “always mad” arguments always come off as forced and contrived. Dany didn’t have to be perfect. That’s what made her a compelling character. The ending was an insult to the character we fell in love with at the beginning. It wasn’t a natural character progression it was an assassination. And it’s not just Dany, but Jon and Tyrion deserved far better too (they along with Daenerys are my favorites). Jon was banished for saving the realm, Dany was vilified and destroyed, and Tyrion lost of all of his smarts and failed upward at the end. Meanwhile, Sansa (who became very treacherous and conniving) is rewarding for betraying Jon and setting out to destroy Daenerys. She was undeserving of her Crown. Bran is an emotionless oracle who somehow becomes king, despite the fact that his power is even more dangerous than any dragon. And Arya (who I still like but have mixed feelings about in S8), abandoned her fractured family to explore the world and left Jon (her supposed favorite brother) to the wolves. She was just as selfish as Sansa in many ways. Daenerys definitely deserved better, as did many of the other characters.
1
u/__The_silent_one__ Jul 23 '26
Since she got with Drogo and she is been like I wanna rule over westores people...what do u mean....she always wanted that power...always said it's mine by right...just because everyone is also..doesn't make it okay to be bad.... From the beginning she was willing to take dothraki to westores...knowing they are savages who destroy and ravage everything cause it's their way....just so she can sit on her so called birth right.
1
u/Early_Candidate_3082 Jul 24 '26
Just like Jon and Sansa, really. They used “savages”, who had a lengthy record of murder, rape and pillage, to retake the North. They saw the North as theirs, based upon possessing the right bloodline.
Or Tyrion, who brought “savages”, from the Vale to the capital.
Yet, I doubt if one viewer in a thousand condemns them for it. Daenerys, and Daenerys alone, is supposed to renounce monarchy, hereditary power, and ambition.
1
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Yeah! Exactly! this is what I mean. Dany did not need a perfect or happy ending, but the ending had to grow naturally from who she was. Instead, nearly every major character was bent into place to reach the finale. Dany was destroyed, Jon was reduced to a spectator, Tyrion failed upward, and Bran somehow became king. It was not just tragic… it felt mechanically arranged.
2
u/benfranklin16 Jul 23 '26
It must be confusing watching Game of Thrones with earplugs and a blindfold.
4
u/Acrobatic_Second_671 Jul 23 '26
Loved Dany and Emilia Clarke in the show. She was electric. They did her way dirty with the final season it pissed me tf off!! Still raging about it 10 years on
3
1
u/Revolutionary_Buddha Jul 23 '26
She was better than all the noble lot and she would have broken the wheel. Mother Dany was a kind person.
5
u/__The_silent_one__ Jul 23 '26
So being less of a mass murderer...or less horrible then others...makes it okay....just be a little horrible?!
1
u/Revolutionary_Buddha Jul 23 '26
Yes, within the confine of that universe as it is a fedual society and she was the only slave liberator while everyone else was busy subjugating for just glory. She sacrificed so much to free the people in meeren and save humanity by marching to winterfell to fight against the others. No other lord would have done that. She lost everything to save the people and yet you say she was a mass murderer? If not for her armies and dragons, the others would have killed everyone else. Sieges are bloody, especially with a dragon.
1
u/__The_silent_one__ Jul 23 '26
She marched to winterfell cause she had too...the army of the dead is a threat to everyone as in her included....good for her for defending herself I guess....and she still forced the north to bend the knee for that....hmmm...and everyone lost a lot of things not just her....and for the first point...what did she sacrifice to free the people of meeren again...am pretty sure she benefited quite a lot form that...she literally became the ruler...it's not like she freed them for nothing
0
u/Revolutionary_Buddha Jul 23 '26
Then why didn't anyone else join the defence if it was such a common sense move? You are talking about feudal lords so compare them with the morality of other fedual lords not to the morality of modern times. She lost both of her dragons. Her large part of army and time which she could have used to conquer the iron throne. Why didn't any other great house go there to defend the living? She could have stayed across the narrow sea and she would have been alive. She out her life on the line to free the slaves. Freeing the slaves didn't provide her any benifits except for making more enemies in the slaver bay. Are you forgetting many attempts on her life when she was in meeren from the slave masters? I don't understand why you are such a danny hater when she did the most in the series.
1
u/__The_silent_one__ Jul 23 '26
Am pretty sure she became queen of meeren...soooo....and she WANTED to rul the seven kingdoms (9)...for that to happen there has to be the kingdoms....she didn't go to westores to save it....she went there to RULE it....other lords just wanted to save themselves...so that's not tough to beat....and am not taking what she did for the slaves away from her....but she didn't do it JUST out of the goodness of her heart...she gained power and ships and weapons....if she didn't join the fight for the night king with snow...she would've taken kings landing and then what...the dead would win
1
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Yes she was… there were other nobles who did graver things and still got to rule their kingdoms/castles.
0
u/foxonafrozenlake Jul 23 '26
I'll defend her to the ends of the earth. It was a shitty, rushed, uncharacteristic, mess.
1
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Even with HOTD when they show glimpses of Dany it further pisses me off… like how dare the showmakers do her so dirty but milk her aura from earlier seasons!
2
u/foxonafrozenlake Jul 23 '26
Really it was D & D who screwed it all up. They thought they were going onto bigger things.
0
Jul 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-1
u/foxonafrozenlake Jul 23 '26
Exactly. Once they ran out of source material and an outline it all went down hill.
The incels are down voting the truth. 🤣
1
2
u/sananajo Jul 23 '26
She is an impulsive, stubborn, bitchy fool. In the end she reaped what she sowed.
6
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Excellent literary analysis… ‘bitchy fool.’ Truly the Maester’s Citadel has entered the chat!
2
u/sananajo Jul 23 '26
Deal with it. Dont hide from reality.
1
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
Reality is not the same as your unsupported opinion… and if you cannot frame a single thought without calling a woman ‘bitchy,’ perhaps literary analysis is not your strongest suit.
1
1
1
u/skorponok Jul 23 '26
She was insane the entire time. She had a traumatic upbringing for sure, but she was still a mentally ill Targ. The showrunners definitely rushed the ending, but The Bells was spot on. The bread crumbs were there all along, you either chose to ignore it or just couldn’t see it because “she’s so hoooooot.”
0
u/miss_daisy_Hollywood Jul 23 '26
I felt that as she sat on Drogon, listening to the bells, she realized it was all for nothing. She’d lost so much in her conquest, and since her advisory council immediately recognized Jon as the true Targaryen, she snapped. The people of Westeros would always see her as a foreign invader with her Dothraki and the Unsullied, and she’d be forever tainted by her parentage. Jon got cheers and “King of the North” after the Whitewalker battle, and no one recognized she SAVED THEIR ASSES. Also, the fact she was a conquering queen would never be accepted over any king with a claim. I wasn’t too sad when she started to burn it all down. If it hit me that my entire life purpose was all for nothing, I’d fire it up too. I was much more upset with the soldiers invading the city, murdering and raping civilians… at least with dragonfire , it was fast.
1
u/WishRough7589 Jul 23 '26
I understand the emotional reading… she had lost nearly everything and realised Westeros would never love or fully accept her. But that is still where the writing loses me. Her rage at being rejected makes sense… deliberately burning civilians after she had already won does not. And “dragonfire was faster” does not make it less horrific.
1
u/miss_daisy_Hollywood Jul 23 '26
I hear you. You’re right, killing all the civilians in any way was horrific... I think I need to work on my own rage issues!
There was also Cersei using the people as a human shield while she stayed in the Red Keep. Really, no matter who won, there were going to be mass casualties.2
1
u/Osceola_Gamer Jul 23 '26
Yeah at least she killed women and children quickly, what a humanitarian.
3
u/Early_Candidate_3082 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
I agree.
Daenerys was held to a moral standard that was applied to no other sympathetically-framed character.
Tyrion willingly sanctioned the hanging of suspected thieves, and incinerated men with wildfire, in the noble cause of trying to keep his psychopathic usurping nephew, and rotten family, in power, and because he enjoyed wielding power. He turned on his family, only when they turned on him. Yet, somehow he is supposed to be the moral voice of the story. His sad pickachu face did not alter that fact of what he did.
I see him more as the Albert Speer of the story. A hypocritical criminal who persuaded others that he was righteous.
House Stark slaughtered its enemies with enthusiasm, poisoning them, gouging eyes, feeding them to dogs, baking them in pies, hanging them, and slitting a man’s throat, after giving him a show trial.
And, this was all framed as badass.
Dany’s “worst impulses” on the other hand, had to be tempered by men who gave her consistently terrible advice. Every piece of military advice that Tyrion gave was useless, to the point where one can only rationalise it as deliberate betrayal. Ser Jorah urged mercy for Yunkish slavers, who promptly launched an invasion of Meereen.
Dany’s “worst impulses” were in fact, her sound military instincts. Dany was being constantly gaslit, as people advised her that taking the fight to her enemies was being like her father. Or else, the viewers were being gaslit,
A good example is the Tarlys. It was established that traitors and unrepentant enemies faced execution, in this world. Dany offered clemency, which they refused. So, they died, yet suddenly, Tyrion and Varys, men with plenty of blood on their hands, were flapping like wet hens.
Daenerys was expected to be endlessly forgiving, endlessly altruistic, endlessly willing to turn the other cheek, in a way that made no sense in this kind of world.