The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones My Mind Is My Weapon T-Shirt
Game of Thrones My Mind Is My Weapon T-Shirt
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Blaming the Starks!


  • Please log in to reply
230 replies to this topic

#1 lyannaisalive

lyannaisalive

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 03:46 AM

This is something that has really been bugging me lately so stick with me. I have been reading some threads about Dany and her forgiving the Starks for what happened to her family and whether she should/would. I don't know if it is a common thought but IMO the Starks don't have ANYTHING to be forgiven about. Ned had more reason than anybody to rebel against the Iron Throne and specifically Aerys. Lets look at the reasons. 

 

1. Aerys burned Rickard Stark alive

2. He made Brandon Stark watch and kill himself trying to help his father

3. Rhaegar kidnapped Neds little sister (so they thought at the time)

4. Aerys demanded Jon Arryn to send him Ned (and Robert) to KL

 

Now lets look at reasons she might have to forgive Ned and the Starks

 

1. The rape and murder of Elia and her children

    This was clearly not Neds doing as he was disgusted and super angry that this happened saying they butchered the children and it even caused a huge rift between Ned and Robert

 

2. The killing of Aerys.

First of all it was Jaime who stabbed him in the back. Now I don't doubt that Ned would have killed him because he was on his way to KL but like I said he had many reasons to do so but in the end didn't even do it. 

 

3. The attempted murder of her and her child. 

 Ned was clearly against this and even resigned as hand of the king because of it. 

 

She has reasons to hate the Baratheons and Lannisters but not the Starks. So what do you think. Agree? Disagree?


Edited by lyannaisalive, 14 July 2014 - 03:50 AM.


#2 joluoto2

joluoto2

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,722 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 03:53 AM

The Starks rebelled against her family, and she has been told by Viserys and Jorah that they're bad. Daenerys arc seem to go towards her becoming more Targaryen like, and we know the Targaryens of old were not the forgiving kind of people.


Edited by joluoto2, 14 July 2014 - 03:53 AM.


#3 LordStoneheart

LordStoneheart

    Husband of the Damned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,101 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 03:58 AM

Tis true, she needs to learn more perspective on the rebellion (as do we all if we ever want to discuss R+L=J thoroughly, but that's a sadder story...) but I doubt it will take the sting away from the fact that four houses fought to oust not just her father but House Targaryen completely. Of the current Starks alive, she definitely shouldn't judge them by their parents' actions, or else they could do the same to her.

 

Her most reasonable course of action would be to learn the truth, take it to heart, and not be unnecessarily cruel to the current generation whose family fought against hers. Except Jaime. She should definitely kill him. :D



#4 Mikkel

Mikkel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,174 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:09 AM

A "reasonable course of action" doesn't seem to be first (or second, or third...) on her list as of the end of ADWD though.

#5 LordStoneheart

LordStoneheart

    Husband of the Damned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,101 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:11 AM

Her last chapter doesn't exactly give any course of action though, unless you're counting the "fire and blood" part, which doesn't have to mean death and destruction in every corner of Westeros.



#6 Modelex

Modelex

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:12 AM

Disagree. Ned still rebelled and helped Robert win his war, regardless of the circumstances. She has reason enough to hate him and House Stark. Do I think she should go after Ned's children? No. Should she ever let them rule the North? Nope

People who say she should forgive the Starks would never do so in her position

#7 PirateVergo

PirateVergo

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:18 AM

 

 

 

1. Aerys burned Rickard Stark alive

2. He made Brandon Stark watch and kill himself trying to help his father

The only one to blame for this is Brandon Scumbag Stark and his stupidity.

He killed himself and his father, Aerys didn't burn him without any reason.



#8 Mikkel

Mikkel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,174 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:18 AM

Her last chapter doesn't exactly give any course of action though, unless you're counting the "fire and blood" part, which doesn't have to mean death and destruction in every corner of Westeros.


It doesn't have to, but it might. In any case, concluding that "dragons don't plant trees" and chanting "fire and blood" doesn't suggest a "reasonable course of action" is in the cards.

#9 LordStoneheart

LordStoneheart

    Husband of the Damned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,101 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:27 AM

I suppose that depends on if you think her conquest of Westeros is reasonable or not. Realistically, I think we can both agree that it is not. War rarely is. But thematically I really would like a Targ restoration or something close.

 

Discounting whether or not her conquest is reasonable, going about the war doesn't have to not be reasonable either. Contrary to other beliefs, I don't think Dany is being set up to have zero allies in Westeros, I think quite the opposite to give a false sense of victory when she does arrive. It's anyone's guess, but I really don't think Dany will be a ruthless tyrant if and when she does take over.

 

"Dragons plant no trees" and "Fire and Blood" to me mean that she's accepting her role as conqueror. Aegon I, from what we know, didn't do much actual ruling. If Dany is a parallel to him I'd say Dragons Plant No Trees means that she is meant to conquer but not rule, ruling being "planting trees," or establishing long term governance solutions.



#10 Mikkel

Mikkel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,174 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:35 AM

I suppose that depends on if you think her conquest of Westeros is reasonable or not. Realistically, I think we can both agree that it is not. War rarely is. But thematically I really would like a Targ restoration or something close.


Fair enough, personally I'd dislike a Targ restoration immensely, but as long as we agree on the premises, disagreeing on that point is no problem :)

Discounting whether or not her conquest is reasonable, going about the war doesn't have to not be reasonable either. Contrary to other beliefs, I don't think Dany is being set up to have zero allies in Westeros, I think quite the opposite to give a false sense of victory when she does arrive. It's anyone's guess, but I really don't think Dany will be a ruthless tyrant if and when she does take over.


Which is exactly what I think she's on the way to becoming - in her mind, she's tried diplomacy and it hasn't worked, and she's done being conciliatory - it's fire and blood™ from now on.


"Dragons plant no trees" and "Fire and Blood" to me mean that she's accepting her role as conqueror. Aegon I, from what we know, didn't do much actual ruling. If Dany is a parallel to him I'd say Dragons Plant No Trees means that she is meant to conquer but not rule, ruling being "planting trees," or establishing long term governance solutions.


I agree, but I don't think desiring to conquer a continent, with all the destruction, misery and death that entails is reasonable, especially if you've already decided (through trial and error) that you are unable or unwilling to handle the post-conquest issues.

#11 LordStoneheart

LordStoneheart

    Husband of the Damned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,101 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:41 AM

Well, specifically diplomacy hasn't worked in Meereen. I think she'd have an easier time in Westeros since that's what she truly wants.



#12 Mikkel

Mikkel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,174 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:50 AM

Well, specifically diplomacy hasn't worked in Meereen. I think she'd have an easier time in Westeros since that's what she truly wants.


That depends entirely on how she looks at it, and on the manner of her arrival in Westeros. I wasn't so much arguing about whether diplomacy could have worked in Meereen, or would potentially work in Westeros though - more what Dany thinks of diplomacy at this point.

If Dany ends up being in full "burn 'em all" Targaryen-fire-and-blood mode when she arrives in Westeros, diplomacy is not going to be a viable solution, after all.

#13 LordStoneheart

LordStoneheart

    Husband of the Damned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,101 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 05:01 AM

But the Targaryens didn't burn them all. Fire and Blood doesn't have to mean only Fire and Blood. I don't think Dany will give up any notion of compassion or mercy because she failed in Meereen.



#14 Toth

Toth

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 05:04 AM

Well, much of her problems arise from trying to pull Westerosi ethics onto a completely different culture that feel oppressed by a foreign conquerer and robbed from it's single most important income, the slave trade. She will have less problems with terrorism in Westeros, since the smallfolk already share her values. It's finding highborn allies that will become the problem. From the storytelling point of view, her conquering King's Landing first seems reasonable, so she will go against Cersei and the Lannisters. After that... The Dornishmen side with Aegon (and will blame her for Quentyns death), the Riverlands are broken, the North is trying to get rid of the Boltons and White Walkers (I predict the Wall will fall), the Vale will be rallied by Sansa, only the Reach is alienated by the Lannisters so it could be a possible ally. If she doesn't accidently incinerate Margeary while crashing KL. Even with dragons, I can't see how she is supposed to ever take more than the Crownlands, especially if Winter is coming.

 

The only Starks she can possibly meet are Sansa in the Vale and Jon Snow in the North. I have no idea how a meeting between Dany and Sansa would develelop since their storylines doesn't have anything in common. Her meeting with Jon is a different matter. If she sees him as Ned Starks bastard, born during his Rebellion, she could resent him for it. It mostly depends on Barristan being man enough to tell her to her face that Ned had the best reason of all rebels to loath the Targaryens but obviously didn't.

 

Oh, and she will probably have Tyrion in her retinue. It will help that he knows both of them, being the husband of Sansa and a friend of Jon.


Edited by Toth, 14 July 2014 - 05:12 AM.


#15 Mikkel

Mikkel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,174 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 05:08 AM

I don't think Dany will give up any notion of compassion or mercy because she failed in Meereen.


IMO she's balancing on a knife-edge, and could go either way ("stray but a little and she will fail"... no, wait, wrong fantasy epic).

#16 Blackfyre Gateau

Blackfyre Gateau

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 05:12 AM

IMO she's balancing on a knife-edge, and could go either way ("stray but a little and she will fail"... no, wait, wrong fantasy epic).

 

Nicely put... 



#17 OldGimletEye

OldGimletEye

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,356 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 06:12 AM

Disagree. Ned still rebelled and helped Robert win his war, regardless of the circumstances. She has reason enough to hate him and House Stark. Do I think she should go after Ned's children? No. Should she ever let them rule the North? Nope

People who say she should forgive the Starks would never do so in her position

Because its all about Dany's personal opinion? Or is it about what a reasonable person would do? But, hey let Dany be an aggressor towards the Starks. Because if there is a Dany Stark war, I am sure it will be Dany who is going down.



#18 LordStoneheart

LordStoneheart

    Husband of the Damned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,101 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 06:31 AM

I love the Starks, but how exactly will it be Dany going down if it were a Starks/Dany fight? She has dragons and at least one army, no matter how different than Westerosi armies.... The Starks are rather scattered with few resources.



#19 Mikkel

Mikkel

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,174 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 06:36 AM

I love the Starks, but how exactly will it be Dany going down if it were a Starks/Dany fight? She has dragons and at least one army, no matter how different than Westerosi armies.... The Starks are rather scattered with few resources.

 

I don't think it'll come down to Dany vs "The Starks" though. As you say, at the moment there's hardly anything that could be positively identified as "The Starks": Robb is dead, Sansa is missing in action, Bran and Rickon are supposedly dead (we know better, but...). Finally, Arya is officially married to Ramsay. I don't think the Starks will be in anything resembling fighting condition before the end of the series, assuming they (as a House) make it at all.



#20 Zoravar Singh

Zoravar Singh

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 06:37 AM

If anything, the Starks need to forgive Danaerys for the Targayren's murder of their relatives. No Stark killed a Targayren, and nor did any Stark break their oath to the King. ( Ned Stark never swore any fealty to Aerys Targayren). If Dany wants to hold the North without Stark support, she's in for a tough time. This is espescially true as the North is extremely large, and the loyalty of ( most of the ) Stark bannermen.