Is Dany becoming a megalomaniac? Is Bran?

[dariopatke]

8 minutes ago, blckp said:

remember jon snow and casters sons?.. i bet they would help if they had encountered/ witnessed slavery and had might to help, (sansa might not,)

Maybe, but I dont see Jon ordering every boy of 12 years to be slained and crucifiing 160 men (good part of them are innocent).

[Guerì]

Just now, dariopatke said:

Maybe, but I dont see Jon ordering every boy of 12 years to be slained and crucifiing 160 men (good part of them are innocent).

I wouldn't call them innocent,they nailed innocent babies on the road to their town or at least didn't stop whoever did it...

[Bogdan]

1 minute ago, Guerì said:

I wouldn't call them innocent,they nailed innocent babies on the road to their town or at least didn't stop whoever did it...

But you know they opose Dany and so they are innocent.

[blckp]

16 hours ago, dariopatke said:

Maybe, but I dont see Jon ordering every boy of 12 years to be slained and crucifiing 160 men (good part of them are innocent).

slave trading is innocent yeah , she is wrong to stop slave trade? are you serious

[dariopatke]

Not all of them agreed to this...

[Bogdan]

Just now, dariopatke said:

Not all of them agreed to this...

But not one of them opose the crucifiction of slaves to stop Dany. They could have done as Yunkai did and suffered no consequence. It is a vast gulf between slavery and allowing what they did to the slave just for useless tantrum.So good riddance to bad rubish,

[Guerì]

And anyway,wouldn't being able to effectively hatch three dragons'eggs give anyone a high opinion of his/herself?As to the dothraki,they follow strenght,and if they could accept following a leader seated on the back of a horse I'd say they would go to hell and back for a leader screaming her commands from dragon's back...whatever Dany will ask them to do will be done,no matter if it goes against their history and tradition...at least until someone will be able to kick her in her royal butt

[Good Guy Garlan]

Show!Dany is such a cipher, I have no idea how Dany's supposed to be, like what's her personality like? The bad writing + Emilia's performance makes her look dead inside. She's basically a speech-giving machine at this point. 

[Dany's Golden Fleece]

1 hour ago, dariopatke said:

Not all of them agreed to this...

So they said AFTER Dany took the city. Could be lying for self-preservation.

[Woman of War]

4 hours ago, blckp said:

nah

Sansa and Jon megalomaniac for trying to take winterfell? as rightful heir and gathering army,?

or Yara or Tully?

Actually we see Lords and Ladies fighting each other at the cost of thousands of people, peasants and soldiers pressed to fight for a cause that is not theirs. We perceive the morally less flawed main characters' intentions as "noble" and they are our heroes because they are the main characters we are supposed to root for. But what they basically do is enforce their maybe rightful but personal private claims at the expense of carrying war into every peasant's, baker's, innkeeper's or merchant's house. Good Roob ordered raids in the name of the good cause called King In The North. The peasants got raided and they did not care why. But we root for our noble heroes because we are supposed to since Martin manipulates us into it, just like every writer manipulates his or her readers.

[tallTale]

Dany is ..Dany?  Westeros has no slavery, but some houses will rebel even with the ships and the dragons.

Problem now is she leading a host of raiders and rapists. The major houses won't give them their riches.

Maybe she'll give another big speech and they all follow her. Seems to work so far.

[House Cambodia]

Bran? No way.

But Dany - I've constructed an argument that traces her character development from sweet young idealist to megalomaniac  - literally the antichrist, and the end of this episode merely confirms that. She not going to hang around and govern Meereen, she'll simply stop off to collect her Unsullied, get herself a fleet to ferry a huge army over the Narrow Sea and is hell bent on utter destruction. An earlier Dany would never have worked up barbaric pillagers by urging them to destroy the stone houses of her enemies (i.e. seemingly everyone in Westeros).

 

See my argument here: The Endgame - a thought

[Greg B]

3 hours ago, Guerì said:

And anyway,wouldn't being able to effectively hatch three dragons'eggs give anyone a high opinion of his/herself?

Yeah, I'll own up: If I were a lost prince heralded by prophets who hatched dragons from a funeral pyre with a red comet blazing in the sky, I might think I was a special snowflake.

[Charles Stuart]

Not sure if I can agree with labelling someone a megalomaniac for wanting vengeance against the persons who killed most of her family rather brutally in some instances  and forced her into exile before she was even born. Honestly, who wouldn't want vengeance in a situation like that? She believes the throne belongs to her and she is going to pursue her claim. Has the dragons, has the unsullied and now the dothraki so who can really stop her from taking back what she believes is her birthright? She hasn't pushed kids out of windows, beheaded men for being honourable, wiped out wedding feasts or anything of the sort. Sure, might have a bit of an ego now but considering the army she has, who wouldn't ?

freed a slave army, attempted to free slave cities rather naively and has now realised that her prior attempts at feeing the slave cities failed precisely because she too nice and naive in her previous attempts. Grandiose gestures of overwhelming force will do the job where her previous attempts failed I believe.

[khal drogon]

2 hours ago, Dany's Golden Fleece said:

So they said AFTER Dany took the city. Could be lying for self-preservation.

I don't know where this slaver's concern for slave children's life comes from? Books and shows are clear with what these slavers do. They cut young boys(really children) in making the unsullied. They train little girls into sex slaves. They don't care about a slaves lives. For them they are commodities. In a society that was proud of their slaving tradition, the one who has the vilest reputation in the whole world it is hard to believe slavers concerned about a slaves life. If they care so much about their lives why practice slavery then?

 

[khal drogon]

34 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

Bran? No war

But Dany - I'v e  constructed an agument that traces her character development from sweet young idealist to megalomaniac  - literally the antichrist, and the end of this episode merely confirms that. She not going to hang around and govern Meereen, she'll simply stop off to collect her Unsullied, get herself a fleet to ferry a huge army over the Narrow Sea and is hell bent on utter destruction. An earlier Dany would never have worked up barbaric pillagers by urging them to destroy the stone houses of her enemies (i.e. seemingly everyone in Westeros).

 

See my argument here: The Endgame - a thought

What makes you to think she is hellbent on utter destruction? 

Another set of pillaging barbarians is on the way to take Winterfell. But the show would make them goody goody because Jon's leading them. Dothraki are similar in their raping, pillaging ways  to the wildlings but they are lead by a person who abbhors rape and have a compassion for common people, who has earned Dothraki's respect and has a bloody dragon. That speech meant she was finally ready to destroy her enemies in their stone castles. What's wrong with that? I have seen people wishing for the dreadfort and the twins razed to the ground. When Dany wants that it means she is hitler and will burn her way through and let Dothraki run wild? 

[RhaenysBee]

Whoa whoa whoa. 

Bran: Bran is a child/teen. He did what he wanted to even when there was a mentor and guidance provided. Children/teens learn from their own mistakes. Bran will (hopefully) understand the weight of responsibility after the Hodor fiasco (which this episode did not touch on because bloody Benjen was more important  ). And let's not forget that Bran is a hero of a story. He is SUPPOSED to take chances, think he is invincible and play big. How many people died because Harry Potter thought he was invincible? And another thing, Bloodraven's guidance pretty much consisted of showing Bran clips and pulling the brake when he thought it was apt. Did he ever explain Bran what was at stake? Did he ever tell him about the consequences? Did he ever tell bran why they had to come back or why he wasn't allowed to interfere with the past? No. Let me go with the previous example. Just how many people died because Dumbledore never fully let Harry in on what was going on? How many people died because Harry was left alone to figure out stuff on his own? And that's okay because that's how a story can unfold. If Dumbledore and Bloodraven's explained everything to Bran and Harry and they were humble obedient children that they aren't, there would be no story. Bran can only be a hero if he takes chances, if he figures it out himself , if he makes mistakes along the way and if there are sacrifices. This is a fictional story after all. (And I don't even like Bran, yet here am I defending his stupid ass) 

Daenerys: what are you talking about? Daenerys didn't win all the time. She lost her love, she lost her son, the councils she left in Astapor and Yunkaii betrayed her cause and continued to practice slavery. The harpies rebelled against her in Meereen, her dragon ate that kid, she failed and failed and failed at everything she wanted to accomplish. She is a hero because she keeps pursuing what she believes in and what she believes in is that she has to go home and restore House Targaryen. And yes, she makes mistakes because she is a human and she is a hero. Sometimes she listened to counsel and it worked out, sometimes it didn't. Sometimes she didn't listen and it still worked out, but sometimes it didn't. Daenerys spent four seasons doubting herself and her actions, she wanted to pursue her purpose but she didn't always like the consequences. However, that didn't stop her or turn her from her purpose, that's what makes her a hero. She knows that there is always a price just like any other character does, but she is willing to pay that for what she believes in. That's what all heroes in all stories do. That's what they are supposed to do. 

She took Astapor and Yunkaii because she could? She took Astapor and Yunkaii because she needed an army. She burned them because she disliked slavery. She didn't take those cities for the lolz, she had a purpose. And lemme quote Barristan, Aegon the Conquerer didn't take the seven kingdoms because he had a right to them, but because he could. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with ambitions people taking what they can? That's what moves the World, that's what moves this story.

How bloody boring stories and history and life would be if everybody always listened to their mentors and fed orphans, cuddled puppies and made flower crowns? 

[Charles Stuart]

If Daeny kills walder Frey, Ramsay Bolton, cersei, the mountain and everyone involved in that hideous dornish plot, everyone here will lose their minds and praise the megalomaniac

[SamuelVimes]

9 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

First reply invokes Godwin's Law. That escalated quickly.

Is was Stannis? 

Considering Westeros is ruled by the scum of the Earth at this point, Dany can sweep the seven kingdoms clean. Bring out the good guys and let the bad ones burn. Or will we all weep for Ramsay Bolton, Lord Frey and Littlefinger? 

Funny, that's exactly the point everyone made when they rebelled against her father. 

Any system where ruling is based on inheritance is only ever one or two generations away from its next bad king. Sure, it's also one or two generations away from its next good one, but it's ultimately a really crap system even if you get a couple nice rulers in there on occasion. 

And looking at the mess she's made of the cities she's conquered so far, I'd say it's pretty clear anyway that Dany is not a good ruler. Great conqueror, sure--that was Daario's point too--but not a good ruler. It's the same thing you can say about Robert Baratheon, ironically. And if we trust what she said in her speech, she also doesn't care to be a good ruler. Things going badly in Meereen? Well, screw them, I'm going to Westeros! Where I'm going to bring my pillaging army and tear their houses down! (At some point Westeros stopped being "my people" and started being "the enemy" to Dany--that's important, she's never going to rule well unless that changes.) She's completely lost sight of the "common people," the ones she asked Jorah about so long ago, and now all she wants is revenge and conquest. If I were an average Westerosi commoner, I would prefer almost anyone to what Dany seems to have in store for the place. At this point, Dany and Euron would make a terrifyingly perfect couple. She's still got a chance to change, of course, but I'm amazed at how many people are still drinking the Targaryen flav-r-aid. 

She's magic, she's a super-pale Targaryen, and she's got dragons. Still doesn't mean she's fit to rule a city, let alone a kingdom--let alone seven. 

11 hours ago, Tywinelle said:

OMG I felt the same way and thought of Hitler too.  The difference is of course that she has a politically correct agenda but the fact remains that she's forcing her values and beliefs on everyone else.  It would be poetic justice if the Dothraki helped her win the Iron Throne but then one of them turned on her and claimed the throne for himself.

What politically correct agenda? Freeing slaves...and then letting them get captured again when she leaves? Getting a couple Dothrakis to stop raping for a little while? Dany's agenda is conquest, and while she might be a kinder, gentler conqueror than some, a nicer tyrant is still a tyrant. 

 

Finally, come on, stop with the whole "rightful Queen" thing. The Targaryens conquered Westeros a few hundred years ago, which is not a long time in the grand scheme of things. She's rightful queen only if you believe in the right of conquest AND the inherent justice of monarchy, both of which are pretty screwed up beliefs--not to mention the fact that if you DO believe in the right of conquest, well, the Targaryens got kicked out, so they lost that right to the people who conquered them. She's as rightful a queen as Ramsay Bolton is a rightful lord--that's feudal monarchy for you. You want something different, well, then, you want a revolution, not a different king. 

[SamuelVimes]

5 hours ago, Charles Stuart said:

Not sure if I can agree with labelling someone a megalomaniac for wanting vengeance against the persons who killed most of her family rather brutally in some instances  and forced her into exile before she was even born. Honestly, who wouldn't want vengeance in a situation like that? She believes the throne belongs to her and she is going to pursue her claim. Has the dragons, has the unsullied and now the dothraki so who can really stop her from taking back what she believes is her birthright? She hasn't pushed kids out of windows, beheaded men for being honourable, wiped out wedding feasts or anything of the sort. Sure, might have a bit of an ego now but considering the army she has, who wouldn't ?

I'd say that if you want revenge, take revenge--but don't pull in thousands upon thousands of people who had NOTHING to do with it. Arya wants revenge, but she doesn't want collateral damage. Dany wants revenge and she doesn't care if thousands of people have to die for her to get at... who exactly, now? Robert's dead. Tywin's dead. She thinks the Mountain is dead. Most of the people who were directly involved are already dead. So who exactly is she taking revenge on?

Revenge on the families of the people who killed her family--sure, but if you're not willing to kill the children of slavers for what their parents did, why are you willing to kill poor dumb Tommen for what his unclefather did? Are the sins of the fathers visited upon the sons after all? If you seek vengeance on families, you're setting up a neverending blood feud or you're killing off an entire line. And if you seek that vengeance by going to war, rather than assassination, well, you're screwing up the lives of thousands. The common people get screwed, because they're the ones who have to join or feed your armies, who end up in the crossfire and suffering for it. 

"I suffered, and I will have my revenge" is understandable; "I suffered, and I will have my revenge, AND I DON'T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE FOR ME TO GET IT"--that's the megalomaniacal aspect.