Jump to content

Techmaester

Members
  • Content Count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Techmaester

  • Rank
    Squire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You see plenty of people desperate to find who their real parents are after being put up for adoption. In Jons case he wasn't put up for adoption - half of his family was killed and his moms identity hidden. That you don't think he would care is kind of mind boggling to me and reflects your own ideality. In Jons case it was even more extreme - he was never considered a "Stark" by anyone. Lets take your position to an even greater extreme, if a person found out their perceived parents killed their actual parents and then adopted them, would they keep viewing them the same way?
  2. I will provide a more accurate scenario: You get treated like a second class citizen by your supposed half family and then find out your actual father was killed in a rebellion which included this family when your aunt is offering an opportunity to avenge his death and reconquer the continent. Pretty sure you're going to be flipping your loyalty pretty darn fast(I certainly would). I mean I wouldn't disregard them completely but it's obvious my allegiance would shift. This is exactly how the world would work - only in a fantasy novel would someone disregard their fathers death or their real lineage.
  3. The Lannisters did that, Gregor and company went on plenty of scorched earth policies towards their enemies. Why is the person who used their population as shields and then attempted to escape better? Or what about wanting death to kill their enemies first and let their population die if the opportunity to stay as ruler existed? Jamie was happy to have everyone else die for Cersei. Dany pulled the trigger but the sequence of events leading up to it was one of consistent disregard for civilian populations life and the rest of the leaders are equally culpable/no better than Dany. Danys campaign was violent and would continue to be towards those who resisted her but she's not different than Cersei or the other rulers - she's just more powerful. Pretty sure Jon lost what ever honor he had, Jamie was constantly looked down upon for his actions and it wasn't nearly as bad as what Jon did lol. Jon took the cowards path...not something Ned would have done.
  4. That was after Sansa started shit and was generally being a shitty person to a group who was saving you. At that point I'd have just left and let the savages get turned but I don't feel any moral obligation to anyone - another lesson in Danys fall I suppose. I mean the entire sequence is of events is pretty absurd and could only be explained by Dany being completely love struck. Red keep should have fallen in season 7. Jons not a Stark, Sansa was never his sister(even when he thought he was Neds bastard). He's at best a pathetic suckup to a group of people who didn't even give him their last name LOL. Truly a story of failure and Stockholm Syndrome!
  5. I'm talking post Aegon reveal, IIRC this was episode one.
  6. I'm talking from the start of episode 1 onwards, but sure even if she threatened to kill his cousin for betrayal. I think it could have been worked out in a reasonable way.
  7. No, she acted with purpose even if it was not ideal action. If we saw her attack an uninvolved party for entertainment or one which submitted to her from the beginning who wasn't part of an ongoing a war, you might have a point(if you're part of an enemies city regardless of if you physically fight you're still an enemy, see how the US dropped bombs on Japanese cities). The only questionable decision was continuing destruction of kings landing but it wasn't a random act of unmotivated sadism. I don't see anything wrong with the other acts, arguably she was too tolerant. The idea of being nice to people who betray you either individually or collectively is baffling to me and no leader would accept it. Making spectacles of their deaths is fine. We don't know how she would have ruled because we didn't get to see it. We saw her burn a bunch of people during an ongoing war and a future desire to force the other kingdoms to submit to her rule. The competitors had already shown a willingness to do the same thing so it's hardly unique to Dany(she is just better at it). Ultimately I don't really care about the people in the city she razed, sad but globally kind of irrelevant - definitely not enough of a reason for Jon to assassinate her given her contributions and both their backgrounds(I would even argue the most Jon could reasonably do was not support her). Obviously we aren't going to agree.
  8. Looks like somebody else had the same idea. It's now my official ending.
  9. This is another obvious point, Jon could have exerted more influence if he wanted to or at least pretended to care enough to bang her and try to make her feel Westeros wasn't completely antagonistic (honestly who wouldn't, aunt or not?). Heros find a way...he seemed determined to fail at every step.
  10. Right of conquest is right in of itself, it's how the throne was forged. Dany arguably had the most "right" in the spirit of how the Iron Throne was created to begin with and Aegon(the original) would obviously have supported her.
  11. To bait dany into saving the North so he could then reject and kill her afterwards. Nothing else he did mattered or had any real effect on the story. Pretty terrible "hero".
  12. Viserion was dead and then reanimated - it proved nothing. Bran clearly couldn't control the NK so obviously there is a limit to his power.
  13. There is no reason to believe Bran has any control of Drogon or other magical beings. This could be another argument in support of Dany and her Dragons - the only ones capable of breaking Brans control.
  14. Stabbing a girl who trusts you while you kiss her is antithetical to heroism no matter how you cut it.
  15. Calling them Nazis is a bit of a stretch, Danys goal wasn't to kill everyone. Neither were the Targs as a whole. Only those who challenged their rule. The rejection of Targaryen success wouldn't have happened after Winterfell. Burnt children is literally nothing compared to fighting walking dead people but this gets glossed over on this forum(and by Martin I guess). Ah, I will look. A friend of mine said I should also look at GOR lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor Ultimately I like stories where the characters are fundamentally good even if they do something that's bad. Warhammer 40k is another example, God Emperor of Man - DanyXBran - genetically superior, waged countless wars, suppressed billions and then trillions of people but expanded the human empire, fought Xenos(committing mass genocide on them), fought Chaos - a true dark knight like Westeros would need(and would want after fighting dead people). Martins ending was uninteresting and hit all the stereotypical stuff put out(power is bad, blah blah), the only thing he did differently was having Jon kill his aunt/lover who turned "bad" but that's not really "unconventional".
×
×
  • Create New...