Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Armand Gargalen

What is wrong with Daenrys´ character

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Katleesi said:

A couple of things about Dany's "reactions"  (or lack thereof) come to mind:

1. Her dragons are her children (apparently the only she will ever be able to have) and Drogon is practically her soulmate. Did you see the look she gave Jon Snow when he called them beasts?  If this show has taught us one thing, its never under estimate a mother's love or wrath.  These soldiers unleashed the MF scorpion on her favorite child, and wounded him. If I were Dany, I'd burn every last one of them if I could, and I'm merely a Katleesi.  

2. Dany burning the enemy is not out of character with her show version, and she's well acquainted with the damage her children can cause. She chained R and V up for quite a while as she came to terms with the power. Knowing - and using- the power she has is not inconsistent with anything she's done at this point. In fact, using them as a  last resort is wholly consistent with her series long courses and choices of action. 

3. I'm pretty surprised that people are reacting so strongly to her alleged "ruthless". She went into battle with the best weapons at her disposal. I wonder if anyone would have batted an eye if Stannis had used Dragons in the same manner. These were soldiers- an army. I don't think her battle strategy is inconsistent with what a good general would do. 

4. I think D&D are relying on people knowing things and remembering past scenes/chapters to gloss over a lot in their hurry to finish this series in the next 8 episodes. We are used to seeing at least some lip service building up to difficult choices on this show, and we are not getting any of that this year. Dialogue and back story are non existent. 

1. Did they unleash a scorpion? What did she expect? That they would stay there to be roasted and not try to retaliate? If you love your children so much, do not take them to war.

2. I never said it was out of character for her to burn what she thinks are her enemies. What I think it is out of character is to do it and not to show any hint of doubt or remorse.

3. I am not reacting strongly to her using dragons in battle either. Of course anyone with a wish for the Iron Throne would have used them. What I am objecting strongly is to the artificial divide the showrunners are trying to force feed us in order to prove she is both fierce and kind: using dragon on civilians is evil at Cersei´s level, using them on enemy soldiers is perfectly justified. And you know why I do not buy it? Because,as the show has already established in this same season, this soldiers are also civilians, albeit forcefully conscripted ones, normal guys whose main desire is to return home with their families. So burning them and showing no remorse or doubt whatsoever is totally out of character for any decent human being.

4. How can you even try to depict conflict of the heart with no dialogue or backstory?

5. I also find disgusting how they bastardized Randyll Tarly to the point of stripping him of his personal history (which, once again, had been established in show just two episodes back). They dumbed him down to the point that when, facing a win-win situation, he manages to find a lose one, so it is perfectly justified for Dany to burn him. How can such a stupid and pig headed person be allowed to live? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Illiterati said:

Going into battle with dragons would be expected (and it would be disappointing if she didn't).  Murdering prisoners of war is a different thing entirely, both in our modern ethos and apparently in her universe, seeing as Robb beheaded Karstarck for murdering POWs.

Agreed, murdering POW is unethical, but but the use of "murder" in this war setting with soldiers is inappropriate.

She gave the Tarlys a choice: the chance to bend the knee.  In our and in the ASOIAF worlds POW are not always returned to their countries. They can be used as political pawns, or left to rot/die in a cell. I think what she did was entirely in keeping with military strategy and general war ethics in ASOIAF world. Tarly was a powerful Lord and military figure- in ASOIAF, these men have choices, bend the knee or die.  She gave them the opportunity to bend the knee. they chose not to, so they died. That's the rule of this game of thrones, submit to the battle winner or die. 

 

Again-  I'm sensing a double standard. Renly and Stannis offered plenty of POWs the chance to bend the knee or die, his ethics (on that matter) aren't being questioned. His ethics relating to Shireen, on the other hand.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Katleesi said:

Agreed, murdering POW is unethical, but but the use of "murder" in this war setting with soldiers is inappropriate.

She gave the Tarlys a choice: the chance to bend the knee.  In our and in the ASOIAF worlds POW are not always returned to their countries. They can be used as political pawns, or left to rot/die in a cell. I think what she did was entirely in keeping with military strategy and general war ethics in ASOIAF world. Tarly was a powerful Lord and military figure- in ASOIAF, these men have choices, bend the knee or die.  She gave them the opportunity to bend the knee. they chose not to, so they died. That's the rule of this game of thrones, submit to the battle winner or die. 

 

Again-  I'm sensing a double standard. Renly and Stannis offered plenty of POWs the chance to bend the knee or die, his ethics (on that matter) aren't being questioned. His ethics relating to Shireen, on the other hand.... 

If I stopped you in an alleyway and gave you a choice between handing over your purse or dying, and you refused your purse, would I be murdering you?

Warning someone you are going to murder them doesn't render it something other than murder.  Ask any soldier who has ever been imprisoned or executed for murdering a POW.  It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, captors have a duty to protect the lives of their prisoners.  Willfully killing them for any reason other than being an immediate threat to others or hot escape (which naturally poses a threat to others) is murder plain and simple.  Hot escape meaning they are in the act of escaping and will get away if you don't injure them.  Once recapturing an escapee, one's duty to protect their prisoner resumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gala said:

The only difference is that Jon swang his sword by himself, thus, taking responsibility for his action...Dany, on the other hand, used Drogon 

Dany was responsible. She used Drogon just as Jon used a sword. 

People get hung up on Ned's line about the man who gives the order carrying out the execution himself. But cutting off heads isn't easy. Remember how much trouble Robb had with the Carstark?

Now imagine little Dany swinging a big old sword on not one but two full-grown men. They could be there for hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Katleesi said:

Again-  I'm sensing a double standard. Renly and Stannis offered plenty of POWs the chance to bend the knee or die, his ethics (on that matter) aren't being questioned. His ethics relating to Shireen, on the other hand.... 

I do not about other people, but as the OP I can say I was not questioning anyone´s ethics. The only thing I am trying to question is the showrunners ability and/or wish to produce an engaging piece of media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Armand Gargalen said:

I do not about other people, but as the OP I can say I was not questioning anyone´s ethics. The only thing I am trying to question is the showrunners ability and/or wish to produce an engaging piece of media.

I don't recall Stannis or Renly giving that ultimatum.  It could very easily be my own oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Armand Gargalen said:

1. Did they unleash a scorpion? What did she expect? That they would stay there to be roasted and not try to retaliate? If you love your children so much, do not take them to war.

2. I never said it was out of character for her to burn what she thinks are her enemies. What I think it is out of character is to do it and not to show any hint of doubt or remorse.

3. I am not reacting strongly to her using dragons in battle either. Of course anyone with a wish for the Iron Throne would have used them. What I am objecting strongly is to the artificial divide the showrunners are trying to force feed us in order to prove she is both fierce and kind: using dragon on civilians is evil at Cersei´s level, using them on enemy soldiers is perfectly justified. And you know why I do not buy it? Because,as the show has already established in this same season, this soldiers are also civilians, albeit forcefully conscripted ones, normal guys whose main desire is to return home with their families. So burning them and showing no remorse or doubt whatsoever is totally out of character for any decent human being.

4. How can you even try to depict conflict of the heart with no dialogue or backstory?

5. I also find disgusting how they bastardized Randyll Tarly to the point of stripping him of his personal history (which, once again, had been established in show just two episodes back). They dumbed him down to the point that when, facing a win-win situation, he manages to find a lose one, so it is perfectly justified for Dany to burn him. How can such a stupid and pig headed person be allowed to live? 

Respectfully disagree on some points:

1. They did unleash the scorpion. She clearly did not expect it and she was stupid to go back in after she saw they had it. If you are the mother of dragons and you love them, Yes- you take them into war. Their very existence is threatened every day of their lives unless you rule the land. 

2&4: Not saying its right (or that I think she took her actions without remorse). Just saying I can live with the show runners choices, given we have 8 episodes left and a television budget, rather than a 8-10 movie series. 

5. Randyll Tarley  is a loathsome creature through and through, as established in multiple seasons of the show:

  • He threatened to have his son hunted down in the wood if he didn't take the Black, forcing an obese terrified young man into the worst circumstances of his life, and almost certain death. Don't you recall how badly Samwell was beaten under Thorne's command when he first got to the Wall? I believe Randall Tarly even said he hoped Sam- his actual rightful heir- would die there.
  • Upon learning of this same son's prestigious advancement within the Nights Watch- of being sent to The Citadel for Meister training- he treated him with loathing and contempt.
  • He betrayed his oath to Highgarden by fighting for Cersei, easily swayed by Jamie's argument that he also had an oath to the crown, when Cersei's claim on the crown is tenuous at best. 
  • He allowed his unfortunately named son and heir to perish needlessly. 
  • He's a  racist turncoat who cost himself and his son their lived by refusing to bend the knee to "savages"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DarkBastard said:

This is a tough one, because I see your point but I also see the show running a logical arc.If you remember last season when she made Tyrion Hand of the Queen, she had just broken things off with Daario.  She said she "felt nothing".  As her character progresses through those stages of emotion and maturity, they are showing an evolution of her behavior.  She had no remorse for burning the Khals in Vaes Dothrak, but no one questioned it.  Is it less meaningful to kill men in that way than it was to kill the Tarleys in their defiance?  She didn't cry for them, and she didn't cry for the slavers attacking Mereen...would it be logical for her to cry for the Lannisters, who had just slaughtered her allies the Tyrells?  

We sometimes project our feelings and expectation upon those we admire without considering their own perspective.  Those men had just killed her allies, killed Olenna, raided everything of value from The Reach and left the few survivors with nothing to support an illegitimate Queen Cersei who had just recently murdered a huge group of people in the Sept of Baelor.  And Cersei murdered them because she gave power to a sycophant in order to eliminate the "rightful" queen. These are terrible people in her eyes.  The Sons of the Harpy were terrible people.  The Masters were terrible people.  She didn't shed tears for any of them.  

We expect it because to us the Lannisters and Tarleys are not abstract like the others.  That is not true from Dany's perspective.  We care about Jaime and Bronn and (to a lesser degree) Dickon ...we didn't care about the Masters or the Khals or the Harpies.  We saw the personal side of the Lannister army with Arya on the road earlier this season.  We didn't see the personal side of the Master's armies...does that mean they were all terrible people?

I served 22 years in the military, five tours in hostile environments...I can tell you without any doubt, conflict hardens you.  It has to, or it will break you (sometimes it breaks you anyway).  She has become who she is based on how the things she experienced along the way hardened her, shaped her.  We see the only thing softening her at this point are Jorah and Jon.  

So why?  We want her to soften.  What we have been shown is supposed to make us want that to happen, for her to show feeling again.  If she is able to achieve that through Jon, it makes that development something the viewers want.  The conflict of the heart for Dany is occurring as we speak.  Her heart has always desired the Iron Throne, but her heart is pushing her north.  Toward Jon and his need for her.  She has to choose a path...if it is south will she continue to harden (and break)?  If it is north, will she soften and feel once again.

At least that's how I interpret it.  She is deeply conflicted.

 

I just wanted to say "You are absolutely right!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Katleesi said:

 

5. Randyll Tarley  is a loathsome creature through and through, as established in multiple seasons of the show:

  • He threatened to have his son hunted down in the wood if he didn't take the Black, forcing an obese terrified young man into the worst circumstances of his life, and almost certain death. Don't you recall how badly Samwell was beaten under Thorne's command when he first got to the Wall? I believe Randall Tarly even said he hoped Sam- his actual rightful heir- would die there.
  • Upon learning of this same son's prestigious advancement within the Nights Watch- of being sent to The Citadel for Meister training- he treated him with loathing and contempt.
  • He betrayed his oath to Highgarden by fighting for Cersei, easily swayed by Jamie's argument that he also had an oath to the crown, when Cersei's claim on the crown is tenuous at best. 
  • He allowed his unfortunately named son and heir to perish needlessly. 
  • He's a  racist turncoat who cost himself and his son their lived by refusing to bend the knee to "savages"

I never said he was not either. 

1-3 I agree completely.

4-5 I think the showrunners turned him into a bigoted, pig headed racist just for this episode and just to have a excuse for him to refuse to bend the knee.

What I mean is that Randyll Tarly bending the knee was the logical conclusion to his arch. Two episodes ago it had been established that he had fought for Dany´s father during Robert Rebellion and that he only accepted the Lannister´s leadership because he was tempted with a very good reward. 

Actually, Tarly bending the knee would have made for a more compelling story and create further conflict in Daenerys´ heart. Because she would have had to make the choice between pardoning a "loathsome creature" who is a significant potential ally or executing a prisoner who is pleading for mercy. Instead of that, he becomes a cartoonish  bigoted villain who forgets his own backstory and his family´s best interest so the showrunners can show us how ruthless Dany is becoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DarkBastard said:

So why?  We want her to soften.  What we have been shown is supposed to make us want that to happen, for her to show feeling again.  If she is able to achieve that through Jon, it makes that development something the viewers want.  The conflict of the heart for Dany is occurring as we speak.  Her heart has always desired the Iron Throne, but her heart is pushing her north.  Toward Jon and his need for her.  She has to choose a path...if it is south will she continue to harden (and break)?  If it is north, will she soften and feel once again.

At least that's how I interpret it.  She is deeply conflicted.

 

And the showrunners offered her character a easy way out of that conflict by concocting the most ridiculous plan. Now,  she can help the north and not give up on her IT claim, at the only expense of logic and common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cade said:

She's extremely sensitive and compassionate to innocents, but not to her enemies. Yes, she often ends up compromising and showing them mercy, but that's because she doesn't want to kill unless she has to, and because she wants to achieve peace and prevent innocents from being killed. When she feels justified in taking violent action, as she clearly did here, she does not feel much, if any, regret over it. These people were fighting for Cersei after she murdered probably thousands of innocent people in her own city. They had just invaded Highgarden and were stealing food from peasants. Yes, some of them may have been fighting against their own will, but Dany didn't know that, and not even we do. From her perspective, they were 100% legitimate military targets who'd known she had dragons and Dothraki and chose to keep fighting for Cersei. Even after she offered them full pardons, almost all of them refused to bend the knee and only did so in fear of Drogon.

Let's take your example of the crucifixions. She never even expressed the slightest regret or sadness over that to anyone in the books. Internally she tried to convince herself it was just, recognized she had "made a horror" but then later "feared that she had not gone far enough." In the show, we do see her feel sadness when Hizdahr confronts her about it, but she never talks about it with anyone.

I think the worst thing she's done in the books or show is allowing the Shavepate's torture program, which almost certainly resulted in many innocents being tortured (not that torturing the guilty is OK, either, but even today it's common, let alone in medieval times). GRRM glossed over it even more than he did the crucifixions. While she eventually put a stop to the torture, we never had any indication of her feeling sadness over it. Nor for all the enemies she had killed in her liberation of Astapor. I'm not bringing these things up to pass judgment on her. There's a ton of important context that I'm not mentioning for the sake of brevity. My only point is she's been responsible for a lot of death and suffering to her enemies, and sometimes just suspected enemies, and the pattern in both the books and the show is that she doesn't get broken up over it, and mostly keeps whatever regret she has to herself.

That is not the way it came across to me, but I have not read ADWD for some time,so I may be misremembering some things.

Anyway, the words you chose for your example show the conflict I was talking about. First she tries to convince herself it was just. You only do that if you are quite sure that it was not, but try to find a justification. 

I never said she gets broken over the death of her perceived enemies. She does not because she always find ways to justify herself (what is probably an universal psychological self defence mechanism), but it still conflicts her and haunts her dreams and memories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, darmody said:

Dany was responsible. She used Drogon just as Jon used a sword. 

People get hung up on Ned's line about the man who gives the order carrying out the execution himself. But cutting off heads isn't easy. Remember how much trouble Robb had with the Carstark?

Now imagine little Dany swinging a big old sword on not one but two full-grown men. They could be there for hours. 

By that logic, Dany killed a little girl back in Essos herself. Dragon is a beast, an animal, who likes to burn and EAT living things, including people. If she is the one whole with it and you're suggesting that she is, then I think she is also a beast, thus, any kind of argument about her kindness or humanity is basically ridiculous. And this conversation should stop immediately.

If she is not one whole with it, then it was just like giving your beast another thing "to play with". Drogon is another living creature, so it is the same if somebody uses his dog to kill another person. I hate to tell you, but she is basically like Ramsey in this case.

I am not sure which option is better or makes her look better, but definitely both are not in her favour and both does not make her a ruler material. Swinging the sword to execute a person or living creature (immediately Lady comes to mind, when Ned asked Robert to execute her himself in hopes that Robert couldn't do it, I presume) - means taking responsibility for your actions. Using a living creature is not the same, neither is ordering to kill for that matter - responsibility is elsewhere in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Armand Gargalen said:

5. I also find disgusting how they bastardized Randyll Tarly to the point of stripping him of his personal history (which, once again, had been established in show just two episodes back).

I think the right thing to do with Tarly—assuming they really wanted to end his story with him accepting death—would have been to turn him into a proud general figure. He's already 90% of the way there. Tarlys are the defenders of the Marches against the Dornish. Over the last few centuries, they've risen to often lead the entire Reach armies. In Randyll's lifetime, he led half the Targaryen army, defeated Robert on the field of battle, and won every engagement, even if his CiC managed to lose the war. And now Jaime has offered to promote him to #2 general for the entire Seven Kingdoms. This is everything he's ever wanted. And his first big battle, he loses, and loses so badly that he's pretty much thrown the whole war unless the politicians can figure out something to dig things out. He's beyond redemption as a general. He's looking for a way to commit harakiri in a culture that doesn't have it, and Dany gives it to him. And that would leave us respecting him even though we didn't like him and blamed his own pigheadedness for her death.

Choosing death because he's sworn to Cersei and believes in her with all his heart because she doesn't have any of those damn foreigners in her army, on the other hand, that just leaves us laughing at what an asshole he is. There's no drama in his story, just farce, which I'm pretty sure isn't what D&D were hoping for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Gala said:

By that logic, Dany killed a little girl back in Essos herself. Dragon is a beast, an animal, who likes to burn and EAT living things, including people. If she is the one whole with it and you're suggesting that she is, then I think she is also a beast, thus, any kind of argument about her kindness or humanity is basically ridiculous. And this conversation should stop immediately.

If she is not one whole with it, then it was just like giving your beast another thing "to play with". Drogon is another living creature, so it is the same if somebody uses his dog to kill another person. I hate to tell you, but she is basically like Ramsey in this case.

Back in Mereen Dany held herself responsible for the actions of rogue Drogon. That's why she locked up the other two dragons when the shepherd brought in his dead kid. If she couldn't control them, she wouldn't have them running wild. 

I'm not suggesting Dany is "one whole with" Drogon. Drogon is her instrument. You don't necessarily become a beast simply by mastering a beast and having it do your bidding. 

As for Ramsey, his problem wasn't that he used dogs. Plenty of people do, and it's perfectly acceptable in our society for the police, for instance, to train dogs to attack people. The problem we have with Ramsey is that he killed the wrong people, with excessive brutality. If it was also by the wrong method, well, that's secondary and beside my point anyway. 

Ramsey obviously was perfectly capable of beheading men with a sword and his own two hands. Dany isn't. If she retrained Ramsey's dogs to do her bidding I'd say the same thing. She would be carrying out the execution herself, because she would be using dogs as her instrument. 

Sort of like Sansa did to Ramsey himself. Not that that scene had even the pretense of legality, but I don't think many people would say Sansa wasn't taking responsibility for his death. 

Granted, Dany could pick another method, one she is capable of carrying out. Flipping a switch to hang a man, for instance. But that's a question of method, not of agency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, falcotron said:

I think the right thing to do with Tarly—assuming they really wanted to end his story with him accepting death—would have been to turn him into a proud general figure. He's already 90% of the way there. Tarlys are the defenders of the Marches against the Dornish. Over the last few centuries, they've risen to often lead the entire Reach armies. In Randyll's lifetime, he led half the Targaryen army, defeated Robert on the field of battle, and won every engagement, even if his CiC managed to lose the war. And now Jaime has offered to promote him to #2 general for the entire Seven Kingdoms. This is everything he's ever wanted. And his first big battle, he loses, and loses so badly that he's pretty much thrown the whole war unless the politicians can figure out something to dig things out. He's beyond redemption as a general. He's looking for a way to commit harakiri in a culture that doesn't have it, and Dany gives it to him. And that would leave us respecting him even though we didn't like him and blamed his own pigheadedness for her death.

Choosing death because he's sworn to Cersei and believes in her with all his heart because she doesn't have any of those damn foreigners in her army, on the other hand, that just leaves us laughing at what an asshole he is. There's no drama in his story, just farce, which I'm pretty sure isn't what D&D were hoping for.

Well, it is not a bad idea, but Tarly has already lost a war (although he was not the leading commander in the decisive battle) and bent the knee. Also, no general could blame himself for losing a battle when your enemy has such overwhelming superiority. Instead, just better that what the showrunners did.

With your last paragraph, I agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Katleesi said:

Again-  I'm sensing a double standard. Renly and Stannis offered plenty of POWs the chance to bend the knee or die, his ethics (on that matter) aren't being questioned. His ethics relating to Shireen, on the other hand.... 

No one questioned Stannis burning people who weren't Shireen? Didn't you talk to any show fans Seasons Two through Five? 

Seriously though, if fewer people discussed the moral ramifications of Stannis Baratheon's rule, it's because: a). not as many people cared about his character, b). no one thought he'd ever be on the Iron Throne, and c). the show made it perfectly clear you weren't supposed to like him. 

With Dany, on the other hand, they're bending over backwards to get us to take sides on the moral issue of her love of fire. Artificially, in my opinion. I don't believe for a second that Tyrion or Varys are legitimately worried about her becoming a Mad Queen. Though, given the way she ruled in Mereen with the crucifixions and overturning the social order and such, maybe they should be.

But that's not what they're setting up for her rule in Westeros. She's ruling like the rest of them, pretty much, except with dragons. Of which she doesn't make full use, anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Case in point, they ruined Stannis and got rid of him early to make room for Jon.

Until the next book comes out we can't say definitively that they got rid of Stannis early. 

Unless I'm mistaken, the last time we see Stannis he's on his way to Winterfell but is stopped by heavy snow.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×