Jump to content
Tyrion1991

Why does every character hate Daenerys?

Recommended Posts

This has been going on since season 7 and it’s become impossible to avoid as the characters who are on Danys side have become marginalised. 

- Why do Sansa and Arya care about Northern independence? They should care about revenge on the Lannisters. They should care about the army of the Undead. How do they intend to accomplish either of these things without Dany? Why are they suddenly deeply interested in events going back a generation and not more interested in beating Cersei?

- Why are the Northern Lords acting as if they have a choice in this? Daenerys has two dragons. She could, easily, kill all of them. Unless Arya Faceless Mans it and they do not know that BTW, then they shouldn’t be acting as if there’s the possibility of defying her. The exact same issue happened in season 7 when the Reach and Westerland Lords joined Cersei because reasons. Not a single character or faction has been intimidated by those dragons and that breaks my suspension of disbelief.

- Sam is completely overlooking Jon chopping off Janos Slynts head after he refused to follow orders. How is this different than Tarly not bending the knee and choosing a violent option? It isn’t.

- All the other characters keep pointing out how violent and cruel Danny is whilst wilfully ignoring the fact they have been fighting a brutally savage civil war. Brienne saw Stark soldiers lynching innocent women in the Riverlands. Sansa had a man eaten alive by his dogs. It’s a major double standard. Nobody suggests that Sansa shouldn’t be Lady of Winterfell because she’s done nasty things to bad people. Arya has killed a few hundred people at this point. But Dany burns two guys who refused to surrender and suddenly there are gasps of shock and horror.

- Danny has sent her people and dragons north. She lost a dragon saving Jons life. Danny did not need to do that. She could easily have continued her campaign in the south. Instead, Sam is proposing that Jon should let her sacrifice all of that and then rob the throne off her. Making all the pain and suffering she went through meaningless. It would be a stunningly backhanded act of betrayal if Jon went through with that. 

- What Dany has asked for is token lip service. That is it. She hasn’t asked for taxes. Hasn’t abolished feudal powers. Nothing. The warden of the north is king in all but name. It is pedantic and pathetic in the extreme considering the circumstances to take issue with that.

- Why is it taken for granted that Brans vision and Sams letter will be taken seriously? There would always be a question mark over whether Jon and his heirs were truly what they claimed. This would create future wars. Dany on the other hand is indisputably a Targaryen. 

- Dany has been merciful. Tyrion convinced her not to destroy the cities of slavers bay and she forgave Jorah. Sam is leaping to conclusions.

- You are about to be attacked by an army of the Undead and you are complaining that somebody brought an army and two dragons? You are then conspiring to depose this person and ruin their life? If somebody saves the world that would normally be proof that they might actually be a good person.

I honestly can’t decide if this is all false tension that won’t go anywhere. A bit like that Stark vs Baratheon undertone in the books. But I do really think that none of the characters are being reasonable here. 

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's reasonable for every character to exist to make Dany's wildest dreams come true. I dont think it's realistic that every man falls in love with her and worships at her feet. I think it makes sense why people oppose her. She hasnt proved herself like Sansa has. Dany is the one holding her title over them. This title has nothing to do with her ability to help them. Nobody cares if Tyrion talked her out of burning cities. Thats what she wanted to do. She doesn't always listen to advice; she is mercurial and unpredictable. It all seems even more dangerous because she's only in the North for Jon anyway. I think Northerners see right through her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

This has been going on since season 7 and it’s become impossible to avoid as the characters who are on Danys side have become marginalised. 

- Why do Sansa and Arya care about Northern independence? They should care about revenge on the Lannisters. They should care about the army of the Undead. How do they intend to accomplish either of these things without Dany? Why are they suddenly deeply interested in events going back a generation and not more interested in beating Cersei?

Don't know about Arya, but Sansas obsession with northern independence is weird to say the least.
And her timing with pushing said question is not something an allegedly "smart" person would do.

I honestly have no explanation for her behavior in this question other than D&D needed some tension between Sansa and Daenerys, and Sansa getting a sudden nationalistic surge that would make her parents take a step back is the best thing they could come up with.

 

Quote

- Why are the Northern Lords acting as if they have a choice in this? Daenerys has two dragons. She could, easily, kill all of them. Unless Arya Faceless Mans it and they do not know that BTW, then they shouldn’t be acting as if there’s the possibility of defying her. The exact same issue happened in season 7 when the Reach and Westerland Lords joined Cersei because reasons. Not a single character or faction has been intimidated by those dragons and that breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Because the Northern Lords are over and over, shown as proud, arrogant, xenophobic racists.
Lord Glover shows this. He knows certain death is approaching, but he'd never serve under a "southerner" anyway.

And yeah, the northern lords lack of a reaction to the dragons in any way shape or form is borderline immersion-breaking. 
Even Smalljon Umber, for all his flaws, stated this in S2: "It was the dragons we bowed to and now the dragons are dead!"
Well the dragons are back, and no one seems to give a shit...

Quote

- Sam is completely overlooking Jon chopping off Janos Slynts head after he refused to follow orders. How is this different than Tarly not bending the knee and choosing a violent option? It isn’t.

In Sam's defense, he's struck by grief and shock. I wouldn't expect Sam to think rationally. 

Him trying to actively get Jon to "overthrow" (for lack of a better word) Daenerys, especially in the current situation where they need her, is very out of character for him however. He knows that Jon doesn't want to be KitN, why would he want to be king over the 7K?

Ironically, Sam's reaction mirror a large portion of the fanbase, who consider Daenerys being "mad queen 2.0 confirmed" when she burned the Tarly's, when a large number of people, including Jon-the-honorable, would've (and have) done similar things in her position.

Not just executing Janos Slynt out of "mere" insubordination.
Executing Olly and Thorne are very similar as well. In both cases, we have a group of people who betrayed and killed someone they've sworn allegiance too, and as Jon say's, "the punishment for treason is death". 
Dany at least gave the Tarly's a choice. 

Quote

- Danny has sent her people and dragons north. She lost a dragon saving Jons life. Danny did not need to do that. She could easily have continued her campaign in the south. Instead, Sam is proposing that Jon should let her sacrifice all of that and then rob the throne off her. Making all the pain and suffering she went through meaningless. It would be a stunningly backhanded act of betrayal if Jon went through with that. 

It would, and it would be out of character for Jon. I don't think he will do it however, but the fact that Sam even suggests it adds a shade of evil manipulation to him we haven't previously seen. 

Quote

- What Dany has asked for is token lip service. That is it. She hasn’t asked for taxes. Hasn’t abolished feudal powers. Nothing. The warden of the north is king in all but name. It is pedantic and pathetic in the extreme considering the circumstances to take issue with that.

Yeah, she's not really being unreasonable.
While a case can be made for Tywins old saying; "Any man/woman who says they are the king/queen is no true king/queen" can be made here, there's really no reason for Sansa to be so openly antagonistic against her in this situation.

In fact, Sansa's action goes against anything we've seen from her in the earlier seasons.
She's mastered the art of "smiling and waving" towards people she hates. Showing open disdain is unlike her.
 

Quote

- Why is it taken for granted that Brans vision and Sams letter will be taken seriously? There would always be a question mark over whether Jon and his heirs were truly what they claimed. This would create future wars. Dany on the other hand is indisputably a Targaryen. 

I don't think it is, but they probably will be.

Personally I think the whole talk about "true heir" and line of succession is really stupid and shows that the writers have no clue in this scenario.
Jon being ahead of Daenerys in the line of succession means jack shit if he doesn't have the power necessary to claim the throne.
Why? Because the throne is already occupied, and Cersei isn't gonna abdicate just because Jon or Daenerys asks nicely. 
Ultimately, either force is needed, at which point the line of succession is irrelevant since whoever wins will be ruling via right of conquest, or...whoever ends up on the throne ends up there, because there are no more contesting players - again, making the line of succession irrelevant. 

Quote

- Dany has been merciful. Tyrion convinced her not to destroy the cities of slavers bay and she forgave Jorah. Sam is leaping to conclusions.

As much as I like Daenerys, I'm gonna be honest here.
Daenerys has flaws, and she's done some bad things over the seasons as well, and could've easily became the mad queen 2.0 for real if not for her advisers.
Wanting to raise a whole city to the ground is something an evil character would do, and while she ultimately was talked out of it, she doesn't score any good-points in my book for not-doing-an-evil-act, she simply doesn't score any evil points.

The ambivalence regarding Daenerys is one of the more intriguing aspects about her imo.
They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Daenerys can easily be the personification of this saying.

She's ultimately a "good" character, but has no qualms about doing questionable deeds in order to achieve said goodness. 
The end doesn't always justify the means and all that. 

Quote

I honestly can’t decide if this is all false tension that won’t go anywhere. A bit like that Stark vs Baratheon undertone in the books. But I do really think that none of the characters are being reasonable here. 

I think it's all fake tension. If the characters got along well before the battle it would be less potential drama and we can't have that, immersion be damned...
 

Edited by MinscS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany is insufferable with repeating "I'm the queen, bow down" like a broken record. She expects everyone to immediately swore their lives to her because in her mind it is her "right" to rule Westeros because her ancestors invaded the land two centuries ago.

 

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Why do Sansa and Arya care about Northern independence? They should care about revenge on the Lannisters. They should care about the army of the Undead. How do they intend to accomplish either of these things without Dany? Why are they suddenly deeply interested in events going back a generation and not more interested in beating Cersei?

Why Arya and Sansa should want to be bow down to anyone, let alone a foreigner? Their desire for independent North is completely understandable to me. The Starks have bad experience with kings, whether the Targaeryen ones or the other ones. They have no guarantee that Dany will be different. They do not know her. They, especially Sansa, fought hard to claim their home back. They don't want to give it up. They can be allies with Dany but they don't want to her vassals.

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

- Why are the Northern Lords acting as if they have a choice in this? Daenerys has two dragons. She could, easily, kill all of them. Unless Arya Faceless Mans it and they do not know that BTW, then they shouldn’t be acting as if there’s the possibility of defying her. The exact same issue happened in season 7 when the Reach and Westerland Lords joined Cersei because reasons. Not a single character or faction has been intimidated by those dragons and that breaks my suspension of disbelief.

See above.

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

- Sam is completely overlooking Jon chopping off Janos Slynts head after he refused to follow orders. How is this different than Tarly not bending the knee and choosing a violent option? It isn’t.

It is very different. Janos was directly under Jon's command and he refused to obey his commands. The Tarlys were war prisoners. They weren't bound to obey Dany by any means.

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

- Danny has sent her people and dragons north. She lost a dragon saving Jons life. Danny did not need to do that. She could easily have continued her campaign in the south. Instead, Sam is proposing that Jon should let her sacrifice all of that and then rob the throne off her. Making all the pain and suffering she went through meaningless. It would be a stunningly backhanded act of betrayal if Jon went through with that.

Why should Sam or anyone else care about what Dany went through? Sad stories aren't automatically rewarded by thrones. If the Iron Throne belongs to the Targaeryens (as Dany's been repeating for 8 season thinking she is the only one left), then Jon is the heir with the best claim. The end. If Dany wants to return the kingdom to the Targaeryen family, she should help Jon.

 

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

- What Dany has asked for is token lip service. That is it. She hasn’t asked for taxes. Hasn’t abolished feudal powers. Nothing. The warden of the north is king in all but name. It is pedantic and pathetic in the extreme considering the circumstances to take issue with that.

See my first comment of your post above.

 

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

- Why is it taken for granted that Brans vision and Sams letter will be taken seriously? There would always be a question mark over whether Jon and his heirs were truly what they claimed. This would create future wars. Dany on the other hand is indisputably a Targaryen. 

It is not.

10 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

- Dany has been merciful. Tyrion convinced her not to destroy the cities of slavers bay and she forgave Jorah. Sam is leaping to conclusions.

She is merciful to some. She is very cruel to others. That's pretty dangerous and not really loyalty-inspiring imo. I personally wouldn't be very keen on being under her rule because I would never know what she does next.

 

11 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 If somebody saves the world that would normally be proof that they might actually be a good person.

not really. They can do it for a various of selfish reasons, like protecting the kingdom they intend to conquer later.

 

29 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Not just executing Janos Slynt out of "mere" insubordination.
Executing Olly and Thorne are very similar as well. In both cases, we have a group of people who betrayed and killed someone they've sworn allegiance too, and as Jon say's, "the punishment for treason is death". 
Dany at least gave the Tarly's a choice. 

You are comparing apples and oranges here. How are Jon's actions the same thing as burning the Tarlys? Janos Slynt was under Jon's command, as Jon was Lord Commander of Night's Watch. He had to obey his commands. Jon repeatedly asked (at least in the books) Slynt, if he refuses to obey his commands before he ordered the execution. Olly and Thorne attacked and killed Lord Commander of Night's Watch. That was literally treason. On the other hand, the Tarlys were prisoners. They didn't have to bend the knee to Daenerys. No oath was sworn. The burning of Tarlys was basically a demonstration of Daenerys' power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nerevanin said:

Olly and Thorne attacked and killed Lord Commander of Night's Watch.
That was literally treason.
On the other hand, the Tarlys were prisoners. 

Randyll attacked and killed Olenna Tyrell, their liege lord, (who'm they've sworn allegiance too, just as the NW swore allegiance to their LC.)
That was literally treason.
On the other hand, Olly and Throne were prisoners.

See any similarities? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Because the Northern Lords are over and over, shown as proud, arrogant, xenophobic racists.

I guess like everyone else in Westeros and Essos? And if you want an example of this to its most extreme - Drogo The Bozo and what he says about and does to the Lhazareen.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Randyll attacked and killed Olenna Tyrell, their liege lord, (who'm they've sworn allegiance too, just as the NW swore allegiance to their LC.)

Jaime killed Olenna, not Randyll. Yes, the Tarlys did swear an oath to House Tyrell but not to Daenerys. It's the same thing why the North lords are so reluctant to accept Dany - they swore an oath to Jon but that happened before Jon swore oath to Dany. They didn't swore oath to Dany and so they don't see her as their queen.

7 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

On the other hand, Olly and Throne were prisoners.

They weren't prisoners. They were mutineers whose plan backfired when Mel resurrected Jon.

11 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

See any similarities? 

Not really tbh. I still think it's apples and oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense for Sam to hate her because, even if it was justified, two of his family members were executed by her. I can also accept that others would also be wary of her. What's stupid, though, is the open antagonism when Dany could literally burn them all to dust. The North doesn't have the power to back their attitudes and their demands, nor do they have any bargaining chips to negotiate with. It is only for cheap drama and unintelligent writing that this behavior is framed as a courageous and cunning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

What's stupid, though, is the open antagonism when Dany could literally burn them all to dust.

"Don't make any funny moves to set off Dany, or she'll burn you"

You're describing a hostage situation. She's not the hero in that scenario.

The North absolutely has the power to resist Dany - they could just copy Dorne's playbook.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sansa and Arya and the lords of the north have no idea what's going to hit them. That's why they allow themselves to speak about independence. Sansa send Ned Umber to Last Heart knowing from Bran that AoDT has passed the Wall,  and the child could be in danger. It wasn't a smart move, she underestimated the danger or she didn't care about it. None of them has seen a WW ori even a wight. They can't understand how big is the danger.
They want Dany's dragons, Unsulied and dorhtaki's army to fight for them without giving anything in return. Their luck is that Dany left herself to be manipulated.


About Randyl Tarlly and his son, Dickon. Randyl said that he fought for Cersei because she was born in Westeros and she's one of them. (Even if Cersei destroyed the House of his liege lord). Daenerys was born at Dragonstone - even if she  was raised in Essos - she was born in Westeros too. And then he was very arrogant and he insulted Dany.
Randyl Tarly fought for Targaryens in Robert's Rebelion and he didn't know where Dany was born? And for Dickon I'm sorry but he has asked for death. They both asked for their death. And Sam looks like he doesn't know  the exact circumstances of their death. I don't think that Dany told him more than that she executed them for treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

"Don't make any funny moves to set off Dany, or she'll burn you"

You're describing a hostage situation. She's not the hero in that scenario.

The North absolutely has the power to resist Dany - they could just copy Dorne's playbook.

 

 

The Dornish guerilla warfare made no sense. If you don’t hold land or fortresses then come the next harvest everyone starves to death. Burn all the cities, burn all the crops; everybody dies. It’s like saying Vietnam would have won if the United States had nuked every city and sprayed the whole country with agent orange so nothing would grow; then blockade the country to stop food imports. The Targaryens did not use any restraint and yet because of plot the Dornish pulled a win. Why do you think nobody used guerilla war against Genghis Khan? It was a horrible piece of world building.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I don't think it's reasonable for every character to exist to make Dany's wildest dreams come true. I dont think it's realistic that every man falls in love with her and worships at her feet. I think it makes sense why people oppose her. She hasnt proved herself like Sansa has. Dany is the one holding her title over them. This title has nothing to do with her ability to help them. Nobody cares if Tyrion talked her out of burning cities. Thats what she wanted to do. She doesn't always listen to advice; she is mercurial and unpredictable. It all seems even more dangerous because she's only in the North for Jon anyway. I think Northerners see right through her.

 

You’re saying that as if there’s a large body of characters who have supported her. It’s literally just Jorah, Grey Worm and Missendei. Jon was on her team for like one episode before getting cold feet and deciding she’s a monster who should be compelled to abdicate. Beyond that very few of the main characters actually support her and most dislike her. To name a few:

 

- All the Starks

- Sam

- Jamie

That’s a lot of the core screen time characters. You then have the party of indifference. Sandor, Beric, Brienne, Varys, Davos and a few others.

Then you have the fact that none of the major regions of Westeros supported her. She is only in Winterfell because Jon invited her. The North and Vale were quite ready to fight her. Are still ready to fight her. You have a small clique of Greyjoy’s, Tyrell’s and Martells interested in revenge whose banner lords betrayed them. Meaning that all the other regions of Westeros sided with Cersei. You even have the Citadel being anti Dany. So even Lords who fought to defend the Mad King, including Mr Tarly, actively oppose Dany.

Thats literally everybody who apart from Jon, Jorah and the Essos band.

She proved herself by saving the King of the North’s life and joining the coalition to save the North in its hour of greatest peril. She could very easily walk away to Essos and ignore the Night King. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Arya hasn't been shown to care about northern independence, she cares about family and see shes Jon siding with Dany over Sansa.  Sansa cares about northern independence mostly because the northern lords do.  And she is trying to represent their views.  Plus from her experience the southern rulers only brought pain to the north so why should they be forced to bend the knee again.

- The northern lords definitely have a choice, it might be a choice between freedom and death versus subservience and life, but it is a choice.  And they are going to resent Dany if she forces them to make that choice.

-The difference between Janos and the Tarlys is that one is family the other isn't.  Sam's rejection of Dany is emotional and not beholden to logic.

- The double standard likely comes from something that keeps being stated in show, they don't know Dany.  Sure most of the characters in Game of Thrones have done violent things that rival Dany's but they know why they did those things.  They don't know Dany's reasons and so it comes off as her being ruthless in her pursuit of power.

-Yes Dany has made significant sacrifices to save everyone and as the audience we see this.  But for the people at Winterfell it is being presented as a transaction. Daenerys is only fighting with them because Jon bent the knee.  Jon is furthering this misconception every time he defends his action by saying they needed the army.  This makes everyone think that Dany only cares about power and not saving lives (which we know is not true).

-Dany has asked for complete dominion of the North, just because she hasn't laid out what exactly that means doesn't change that fact.  As their queen she would be free to implement any law and policy on them that she felt like and they would have to accept it or be treasonous.

-It is not taken for granted that Jon's parentage will be accepted.  Both Jon and Dany doubt it's validity when they are told.  The problem is that if the people start to resent Dany and find out that Jon could potentially be an heir they will back him regardless of the truth.  It is the same problem that royal families have with bastards in general.  They might not really have a claim but if the people dislike the current ruler they will push for anyone else who could have a tenuous claim to the throne.

-Dany has been merciful because she truly does care about other people.  However most of the characters don't know this about her or don't understand her motives.  As for Sam he brings up a valid point, Jon has given up his power for the benefit of his people.  Daenerys has not, and considering how desperately she fights for the iron throne it seems unlikely she would.

-Sansa complaining about having to feed Dany's army can be explained with an example.  Say you planned a dinner party for ten people but then fifty people showed up and no one seemed to bring their own food.  She simply doesn't have the resources to feed them all and so out of frustration she complains about that.  Also she is not conspiring at all, the only ones who could be argued as conspiring are Bran and Sam, but I think they are just setting up Jon as an alternative if need be.

Sorry for the rant but I wanted to give my take on all of the points that were made.

Edited by Bran the Shipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Beyond that very few of the main characters actually support her and most dislike her. To name a few:

 

- All the Starks

- Sam

- Jamie

That’s a lot of the core screen time characters. You then have the party of indifference. Sandor, Beric, Brienne, Varys, Davos and a few others.

Sansa doesn't seem to dislike Dany. I think the scene between them showed that there could be a friendship, but they have opposing views. Arya is likely supporting Sansa and has no real knowledge of Dany to like or dislike. Bran doesn't give a fuck, but she's got Dragons and his main concern is the Night King, so that's all that matters to him.

Jaime is in a kind of no-man's land. He doesn't know her to like or dislike her. She was his and Cersei's enemy, now she's not. I don't get an active dislike or non-support vibe from him.

Sam, of course, has a different view because of specific circumstances. His best friend or the woman who murdered his family? No brainer.

Why should Sandor, Beric, Brienne etc care one way or the other? They don't have enough clout to matter. I also don't get that Davos dislikes her, but he is Jon's man, so he would follow there.

And you put Varys on the dislike / non-support side? Varys? The one who brought Tyrion and Dorne and Olenna to Dany's side? Even you don't believe that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

You’re saying that as if there’s a large body of characters who have supported her. It’s literally just Jorah, Grey Worm and Missendei. Jon was on her team for like one episode before getting cold feet and deciding she’s a monster who should be compelled to abdicate. Beyond that very few of the main characters actually support her and most dislike her. To name a few:

 

- All the Starks

- Sam

- Jamie

That’s a lot of the core screen time characters. You then have the party of indifference. Sandor, Beric, Brienne, Varys, Davos and a few others.

Then you have the fact that none of the major regions of Westeros supported her. She is only in Winterfell because Jon invited her. The North and Vale were quite ready to fight her. Are still ready to fight her. You have a small clique of Greyjoy’s, Tyrell’s and Martells interested in revenge whose banner lords betrayed them. Meaning that all the other regions of Westeros sided with Cersei. You even have the Citadel being anti Dany. So even Lords who fought to defend the Mad King, including Mr Tarly, actively oppose Dany.

Thats literally everybody who apart from Jon, Jorah and the Essos band.

She proved herself by saving the King of the North’s life and joining the coalition to save the North in its hour of greatest peril. She could very easily walk away to Essos and ignore the Night King. 

 

 

 

 

You are painting a wrong picture here. This is not a fight between the NK and the North, not even a fight between Westeros and the NK, but a fight between the living and the dead. This has been made very clear, and I dont get all this "Dany is helping them , they should be thankful" talk. She is the contender to the Iron Throne, ruling Westeros is the only thing she ever wanted, and if she wants to rule Westeros its her obligation to defend it, or else there will be nothing left to rule over very soon. And no, fleeing to Essos wont change anything, its not like the NK will set camp at Winterfel after capturing it, and let the rest of Westeros and world live happily in peace. That guy wants to destroy all humankind and its memory, Im pretty sure that includes Essos. As for why not many characters like Dany, that is simply because she is not portrayed as a very likeable persona. Why should anyone like her by default anyway? Because she has dragons and could burn them all if she wished so?  What kind of reasonimg is that? That is not liking someone, but being afraid of someone and their possible actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

This has been going on since season 7 and it’s become impossible to avoid as the characters who are on Danys side have become marginalised. 

- Why do Sansa and Arya care about Northern independence? They should care about revenge on the Lannisters. They should care about the army of the Undead. How do they intend to accomplish either of these things without Dany? Why are they suddenly deeply interested in events going back a generation and not more interested in beating Cersei?

 

Because that's all started due to not having the northern independence.

Why that conflict between Stark and Lannister started?

Joffrey and Cersei alone aren't the only reason, they had the power to come into North and do that bastardly and spoiled actions due to being the part of the ''royal family''.

If Joffrey wasn't the prince, and Cersei wasn't the queen, they would've no business in the north, and even if they had a business, they couldn't do anything and they needed behave and respect the Starks in the north.

So you killed Joffrey and Cersei, is there any guarantee that there will be no bastardly and spoiled prince in the north anymore? I doubt.

They just want to be free from that, it's very understandable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...why should people love her (opposite of the hate you say they feel)?  Because she has dragons?  That's not love, that's fear.  I do think that she would probably be shown more outward respect, out of fear.  I think the amazement and total fear that dragons of that size would inspire has been downplayed.  But that wouldn't make anyone love her.  

The North doesn't want a foreign king or queen.  They're done with all that.  So I imagine it is difficult for them to have Jon - the king they want - to come back subservient to a woman they know nothing about and be expected to bend the knee.  If Westeros as we know it, and they know it, exists after the fight with the NK, how do they know what kind of queen she might be?  

The majority have not seen the AotD, nor the WW.  They do not truly understand what they are up against.  So I can understand that at this point in time, they are still resistant to handing everything over to Daenerys.  They don't fully realize yet that they truly have no other chance.  But even then, knowing they MUST rely on her and her dragons doesn't = love.  Though she risked a lot going north and lost a dragon, they don't *really* know what her motivations are and its understandable that they distrust her.  I mean, even though Daenerys HAS seen the WW and the dead, she is *still* focused on the IT!  So in a way, the characters that dislike and distrust her aren't exactly wrong.  She wants the throne, first and foremost and she is an unknown to them...for all they know, she might make a terrible ruler. 

All she has asked is lip service?  Uh..not really.  That's all she has had time for *now*.  Like I said, if they survive the coming war with the dead, she may change whatever she wishes and burn whoever argues.  Personally I think a leader who wields such an extreme power that unbalances any other power (can burn up any army etc) would be very scary!  

I see no reason for anyone - except those who know her very well - to love her or even like her at this point.  But I do think they might show their distaste less brazenly, realistically.  

Edited by Red Dragon10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

- Why are the Northern Lords acting as if they have a choice in this? Daenerys has two dragons. She could, easily, kill all of them. Unless Arya Faceless Mans it and they do not know that BTW, then they shouldn’t be acting as if there’s the possibility of defying her. The exact same issue happened in season 7 when the Reach and Westerland Lords joined Cersei because reasons. Not a single character or faction has been intimidated by those dragons and that breaks my suspension of disbelief.

 

Dragons are hard to kill, but Dany isn't. That's the difference between Aegon's first conquer of the Westeros, he had two more dragon riders (his sisters). 

If you remember that, they were talking about they shouldn't risk Dany in the battlefield because all it takes one arrow to kill her.

Especially now that Arya is a faceless man, she can actually assassinate Dany.

Edited by Erkan12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The Dornish guerilla warfare made no sense. If you don’t hold land or fortresses then come the next harvest everyone starves to death. Burn all the cities, burn all the crops; everybody dies. It’s like saying Vietnam would have won if the United States had nuked every city and sprayed the whole country with agent orange so nothing would grow; then blockade the country to stop food imports. The Targaryens did not use any restraint and yet because of plot the Dornish pulled a win. Why do you think nobody used guerilla war against Genghis Khan? It was a horrible piece of world building.

I dont think its true that people using excessive use of force will "win" in the long-term. It just continues the cycle of violence. Eventually these tactics will fail. This comes back to the Tywin debates we've had on this forum for 403923 years. Dany comes in at the tail end of the Targaryen dynasty and expects everything to go well, when it didn't even go that well for Aegon? The North is Dorne this time - the North endured fuck-ups from Targaryens, Lannisters, Boltons. They're not going to just let that start all over again. 

Don't forget that Dorne starved the dragons which rendered them ineffective. Starving dragons is already hinted at in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

She proved herself by saving the King of the North’s life and joining the coalition to save the North in its hour of greatest peril. She could very easily walk away to Essos and ignore the Night King. 

 

I'm not impressed by her saving him. Mainly because Benjen actually did. Then the context. She sanctioned this convoluted plan just so she could get a truce. Jon was only doing this because she wouldn't budge otherwise. 

If everyone dislikes her, so what? Stories thrive on this kind of conflict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×