Ilissa Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 5 hours ago, Vanadis said: The whole Tudor dynasty were known for being ruthless when needed. Indeed, when needed. But Dany behaved like Ramsay on a dragon. Chaotic evil in all its glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empress Sansa Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 17 hours ago, Skeletor said: Jon won't want to kill her. For Jon to break his promise for her not to be his queen. Well i remember him saying something along these lines; "You will be my queen forever." Don´t discard Jon killing Arya (consciously or by mistake) while defending his queen when she tries to kill Dany (with or without another face). Or even Jon going all dark after her, plain and straight. This is one of the outcomes coming to mind more often, and one which would make some fans go really mad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadis Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 2 hours ago, Bradam said: No she hasn't.. maybe here and there when it suited her purpose.. all she's ever cared about is her throne. She was a dothraki princess ffs, the kings of rape and plunder against innocents. She didn't need to care about the slaves at all. Heck, she could have just waited until the dragons were big enough, flown across the sea, assaulted the Red Keep and been queen. No amassing of an army even necessary. But I digress. Point is, no Dothraki Kahls were ever concerned about the well being of slaves. As soon as Drogo died and Dany was free to push her own agency, she started working on behalf of the innocent. It was a large part of who she was. Maybe the right characterization is that she had two very different agendas that were at odds with each other. On the one hand, there was the Conqueror who would one day become the villain. On the other, there was the Savior who was there to make the shock even greater when she turned into a villain. And maybe the disagreement is whether it was natural for the Savior to loose the battle against the Conqueror, or at least whether they depicted this battle between her two inner forces in a plausible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 11 minutes ago, Vanadis said: She didn't need to care about the slaves at all. Heck, she could have just waited until the dragons were big enough, flown across the sea, assaulted the Red Keep and been queen. No amassing of an army even necessary. But I digress. Point is, no Dothraki Kahls were ever concerned about the well being of slaves. As soon as Drogo died and Dany was free to push her own agency, she started working on behalf of the innocent. It was a large part of who she was. Maybe the right characterization is that she had two very different agendas that were at odds with each other. On the one hand, there was the Conqueror who would one day become the villain. On the other, there was the Savior who was there to make the shock even greater when she turned into a villain. And maybe the disagreement is whether it was natural for the Savior to loose the battle against the Conqueror, or at least whether they depicted this battle between her two inner forces in a plausible way. Dany loathes injustice and wants to make the world a better place, and risks her life to do so. She's also self-righteously cruel, arrogant, and self-centred. That's a mix of characteristics that is found among lots of revolutionary leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wholala17 Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 No. Kill that bitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rikard Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 9 hours ago, Mystical said: Burning a million people to the ground and support the person who did it? Yeah right. Might as well support Mao or Hitler or Bolsheviks. How about no. Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants during their terror bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. And this was after the Hague Geneva Conventions. Do we vilify them? No, they are heroes. And bell ringing is a dubious form of surrender (no historical precedent offered). Here's Davos in S2E9, "I've never know bells to mean surrender". Ironically this was during the Battle of the Blackwater, when Tyrion defended King's Landing using wild fire. In an actual battle only the commander can request terms, not the disorganized rabble in the streets. If Cersei had lowered the Lannister flag from atop the Red Keep, Dany might have spared the city, but the sack would have continued regardless, as her soldiers were entitled to their booty. And that is the key point to take away, she has the loyalty of her warriors. Also that dragon. No one in Westeros can challenge her power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradam Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 1 hour ago, SeanF said: Dany loathes injustice and wants to make the world a better place, and risks her life to do so. She's also self-righteously cruel, arrogant, and self-centred. That's a mix of characteristics that is found among lots of revolutionary leaders. Dany wants to rule the world. She dosen't give two shits about its well being. The only reason she "freed" the slaves was it was simply easier to convince them overthrow their own masters then her to siege the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Bradam said: Dany wants to rule the world. She dosen't give two shits about its well being. The only reason she "freed" the slaves was it was simply easier to convince them overthrow their own masters then her to siege the city. She probably wants to rule the world, but thinks that would be good for the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradam Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 Just now, SeanF said: She probably wants to rule the world, but thinks that would be good for the world. All rulers think they know best I suppose. That is their reason for wanting to rule, inflict their view of how things should be whether anyone really agrees with them or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, SeanF said: She probably wants to rule the world, but thinks that would be good for the world. Sounds like Dany and some of her fans are neocons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empress Sansa Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 7 hours ago, Rikard said: Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants during their terror bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. And this was after the Hague Geneva Conventions. Do we vilify them? No, they are heroes. And bell ringing is a dubious form of surrender (no historical precedent offered). Here's Davos in S2E9, "I've never know bells to mean surrender". Ironically this was during the Battle of the Blackwater, when Tyrion defended King's Landing using wild fire. In an actual battle only the commander can request terms, not the disorganized rabble in the streets. If Cersei had lowered the Lannister flag from atop the Red Keep, Dany might have spared the city, but the sack would have continued regardless, as her soldiers were entitled to their booty. And that is the key point to take away, she has the loyalty of her warriors. Also that dragon. No one in Westeros can challenge her power. Pretty much what i´ve been saying/thinking these days in a single post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.