A season of Jons betrayal

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

1 minute ago, Kajjo said:

Well, she very clearly threatened Winterfell and Dorne in her victory speech. That was a clear threat directed at Sansa and Jon and Arya understood it that way, too, so this is how the show intends it and wants us to understand it.

Daenerys was on a rampage and the next step would have been to attack and "set free" Winterfell. 

Remember, how Jon is not convinced by Tyrion in his cell? Then Tyrion's last attempt is to make Jon consider his sisters and then Jon decides to kill Daenerys. It is absolutely clear that Daenerys would have attacked Winterfell and killed Sansa.

Oh, no doubt about it.  Right before he kills her she was going on about choosing and that she or they would choose for others because they were the ones who were right.....not anyone else.  He knew at that point ( as I mentioned in my earlier post) that there was no reasoning with her and that she would always feel justified in her actions no matter how heinous they were. 

[Kajjo]

1 minute ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

that there was no reasoning with her and that she would always feel justified in her actions no matter how heinous they were. 

That's the decisive point, yes.

[Techmaester]

19 minutes ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

Oh, no doubt about it.  Right before he kills her she was going on about choosing and that she or they would choose for others because they were the ones who were right.....not anyone else.  He knew at that point ( as I mentioned in my earlier post) that there was no reasoning with her and that she would always feel justified in her actions no matter how heinous they were. 

All Kings and Queens choose for others and only negotiate to the extent they need to. Do you think Cerci wouldn't have done the same if given the option?  The entire meeting at the end was only a byproduct of no one currently having a large enough army to begin conquest and had it been truthfull the kingdoms would have split.

Throughout history people like Dany existed, some were good, some we're bad but all ruled with violence when needed and absolution. Dany was fundamentally good and Jon failing to see that was another betrayal.

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

6 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

All Kings and Queens choose for others and only negotiate to the extent they need to. Do you think Cerci wouldn't have done the same if given the option?  The entire meeting at the end was only a byproduct of no one currently having a large enough army to begin conquest and had it been truthfull the kingdoms would have split.

Throughout history people like Dany existed, some were good, some we're bad but all ruled with violence when needed and absolution. Dany was fundamentally good and Jon failing to see that was another betrayal.

She was not fundamentally good.  She ultimately was all about Fire and Blood. I understand you are unhappy with the writing.  So was I but eventually you have to realize that the story ended the way the writers intended.  This was their story to tell....not ours.  Emilia even knew her arc would be like Lawrence of Arabia and how absolute power corrupts. 

[Techmaester]

8 minutes ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

She was not fundamentally good.  She ultimately was all about Fire and Blood. I understand you are unhappy with the writing.  So was I but eventually you have to realize that the story ended the way the writers intended.  This was their story to tell....not ours.  Emilia even knew her arc would be like Lawrence of Arabia and how absolute power corrupts. 

Was her net effect in Esso not good? Compare the prior leadership and everyone will agree she was objectively better.

I agree that we don't have control over these stories but we do have our opinions on the people within them. The final episodes desperate attempt to justify Jons underhanded killing of her failed, at least to me. And apparently a lot of other people agree. It was a middle finger to a substantial number of viewers. I probably won't bother watching another GoT spinoff series.

[Martyn Bull]

6 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

Was her net effect in Esso not good? Compare the prior leadership and everyone will agree she was objectively better.

 

Do we know what the net effect of her conquests in Essos are? She conquered and left, do we know that whatever system she tried to imply still exists, that there will not be another revolt? It worked as long as she was there with three dragons and an army to keep anyone not agreeing with her in check - will it stay that way when she leaves?

[RFL]

Even when she was there with dragons there was open revolt within the city that she could not deal with and a direct attack on her life.  If anything Dany started the wheel rolling faster in Essos where it had been somewhat stabilized by strong rulers (though those currently under it were not doing well)

[Kaapstad]

15 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

Do we know what the net effect of her conquests in Essos are? She conquered and left, do we know that whatever system she tried to imply still exists, that there will not be another revolt? It worked as long as she was there with three dragons and an army to keep anyone not agreeing with her in check - will it stay that way when she leaves?

I think Dario is already out of there and the slave masters are back in control. 

[Martyn Bull]

1 minute ago, Kaapstad said:

I think Dario is already out of there and the slave masters are back in control. 

Me too, if it's not a total civil war...

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

15 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

Was her net effect in Esso not good? Compare the prior leadership and everyone will agree she was objectively better.

Not really.  She always had to resort to violence when her attempts at mercy and peacekeeping failed.  She flunked at ruling.. Even Daario told her she was not meant to sit on a chair in a palace but that she was a conqueror.  That’s when she decided to abandon Meereen and go to Westeros.  

[Techmaester]

1 hour ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

Not really.  She always had to resort to violence when her attempts at mercy and peacekeeping failed.  She flunked at ruling.. Even Daario told her she was not meant to sit on a chair in a palace but that she was a conqueror.  That’s when she decided to abandon Meereen and go to Westeros.  

Isn't that what every government does? Apply violence when other options fail? Maintaining an unjust peace is worse than a just war and violent ends are sometimes needed. Considering who she dealt with her actions were completely justified if not ideal. As I wrote before she was fundamentally moral, good and just - particularly compared  to every other ruler there. Her only morally questionable action was Kings Landing and even then I consider it a grey area.

One could say Jon failed to see her mercy, her goodness displayed throughout her reign in Esso but even then she displayed it to him by coming to his aid. 

 

[RFL]

 her actions were completely justified

 

The burning of Kings Landing (not just the Red Keep) after surrender or the execution of prisoners after surrender?  

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

41 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

Isn't that what every government does? Apply violence when other options fail? Maintaining an unjust peace is worse than a just war and violent ends are sometimes needed. Considering who she dealt with her actions were completely justified if not ideal. As I wrote before she was fundamentally moral, good and just - particularly compared  to every other ruler there. Her only morally questionable action was Kings Landing and even then I consider it a grey area.

One could say Jon failed to see her mercy, her goodness displayed throughout her reign in Esso but even then she displayed it to him by coming to his aid. 

 

I disagree with you. Her actions were not always justified nor was there always goodness throughout her reign in Essos. Many fans  felt she was in the right because the characters Dany were murdering were themselves extremely unsympathetic and villainous. It was a failure to see her increasing cruelty because of her charismatic personality and ability to also be empathetic at times. Her anti-slavery crusade may have worked for her in Essos but the message didn’t seem convincing or appropriate for Westeros.  When the people did not embrace her with love then she decided to use fear and violence to bend them to her will.  That is not right!   She should have remembered Barristan Selmy’s counsel and showed some mercy when it mattered the most.  Refusing to do so ultimately resulted in her death.

 

[King Jon Snow Stark]

55 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

One could say Jon failed to see her mercy, her goodness displayed throughout her reign in Esso but even then she displayed it to him by coming to his aid. 

The fact that Jon needed convincing was a problem for me. It doesn't matter how many times she rescued him. She scorched a city of 500,000 plus people. Killing children. And she wanted to do it over and over again. Tyrion should of start the conversation with Jon like she has die and Jon should have said I know. How should I do it?

[Kaapstad]

2 hours ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

Not really.  She always had to resort to violence when her attempts at mercy and peacekeeping failed.  She flunked at ruling.. Even Daario told her she was not meant to sit on a chair in a palace but that she was a conqueror.  That’s when she decided to abandon Meereen and go to Westeros.  

Well many characters have resorted to undue violence, not just Dany

Arya and the Hound happen across four Frey soldiers. Arya approaches them asking for food, then brutally stabs one because he was just talking about how he put Grey Winds head on Robb's body.

The Hound and Arya come across a handful of Lannister soldiers in an inn. Arya recognizes one of the Lannister soldiers Polliver who took needle and killed Lommy by stabbing him with it through his neck when he broke his leg. She killed Polliver in the same way. Lommy was kinda an brat too.

She brutally kills Ser Meryn Trant by stabbing his eyes out before slitting his throat... for killing her "dancing" teacher.

She kills Lord Walder Frey’s two sons, Lothar and “Black” Walder, and bakes them into a pie she feeds to their Walder Frey. After feeding them to him she then slits his throat. Then she drew all the remaining Frey men together and, posing as Lord Walder, poisoning them all..... pretty sadistic if you ask me.

So if you add them all up throughout all the seasons, the body count is quite high. So as an audience do we perceive her as being "mad"?

At Mereen Dany encounters another slave city, one where they hung, murdered and tortured hundreds of slave children solely as a message. She enforced capital punishment to discourage that behavior. Slighty tyrannical but with a righteous motivation and objective, but is that irrational madness?

She enforces capital punishment on a slave who admitted to murder. Now how the hell is that irrational madness?

She executes a ruling class noble after the sons of the harpy’s, supported by the former ruling class, murder the unsullied who are policing the city trying to maintain Mereen as a city free of slaves. It was politically driven, and again you can argue that it was tyrannical, but their was a rational righteous motivation and objective, how is that irrational madness?

 

The only difference is the others didn't have dragons. She did and she used them. If Cersei had the dragons, it would have been even worse than how Dany used them. She would have torched everything before long

D&D failed to establish a credible path to madness. So what did they do? They deployed one of the laziest story telling mechanics I’ve ever seen in GOT. First they start the episode with a reminder that Targaryen’s are a genetic flip of the madness coin as told by Varys when taking to Jon. They then double down with a audio flashback that says the same god damn thing, it’s basically an admission that they failed to establish a credible reason. Not only that, but they even used out of context lines to rationalize it. 

 

 

 

[RFL]

Are we holding up Arya as some benchmark of sanity in this discussion?  Arya. The one who had a very well laid out path to madness?  She watched her father executed, she watched or heard, from a distance, the Red Wedding.  She was effectively taken hostage by the Hound for ransom (though that relationship developed) and, at least from her point of view, had Brienne attempt to "rescue" her for the same purpose (even if it was not Brienne's actual goal).  She then underwent training designed to turn her into a psychopath with no ego.    She literally kept and carried through with a "kill list" of people who had wronged her

We are not holding her up as some bastion of mental health here are we?  

 

[RFL]

If Arya is the benchmark of sanity EVERYONE not actively undergoing a schizophrenic break is sane.  

[NymeriaWarriorQueen]

19 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

D&D failed to establish a credible path to madness. So what did they do? They deployed one of the laziest story telling mechanics I’ve ever seen in GOT. First they start the episode with a reminder that Targaryen’s are a genetic flip of the madness coin as told by Varys when taking to Jon. They then double down with a audio flashback that says the same god damn thing, it’s basically an admission that they failed to establish a credible reason. Not only that, but they even used out of context lines to rationalize it

 

 

 

After almost a week most fans here seem to agree the writing was lazy and rushed this season.  Regardless.....in light of the foreshadowing and comments from Emilia it is clear this is the arc the showrunners intended for Dany.  We will just have to agree to disagree and that is OK with me.  We all have a right to our opinion and to express our frustrations and rage.   I think I have said all I care to say right now.  It appears the discussion is now just going in circles and I am dizzy...lol.

[Nightwish]

8 minutes ago, RFL said:

Are we holding up Arya as some benchmark of sanity in this discussion?  Arya. The one who had a very well laid out path to madness?  She watched her father executed, she watched or heard, from a distance, the Red Wedding.  She was effectively taken hostage by the Hound for ransom (though that relationship developed) and, at least from her point of view, had Brienne attempt to "rescue" her for the same purpose (even if it was not Brienne's actual goal).  She then underwent training designed to turn her into a psychopath with no ego.    She literally kept and carried through with a "kill list" of people who had wronged her

We are not holding her up as some bastion of mental health here are we?  

 

well you could...

[Techmaester]

24 minutes ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

The fact that Jon needed convincing was a problem for me. It doesn't matter how many times she rescued him. She scorched a city of 500,000 plus people. Killing children. And she wanted to do it over and over again. Tyrion should of start the conversation with Jon like she has die and Jon should have said I know. How should I do it?

She scorched a city of political and ideological enemies who will instantly rebel against her and had for the 8 seasons been the power of the Lannisters to wage war on the North. She gave an option for peace, she gave an option to join her and they refused. They committed themselves to their cause and they died for it. If they didn't want to die they wouldn't have allowed Cersi to use them as meat shields in hopes of exploiting Danys mercy.

Blame Cersi and her counsel. At the end of it Dany didn't order the death of every civilian but the Lannister soldiers and supporters. Harsh maybe but after being betrayed, having her friends murdered and her best trait used against her I probably would have done the same.

She didn't believe in slaves which was the only other option.