Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Techmaester

A season of Jons betrayal

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

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. 

 

 

 

No, the difference is that for Arya it's personal, she kills out of vengance, killing those who have hurt her or her family. That is not madness. Someone who belives she is some kind of Messiah, destined to "free people", break an imaginary wheel, no matter the cost, sounds more like madness to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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?  

 

The point is if we dig into the history of many main characters we find sadism and a violent streak to them. They just don't cause mass damage as they don't have dragons. So apparently Dany is mad just because she uses her dragons in situations where you put many characters from Westeros in, they would do the same thing if they had dragons. There was zero build-up to her madness and the Hitler Dany from Episode 5 and 6 is nothing like the Dany I know for all episodes till Season 8 Episode 4. I am pretty sure, if you give those dragons to Cersei she would have used excessively just to inspire terror. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheiraseastar23 said:

No, the difference is that for Arya it's personal, she kills out of vengance, killing those who have hurt her or her family. That is not madness. Someone who belives she is some kind of Messiah, destined to "free people", break an imaginary wheel, no matter the cost, sounds more like madness to me. 

She walked into a fire and came out with 3 dragons. The only person on the continent. She could be forgiven for thinking she is special. She did not use her dragons like a mad person. She used them only when it was justified. I mean, if you give those dragons to Cersei, pretty sure she would have burnt down the Tyrells, the Sept and all Sparrows and anyone who opposed them without any action on their part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RFL said:

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

You put pretty much any character from Westeros in Dany’s place in Essos and he would have done the same thing. 

Share this post


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

She walked into a fire and came out with 3 dragons. The only person on the continent. She could be forgiven for thinking she is special. She did not use her dragons like a mad person. She used them only when it was justified. I mean, if you give those dragons to Cersei, pretty sure she would have burnt down the Tyrells, the Sept and all Sparrows and anyone who opposed them without any action on their part. 

I agree,it's easy to feel special in her circumstances, but it does take a mentally unstable person to fall into that trap and develop a god complex, which she did.

I mean almost all of us agree that the writing has been bad over the last 3 to 4 seasons, and that there had to be more buildup towards this, but claiming that it came totally out of the blue is ridiculous. People have been arguing on these forums about Dany eventualy going down this path for years before the show ever aired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An argument ad populem is not a logical argument it is a fallacy.  Showing that others in Westeros would have done it does not indicate that it is sane.  It indicates that the ruling class in Westeros is largely insane.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the epitome of saying there are no heroes and everyone is an sob. 

Which for me was the best part of Thrones.

Flipping the script into good vs evil?

Why not maintain the tone and screw Dany out of her, as said, messianic agenda, by having everyone turn on her not because she was evil, as everyone is pointing out, but because 'move over, this is my time'?

That would be ASoIaF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sheiraseastar23 said:

I agree,it's easy to feel special in her circumstances, but it does take a mentally unstable person to fall into that trap and develop a god complex, which she did.

I mean almost all of us agree that the writing has been bad over the last 3 to 4 seasons, and that there had to be more buildup towards this, but claiming that it came totally out of the blue is ridiculous. People have been arguing on these forums about Dany eventualy going down this path for years before the show ever aired.

There was no path, it was one event under a set of particular circumstances and while she made her speech, to know her future would require letting actually rule for a time which we didn't get. We got Jon stabby after she just destroyed his family's primary enemy for the enterity of the show. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Techmaester said:

He baited her into to going on a manic rant about conquest which he then used to justify stabbing her.

Uh, what now?

I was never a massive fan of Jon but this OP is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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?  

 

I actually thought the show did. I don't think it was a coincidence that in The Bells when Dany snaps is when Arya goes in the opposite direction as symbolised by the white horse. Dany succumbs to vengeance, Arya emerges from it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KingMudd said:

Uh, what now?

I was never a massive fan of Jon but this OP is ridiculous.

Every question he asks her is a challenge. That's very clear. When you just destroyed your biggest enemy you will still be high on victory. Soldiers experience and the lack of impulse control which can come with it doesn't represent their overall personality.

Like I wrote, give her time to simmer down and then see who she is, which isn't what we saw.

Share this post


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

Every question he asks her is a challenge. That's very clear. When you just destroyed your biggest enemy you will still be high on victory. Soldiers experience and the lack of impulse control which can come with it doesn't represent their overall personality.

Like I wrote, give her time to simmer down and then see who she is, which isn't what we saw.

Questions like asking her about roasting innocent women and children? Or her men having orders from her to kill prisoners of war? Yeah Jon's a real monster for asking those questions.

I'm not sure we watched the same show TBH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, KingMudd said:

Questions like asking her about roasting innocent women and children? Or her men having orders from her to kill prisoners of war? Yeah Jon's a real monster for asking those questions.

I'm not sure we watched the same show TBH.

I'm more referring to the future, each question is a problem and Danys response is based on what allowed her to win in Kings Landing and every other success she had. Her own commitment and absolution after continued setbacks from her undermining advisors. 

If Jon could demonstrate a way to achieve the same thing without it I don't think she would oppose him. She got tired of losing and decided a scorched earth policy on a stronghold of a political enemy. 

Ultimately you either believe her ideals are right and worth enforcing on the world at what ever cost it takes or you don't. She never changed, her goals were always the same. Jon just pussied out, "ai dunt wunt eht" lol.

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

She got tired of losing and decided a scorched earth policy on a stronghold of a political enemy.

She had already won though. The city had surrendered and after that she went on the rampage. 

She also gave her soldiers orders to kill any prisoners they had. That's after they had surrendered and were defenceless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, KingMudd said:

She had already won though. The city had surrendered and after that she went on the rampage. 

She also gave her soldiers orders to kill any prisoners they had. That's after they had surrendered and were defenceless.

What would Cersi have done? Not kill them? Dany didn't say to kill everyone, she said to kill soldiers who fought for Cersi. It's a tough deal but they could have left prior to the fighting or when Cersi publicly executed Danys closest friend. Their hubris was asking for it. They fought for her rot and Dany was making an example of them(an effective example).

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

What would Cersi have done? Not kill them? Dany didn't say to kill everyone, she said to kill soldiers who fought for Cersi. It's a tough deal but they could have left prior to the fighting or when Cersi publicly executed Danys closest friend. Their hubris was asking for it.

She still attacked the city after they had surrendered though. You're not addressing that.

Your excuses for killing the soldiers are ridiculous. So it's their own fault for not running away. The soldiers had surrendered and thrown down their weapons. There was no excuse for killing them. Also, it doesn't matter what another character would have done. That doesn't change the atrocities that were commited by Dany and her men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KingMudd said:

She still attacked the city after they had surrendered though. You're not addressing that.

Your excuses for killing the soldiers are ridiculous. So it's their own fault for not running away. The soldiers had surrendered and thrown down their weapons. There was no excuse for killing them. Also, it doesn't matter what another character would have done. That doesn't change the atrocities that were commited by Dany and her men.

If you fight for someone and kill for them you better be prepared to die, regardless of if you "surrender". That's the reality of it.

What is the result of not burning it? A widespread insurgency and a continued base of power for the Lannisters. A show of mercy facilitating further challenge to Danys rule.

Morality always needs to be judged relative to others at the same time.

Share this post


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

If you fight for someone and kill for them you better be prepared to die, regardless of if you "surrender". That's the reality of it.

What is the result of not burning it? A widespread insurgency and a continued base of power for the Lannisters. A show of mercy facilitating further challenge to Danys rule.

Morality always needs to be judged relative to others at the same time.

You have some pretty funny views on this. I can see that you won't budge from your ridiculous belief that Dany is the good guy. I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, KingMudd said:

You have some pretty funny views on this. I can see that you won't budge from your ridiculous belief that Dany is the good guy. I'm out.

I don’t understand. Dany is the Anakin of story. People still love Darth Vader and people still dress their kids as him. 

Edited by King Jon Snow Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

I don’t understand. Dany is the Anakin of story. People still love Darth Vader and people still dresses their kids as him. 

I'm sure there's probably someone out there arguing that the younglings had it coming or some bullshit and that Darth Vader was just misunderstood and actually the good guy. Luke probably baited him into cutting his hand off or something.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×