Dany the Mad Queen was a terrible idea

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

Robb denied to torture Lannister prisoners when Roose proposed that they could learn Tywin's plans from the ranking officers, then Robb said he doesn't want to give Lannisters any excuse to abuse his sisters, you mixed the things up. He never said they are not going to execute Lannister prisoners because they had his sisters. 

Which is why I said ''even'' Tywin didn't kill prisoners at Harrenhal. And according to Tyrion, Tywin is an evil man, and he is, and even he spared the lives of prisoners at Harrenhal unlike Daenerys did at KL.

The Freys were the lowest filths in the series, which is why other Riverland houses (mallisters and blackwoods) raised against them even after the crown give them the Riverrun, as well as the norhtern houses against the Boltons after the Red Wedding, if you are comparing Daenerys to the Freys and the Boltons then that only proves my point.

Watching from the ropes here, but I think the comparison was between the Boltons and Freys and the Tarlys. As traitors to the Lord Paramount they were beholden to.

Roose Bolton was very happy to negotiate himself into leading the North over Robb Stark's corpse.

Walder Frey resented the Tullys.

Randyll Tarly jumped on being Head Honcho of the Reach with a skip in his step and a lot of Highgarden troops dead. What Cersei had left behind anyway.

Language barrier again, substitute 'traitor' with betrayer or oathbreaker.

[The One Who Kneels]

24 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Does that mean that the lords who supported Maegor I’s claim to the Iron Throne over the identical claim by Aenys I’s son Aegon the Uncrowned were traitors? Or were the lords supporting that Aegon’s claim of the Iron Throne the actual traitors?

Were the lords supporting Alicent Hightower's son Aegon II in his claim of the Iron Throne traitors to Rhaenyra’s son the eventual Aegon III? Or was it the other way around? Or both? Which side’s lords were the traitors here?

Likewise in the later contest for Iron Throne between Aegon IV’s sons Daemon I Blackfyre and Daeron II Targaryen.  Half the lords of Westeros supported one side, half the other. Both claimed the Iron Throne. Were Daemon’s lords traitors to Daeron or were Daeron’s lords traitors to Daemon? Or both or neither?

During Robert’s Rebellion, were the lords faithful to the Baratheons, Arryns, Tullies, and Starks actually the traitors there because Aerys II claimed the Iron Throne?  Or were the lords under the Martells, Tarlies, and Tyrells traitors to Robert I Baratheon because he claimed the Iron Throne?

Were the lords supporting Daenerys against Cersei I Lannister traitors because Cersei had already claimed the Iron Throne for herself? Were the lords supporting Cersei traitors because she had no blood connection to Aegon the Conqueror whose throne it was, and so could not have been the heir of any of the three Baratheon kings, who ostensibly did?

Was Daenerys herself the traitor because crown prince Rhaegar’s surviving son Aegon had the senior claim to the Iron Throne? Or was she only a traitor after she had learned her claim ranked behind his and tried to hide all this from the kingdoms, pretending she was still the heir when she was not? Because that happened before the battle in the north where winter finally fell, was Dany actually a traitor all that time that she was fighting to save the kingdom? Were the lords supporting Jon the traitors because Dany had already claimed the Iron Throne and Jon refused to assert his senior claim to it? How was Jon Snow any more of a traitor after Dany announced her plans to "liberate" Winterfell than Jon Arryn was when Aerys II called for Robert and Ned’s heads?

Weren't all of these people named above ultimately traitors to the Iron Throne?  It’s not like they could help themselves because treason was built right into the system itself. And after three centuries of treason upon treason upon treason, the deadly cycle oscillating between atrocity and retribution became a never-ending wheel of outrageous fortune.

The ultimate enemy behind three centuries of tragedy was the Iron Throne itself.  That's why the title of the very last episode in the entire series was named after it. Westeros defeated it in the end, but only at great cost.

You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if Tarly is right or wrong in who he chooses (the fact that he is willingly backing Cersei Lannister just makes the whole situation really dumb and his uncompromising stance idiotic) the point is that Daenerys giving him the option of bend the knee or die is not proof that she is cruel or ruthless or unreasonable it is how any ruler would have to react in this situation.  

What part of how a feudal system works is unclear? You cannot remain a lord if you refuse to bend the knee to the king or queen. 

[Kajjo]

4 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Any lord of Westeros who fought for Cersei is a traitor to Daenerys and vice versa. 

That's simple nonsense and against the definition of the words.

You can only betray someone if you break an oath. Not every enemy is a traitor. 

[The One Who Kneels]

1 hour ago, Kajjo said:

That's simple nonsense and against the definition of the words.

You can only betray someone if you break an oath. Not every enemy is a traitor. 

So every lord could opt out of swearing fealty to Joffrey when Robert died and couldn't be punished for it? 

Again what do you not understand about how a feudal monarchy works? 

[Hodor's Dragon]

5 hours ago, Kajjo said:

That's simple nonsense and against the definition of the words.

You can only betray someone if you break an oath. Not every enemy is a traitor. 

In a monarchy, it has nothing to do with oaths. Everyone is bound to the sovereign, and anyone who follows a "false" sovereign is a traitor. You say it gets more complicated when more than one person claims the throne? Not really.

First, the decision on which monarch is "false" and which is "true" is dead easy to make and works every time: the one who wins is true, and the one who loses is false. If it's during a period of contested rule, then the one who controls the territory you are standing on is true, the other one is false. 

NO ruler or serious pretender examining a hostile noble prisoner who is under her control and on her own territory is going to say "oh, that's cool" if the prisoner is following a false sovereign, because that cedes that the other sovereign's claim has merit, and absolute rulers just can't and don't do that. That's the way it was in real life (during dynastic wars days) and that's the way it is in GOT. For political or sometimes financial reasons, plenty of deals pardoning rebels got cut historically, but it's also true that plenty of them didn't. With no deal, the default position is that fighting for a false liege is rebellion, and that's the death penalty. 

In the Tarly case, Tarly and Daenerys were standing on her victorious battlefield. He was a rebel, and at her mercy. If he had won the battle, the opposite would be the case, she would be a rebel, and at his mercy.

[RYShh]

20 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Watching from the ropes here, but I think the comparison was between the Boltons and Freys and the Tarlys. As traitors to the Lord Paramount they were beholden to.

Roose Bolton was very happy to negotiate himself into leading the North over Robb Stark's corpse.

Walder Frey resented the Tullys.

Randyll Tarly jumped on being Head Honcho of the Reach with a skip in his step and a lot of Highgarden troops dead. What Cersei had left behind anyway.

Language barrier again, substitute 'traitor' with betrayer or oathbreaker.

There is an important difference in here.

Roose Bolton and Walder Frey never openly switched sides, they backstabbed their king and their own countryman after inviting them into their home, and they were calling Robb as their king, and pretending to be their friend until the last moment.

Randyll Tarly never did that to Olenna, the Tarlys openly switched sides, first they answered the call of the crown and they went to the KL, and then they met with them on the field, and they can do that since every noble house swears fealty to the crown as well not only to their liege lord, as Jaime said ; ''you swore an oath to the crown as well'', and the Tarlys fought on the field against the Tyrells for the crown after openly switching sides.

Guest right violation and backstabbing was the main problem in the case of the Boltons and the Freys, not switching the sides.

12 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

In a monarchy, it has nothing to do with oaths. Everyone is bound to the sovereign, and anyone who follows a "false" sovereign is a traitor. You say it gets more complicated when more than one person claims the throne? Not really.

First, the decision on which monarch is "false" and which is "true" is dead easy to make and works every time: the one who wins is true, and the one who loses is false. If it's during a period of contested rule, then the one who controls the territory you are standing on is true, the other one is false. 

NO ruler or serious pretender examining a hostile noble prisoner who is under her control and on her own territory is going to say "oh, that's cool" if the prisoner is following a false sovereign, because that cedes that the other sovereign's claim has merit, and absolute rulers just can't and don't do that. That's the way it was in real life (during dynastic wars days) and that's the way it is in GOT. For political or sometimes financial reasons, plenty of deals pardoning rebels got cut historically, but it's also true that plenty of them didn't. With no deal, the default position is that fighting for a false liege is rebellion, and that's the death penalty. 

In the Tarly case, Tarly and Daenerys were standing on her victorious battlefield. He was a rebel, and at her mercy. If he had won the battle, the opposite would be the case, she would be a rebel, and at his mercy.

Taryls swear fealty to House Lannister and they held the Iron Throne, not Daenerys. Daenerys was a rebel until the moment she wins the Iron Throne.

Robert wasn't king and he couldn't execute prisoners legally until his coronation, it's the same for Daenerys. Her coronation never happened, she never took the KL and the Iron Throne, thus she was a rebel, not Tarlys. No one there swears fealty to Daenerys, and she couldn't execute them for betrayal, they didn't betray her, that's her delusion to think people should still be loyal to House Targaryen after all the things that mad king Aerys has done.

[Hodor's Dragon]

6 minutes ago, RYShh said:

<snip>

Taryls swear fealty to House Lannister and they held the Iron Throne, not Daenerys. Daenerys was a rebel until the moment she wins the Iron Throne.

Robert wasn't king and he couldn't execute prisoners legally until his coronation, it's the same for Daenerys. Her coronation never happened, she never took the KL and the Iron Throne, thus she was a rebel, not Tarlys. No one there swears fealty to Daenerys, and she couldn't execute them for betrayal, they didn't betray her, that's her delusion to think people should still be loyal to House Targaryen after all the things that mad king Aerys has done.

Not sure why you quoted me and then completely ignored my point. A claimant to the throne clothes himself/herself with the complete power of the throne. They don't recognize other people's claims. Some might call that a silly pretense or even insanity--unless they win, in which case people call it truth. Defeat the claimant and you can take her head, but when you lose to her, she is your queen.

IOW, in the real world, winners write history, not to mention make the rules. A "coronation" is frippery. Winning and losing is not.

p.s. Ask Rhaegar's kids about the topic sentence of your last paragraph. It's nonsense. 

[RYShh]

10 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Not sure why you quoted me and then completely ignored my point. A claimant to the throne clothes himself/herself with the complete power of the throne. They don't recognize other people's claims. Some might call that a silly pretense or even insanity--unless they win, in which case people call it truth. Defeat the claimant and you can take her head, but when you lose to her, she is your queen.

IOW, in the real world, winners write history, not to mention make the rules. A "coronation" is frippery. Winning and losing is not.

p.s. Ask Rhaegar's kids about the topic sentence of your last paragraph. It's nonsense. 

Taryls are not claimant. He simply followed the orders of the crown. They swear fealty to their liege lord and the crown, they choose the crown. That's it. No one should execute people for following orders. Execute the claimant, and took the throne and end the war, only then there will be one ruler, then if he still refuses to bow to that one ruler then execution is necessary, not before.

 

[Hodor's Dragon]

You're still completely ignoring my point. There is always only one ruler, but sometimes who it is depends on where you stand. On Dany's victorious battlefield, she was the only ruler. It has always been thus, and in Westeros neither law nor custom decrees otherwise.

No pretender recognizes the legitimacy of the crown. Instead, they claim it, and all of it, and once the crown is claimed no room is left for recognizing that it is legitimate to follow another sovereign. As best I can tell, you seem to think that the point is that it's "fair" to not consider people rebels just because they followed an existing queen. Well, "fair" has got nothing to do with it.

And besides ... why is Cersei legitimate anyway? Because rebels seized the throne and executed their royal prisoners, that's why. In other words, by force of arms. Daenerys is as well able to justify her claim by armed might as were they.

[RYShh]

5 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

You're still completely ignoring my point. There is always only one ruler, but sometimes who it is depends on where you stand. On Dany's victorious battlefield, she was the only ruler. It has always been thus, and in Westeros neither law nor custom decrees otherwise.

No pretender recognizes the legitimacy of the crown. Instead, they claim it, and all of it, and once the crown is claimed no room is left for recognizing that it is legitimate to follow another sovereign. As best I can tell, you seem to think that the point is that it's "fair" to not consider people rebels just because they followed an existing queen. Well, "fair" has got nothing to do with it.

And besides ... why is Cersei legitimate anyway? Because rebels seized the throne and executed their royal prisoners, that's why. In other words, by force of arms. Daenerys is as well able to justify her claim by armed might as were they.

I am not ignoring your point, your point is not understandable. Dany was the only ruler because she won a single battle? Uhm What? How is that even a ''a point''?

Daenerys could get shot, she could get assasinated, she could get poisoined, anything could happen to her. Until the war is over, there is no one ruler, if there is one then that's the one who holds the Iron Throne is the ruler, and the side of the opposition is the rebel.

Why Cersei is legitimate? Queen regent and through the right of conquest, she held the Iron Throne, not Daenerys. 

[Aldarion]

21 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if Tarly is right or wrong in who he chooses (the fact that he is willingly backing Cersei Lannister just makes the whole situation really dumb and his uncompromising stance idiotic) the point is that Daenerys giving him the option of bend the knee or die is not proof that she is cruel or ruthless or unreasonable it is how any ruler would have to react in this situation.  

What part of how a feudal system works is unclear? You cannot remain a lord if you refuse to bend the knee to the king or queen. 

Cannot speak for anyone else, but the reason why I considered her unnecessarily cruel in that scene is that she decided to burn them alive as opposed to, say, beheading. It is a classic terror tactic - she basically executed them in as gruesome way as practical as an example to others.

To me, fact that they were executed is not a problem. The manner of execution is.

48 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

You're still completely ignoring my point. There is always only one ruler, but sometimes who it is depends on where you stand. On Dany's victorious battlefield, she was the only ruler. It has always been thus, and in Westeros neither law nor custom decrees otherwise.

 No pretender recognizes the legitimacy of the crown. Instead, they claim it, and all of it, and once the crown is claimed no room is left for recognizing that it is legitimate to follow another sovereign. As best I can tell, you seem to think that the point is that it's "fair" to not consider people rebels just because they followed an existing queen. Well, "fair" has got nothing to do with it.

And besides ... why is Cersei legitimate anyway? Because rebels seized the throne and executed their royal prisoners, that's why. In other words, by force of arms. Daenerys is as well able to justify her claim by armed might as were they.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but in Westeros, rightful ruler of Westeros is considered to be the one who controls King's Landing. Which is why Stannis tried to capture it, why Renly was marching on KL (and not on, say, Westerlands), and why the only kings not concerned with King's Landing were ones aiming for secession (Starks, Greyjoys) as opposed to ruling the Seven Kingdoms.

Which also means that Daenerys was completely correct in getting fet up with Tyrion's advice. How many of Cersei's supporters would have continued supporting her had Daenerys conquered King's Landing right away? She wouldn't have needed terror tactics, she wouldn't have had to burn down the city - Stannis had shown that it was entirely possible to capture the city conventionally.

[Hodor's Dragon]

42 minutes ago, RYShh said:

I am not ignoring your point, your point is not understandable. Dany was the only ruler because she won a single battle? Uhm What? How is that even a ''a point''?

Daenerys could get shot, she could get assasinated, she could get poisoined, anything could happen to her. Until the war is over, there is no one ruler, if there is one then that's the one who holds the Iron Throne is the ruler, and the side of the opposition is the rebel.

Why Cersei is legitimate? Queen regent and through the right of conquest, she held the Iron Throne, not Daenerys. 

Perhaps I haven't been working so hard to explain myself, but really I thought my point was frighteningly obvious. Have you never heard the phrase "winners make history?" Whether somebody is considered a "rebel" or a "rightful queen" is entirely a function of power and control. Especially in Westeros, where there's hardly such a thing as "law," only control over your territory.

If I say I'm King, and my army kicks your army's butt, and you are my captive and on my safely controlled ground then by god I'm King, at least so far as you are concerned. It's as simple as that. And again, no pretender ever--unless their claim is just a talking point and not something they serious intend to enforce--has recognized the legitimacy of any other person as liege. That's not how it works.

And remember--Cersei is only "Queen" because of this exact same process of seizing the throne with rebellion. If that process of claiming power via rebellion is per se illegitimate, then Cersei shouldn't be queen to start with, it should be Daenerys as the rightful Targaryen claimant (assuming Jon has spurned his claim).

[RYShh]

2 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Perhaps I haven't been working so hard to explain myself, but really I thought my point was frighteningly obvious. Have you never heard the phrase "winners make history?" Whether somebody is considered a "rebel" or a "rightful queen" is entirely a function of power and control. Especially in Westeros, where there's hardly such a thing as "law," only control over your territory.

If I say I'm King, and my army kicks your army's butt, and you are my captive and on my safely controlled ground then by god I'm King, at least so far as you are concerned. It's as simple as that. And again, no pretender ever--unless their claim is just a talking point and not something they serious intend to enforce--has recognized the legitimacy of any other person as liege. That's not how it works.

And remember--Cersei is only "Queen" because of this exact same process of seizing the throne with rebellion. If that process of claiming power via rebellion is per se illegitimate, then Cersei shouldn't be queen to start with, it should be Daenerys as the rightful Targaryen claimant (assuming Jon has spurned his claim).

No you've explained yourself very well, but you are wrong.

Daenerys had a claim, that's all. Having a claim doesn't give her any legitimacy as a ruler. Winning a battle or even winning more battles doesn't give anyone a legitimacy as a ruler, finishing the war as a sole victor and the coronation does. As Randyll said, he already had a Queen. That Queen still lives, and still holds the KL, the capital and the Iron Throne. Why would he betray his queen when his Queen was still alive and just because he has been captured and defeated on a single battle? He is a soldier. He still follows her queens command, until his Queen dies or bends the knee he should still follow her command, if her queen dies or she bends the knee, only then Randyll needed follow.

Which is why Tywin finished the war when he tricked Aerys and attacked KL instead and killed Aerys, even though Aerys had no power to oppose Robert on the field, they still needed to capital and the city. The war isn't done until they could get the throne and get the capital, and execute the current ruler or make them bend the knee.

All Daenerys did was following his father Aerys's footsteps, ruling by fear only, if they fight against me they will burn, even if they surrender she would take no prisoners, they bend the knee or they die. That's what she was doing.

Even Daenerys said to Tyrion that they will decide the succession after she wears the crown, because she wasn't the queen yet.

[Hodor's Dragon]

First you talked about what is fair, now you're talking about "legitimacy." Those are not the point--power is the point, and in Westeros there is no law but power when it comes to ruling. To fight in a rebellion, on either side, is to bet your life on a wager as to who is going to win.

Besides, if legitimacy actually were the point, you'd be due to respond to my point about how Cersei got the crown thanks to the exact same process, but you're pretty much not responding to anything I actually say, just bouncing from one abstract concept that has nothing to do with the way things were done in Westeros to the next such. This is getting tiresome.

[RYShh]

30 minutes ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

First you talked about what is fair, now you're talking about "legitimacy." Those are not the point--power is the point, and in Westeros there is no law but power when it comes to ruling. To fight in a rebellion, on either side, is to bet your life on a wager as to who is going to win.

Besides, if legitimacy actually were the point, you'd be due to respond to my point about how Cersei got the crown thanks to the exact same process, but you're pretty much not responding to anything I actually say, just bouncing from one abstract concept that has nothing to do with the way things were done in Westeros to the next such. This is getting tiresome.

When did I talk about what is fair? 

Yes power, and Daenerys didn't have that power yet, because she didn't have the capital, and she didn't have the Iron Throne. The difference is Cersei won the throne and she get a coronation afterwards, Daenerys didn't win the throne and didn't wear the crown, yet you believe Daenerys was the only ruler and she had a right to execute prisoners just because they were fighting for the current ruler that holds Iron Throne, which makes no sense.

[Lord Stackspear]

So, there is basically a Westerosi custom/law/norm that, if you are the heir apparent to a previously deposed monarch, whom all the lords had previously sworn allegiance to, that unless and until you take back the capital and are officially coronated, you have no right to consider lords who refuse to bend the knee as traitors and/or execute them? And, if, nonetheless you did, after giving them a chance to accept this world's form of penitentiary exile, it would be considered a breach of those customs/laws/norms?  Such a breach, that people would start to wonder whether you were still stable and/or becoming too cruel to be an acceptable monarch?  

I mean, maybe this is the case.  I suppose if it's not explicitly stated one way or the other in the show or books, one can interpret things any way they want.  Personally, I thought the world of Westeros was essentially a medieval-type feudal society with fantasy elements mixed in.  And, I just don't see how anyone in such a society would have expected anything less from the heir apparent to a previously deposed monarch.  One can certainly argue whether it's the best strategy to try and regain the faith and love of the people who your father previously ruled, but a clear breach of societal norms?  I just don't see it.  Definitely a sign of ruthlessness and one meant to inspire fear, but that's much different than the foreshadowing of an eventual crazy mass-murder.  

I mean, honestly, I wish I saw it the other way.  I wanted the story to make sense in the end - I didn't want to say WTF when Dany did what she to KL.  I wanted to like the way the show ended and think to myself, yeah, I can see how Dany became who she did.  Instead, the joy I felt about this story basically turned to ashes in my mouth because it just did not make sense and felt pretty close to a completely nihilistic ending.  

     

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

Things are so much easier to build when your characters are not humanized. It'd be so much easier if Daenerys got to the Iron Throne started dancing around dopily and just happened to stumble into the fires of Mount Doom, yes?

In LotR, There's a component of mercy and forgiveness that would be ridiculous in a GoT setting, but still? Once all your villains are human, how truly justified is it to posit and eventually carry out what amounts to murder of an unarmed enemy?

The infamy in such an act is defined by the side telling the story, regardless of personal perception. In this case, we know Daenerys was dangerous, armed with her certainty that 'liberation' was necessary, all of Westeros was at stake.

I imagine, should he survive the heinous butterflies, GreyWorm would tell a different story. Even the strangely civilized dothraki might just say she was stupid and weak to trust Jon and failed to give them conquest as a Khal - they cared not a fig about charbroiled westerosi weaklings who do not ride.

One party's Illuminated despot, another's monstrous tyrant, another's conquering leader. 

We can't only advocate cultural and social inclusion for moral decisions to be valid one way. What if she was embracing being a Khal, after trying to be a queen had led her to failure?

I had a thought while talking at home. We've heard how she surrendered to her worse impulses and went full Targaryen overlord. What if Daenerys' moment in the Bells scene was, more than simply letting herself be overcome by her lust for power, for Fire and Blood, was her becoming the leader her remaining troops would follow and worship? Her obsession with being loved would be fullfilled. The Unsullied would gladly continue her 'liberation' campaign. The dothraki would be free to destroy the enemies of their khal.

Like her brother's fixation with prophecy started a war that would cost Westeros so dearly, Daenerys' own obsession would continue the trend. 

An unforgivable act, in her delusion, was merely an acceptable action. The Unsullied could see the westerosi as decisors of their own fates instead of victims of bad rulers. The dothraki merely want war and conquest. She would give them that and more. 

She was a monster, an unspeakable force of destruction, an old school Targaryen conqueror, a Khal?  

For the Westerosi, for us as the audience, for the story, it can only be unforgivable, her actions unacceptable.

For the dothraki, a warrior culture used to victimising others, it'd just be business as usual. 

The nazi rally ofended me. My country suffered decades of a facist dictatorship and such roughshod handling of a delicate theme was repellent.

If they'd shown her openly going khal, I wouldn't have resisted the concept of her inhuman brutality, I wouldn't even have qualms with her Bells moment being anything but dothraki warfare at it's most primitive, a final proof of her failure to be anything but a tyranical conqueror, a merciless leader of a predatorial horde, all her attempts at being more lost as stupid words of a stupid girl who fell to a hankering for power.

Execution, more than the story, ruined it for me. As an intended monarch of the Seven, it looked like madness. As a khal? Perfectly in keeping with their culture. The bittersweet destruction of the girl who wanted to change the world. She was simply going to make it worse.

[The One Who Kneels]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Cannot speak for anyone else, but the reason why I considered her unnecessarily cruel in that scene is that she decided to burn them alive as opposed to, say, beheading. It is a classic terror tactic - she basically executed them in as gruesome way as practical as an example to others.

And that's fine if that's your objection to it. I don't think the show necessarily established a jet of dragonfire as inherently awful compared to a beheading or hanging but that's certainly a fair point. Arguing that the execution itself was proof that Daenerys was evil or mad or whatever is the issue because the way the writers wrote the scene that was how any monarch would've had to react. 

[kjl473]

On 5/31/2019 at 2:44 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

But that's Daenerys in a nutshell. She believed her own propaganda and didn't realize the faults in her own logic. 

She uses the language of beneficence:

It's kind of unique how Dany is written as a dictator from the left. It's fascism in the name of what one person thinks is "injustice." Dany just isnt reflexive about her worldviews and that's untenable. No one wants a social justice Robocop. We want people who understand the humanist perspective and can think critically and admit what they don't know.

The paradox of Daenerys is the paradox of Marxism-Leninism which took place in the 20th century.  How could groups of people so committed to ending social inequality wind up killing millions of innocent people over and over again?  Her victory speech is entirely about Karl Marx's perpetual revolution and she turns herself into a one person dictatorship of the proletariat.  That was exactly how the Marxist-Leninists planed to make the world free from social inequality.

[CrypticWeirwood]

3 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Execution, more than the story, ruined it for me. As an intended monarch of the Seven, it looked like madness. As a khal? Perfectly in keeping with their culture. The bittersweet destruction of the girl who wanted to change the world. She was simply going to make it worse.

I think you've hit on something important that hasn't been talked about much. Her only model is the Dothraki. That's a big problem.

Unlike Rhaegar, Daenerys never had any formal training in how to be the Seven Kingdoms’ monarch. She didn't grow up watching how the noble houses and the Crown interacted.  She wasn't tutored by maesters and septas.  She didn't really know much about Westeros at all.

All she “knew” was what her abusive brother Viserys told her while they were on the run from Robert. She had an ugly childhood, and then before that was over she was thrust into the rape-and-murder based tradition of the Khalasar.  That's where she learned to measure success, where she learned savagery.  Nobody is going to come out of that with their screwed on straight.