Jump to content

Why Daenerys will never win the Game of Thrones


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

She would be content with being a homemaker, raising children of her own alongside a doting husband and other beloved friends in the safety and security of a home akin to the house with the red door. That's what she really wants.

That would be enough for any woman, but not for the dragon. 

The dragon pisses on peace.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2020 at 12:31 AM, The Map Guy said:

Once the Long Night invades Westeros ... everyone would want Daenerys, House Targaryen and their fire dragons back.
If she wants the Iron Throne, they will give it to her after she succeeds.
She can always elect a Hand to do all the governing.

Besides, who else would the citizens of Westeros want? Some kid/tree hybrid for their Long-Night-savior and kingdom ruler? I can't see that happening.

Excellent point.  At least what remains of the old kingdom will ask her for help.  I am not certain if the throne will mean anything after the kingdom has already divided.  The north and the iron islands will have gone their own ways by then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

I'm open to be shown otherwise but I think those saying the red door is safety or that Dany seeks safety are wrong.

Dany was afraid, then she conceived Rhaego and had the dream in which she was scoured by fire, and since then has not feared for herself.

She fears going mad and for others (and her dragons). The red door isn't anything to do with her safety anymore, it is a home, a place she is supposed to belong to, a role she is meant to fill, an answer to her purpose, deliverance from the constant human doubts gnawing her.

TBH, I think it's a pipe dream.  Retiring into comfortable obscurity isn't a real option for her.  There will always be people wanting to kill her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2020 at 12:34 PM, King Adrian Storm said:

To start out, I have nothing against Dany. I don't have a problem with her character, but she isn't going to end on top. She will never be accepted in Westeros. A big part of her arc is about her trying to find Home, but Westeros is not the place she should be looking. Westeros is not her home, and never will be. The beauty of her arc to me, is Grrm set up the princess on her journey to reclaim the throne that was stolen from her as a child like the lion king, except she isn't going to win in the end. A few reasons why:

1.  She's a foreign invader to them. The people of Westeros aren't waiting for the day that their rightful heir returns to save them, like Viserys said. Dany is going to role up to Westeros with 3 dragons, she can't fully control, an army of dothraki, which cause a lot of damage to innocent people and like to rape and enslave people, and the unsullied.

2. She's already failed at leading Mereen. ADWD is all about Daenerys leading a city in preparation to Westeros. And what does she do? She fails miserably. Her own kingdom has turned against her. 2 of her dragons are set loose over the city, and she's captured by the dothraki.  This book shows how just because Jon and Dany are "heroic" characters they aren't meant to lead. Similar to Robert Baratheon. If Dany can't lead a city, how can she manage to lead 7 kingdoms.

3. Her allies. Tyrion is the most notorious man in Westeros at the moment. A kinslayer who was sentenced to death, and escaped by killing his father. Jorah was exiled from Westeros for selling slaves. Barristan although a good man, was demoted from the kingsguard, and killed 2/3 men before escaping to Essos. And on top of that she'll have the red priests backing her up, and we know how much Westeros loves red priests.

4. She will have no friends in Westeros. Who is going to support Daenerys? Dorne is siding with Aegon, and after her dragons burning Quentin, they are definitely not going to side with her. She literally hasn't met anyone in Westeros besides 2 people Jorah and Barristan. Why would anyone trust her, I think she will accept no one wants her in the south and try to gain support from the North, but in the end, the North wants its own independence, so I doubt they'll fight to get her on the throne.

5. She will be more ruthless going forward. ADWD ended with Dany deciding to be a dragon. She's going to burn the Khals, return to Mereen burn all of her enemies, and probably pass by a few more cities along the way, and burn them down as well. This is the only thing that works for Daenerys. How did Dany get her dragons? A fire ritual. How did she get the unsullied? Burning the slave masters. What happened when she locked up her dragons? Her city tried to assassinate her. Do you think she'll stop using her dragons when she gets to Westeros? No. Why would she when it's the only thing that's working for her? She'll burn down castles and armies, and everyone will fear her or turn against her.

Daenerys wasn't meant to rule. She may save the world from the Others, but she won't be queen.

I agree with you,man but you may have opened a Pandora's Box here.  The"DANY IS AZOR AHAI!!! YOU HEATHEN!!!!" folks are gonna be demanding your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M.Alhazred said:

I agree with you,man but you may have opened a Pandora's Box here.  The"DANY IS AZOR AHAI!!! YOU HEATHEN!!!!" folks are gonna be demanding your head.

She likely is Azor Ahai.  Azor Ahai won't be a fluffy bunny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  No one's demanding anyone's head. Burning is the preferred method of the Church.

On 5/13/2020 at 5:19 PM, teej6 said:

Well, GRRM himself compared dragons to nuclear weapons. Here’s the quote from a 2011 interview with him:

So? I still hate it. It's always used in this forum to avoid having to actually explain why dRaGOns aRe BaD. You can see it's a poor analogy upthread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

  No one's demanding anyone's head. Burning is the preferred method of the Church.

So? I still hate it. It's always used in this forum to avoid having to actually explain why dRaGOns aRe BaD. You can see it's a poor analogy upthread.

Yes.  The US and Russian governments could extinguish most human life on this planet within a few hours.  Even countries with smaller nuclear arsenals, like France or the UK, could inflict tens of millions of deaths in a similar timescale.  No dragon rider has that kind of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Yes.  The US and Russian governments could extinguish most human life on this planet within a few hours.  Even countries with smaller nuclear arsenals, like France or the UK, could inflict tens of millions of deaths in a similar timescale.  No dragon rider has that kind of power.

I agree. 

The greatest threat to human survival are the dream hackers beneath the weirwood trees.  If there is a force to be wary of and frightened of, it is the greenseers and the other beings who invade people's thoughts.  They are the ones who can cause mass destruction.  Now that is extreme invasion of privacy.  They violate the person they invade.  If there is an evil here, it is the dream intruders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Yes.  The US and Russian governments could extinguish most human life on this planet within a few hours.  Even countries with smaller nuclear arsenals, like France or the UK, could inflict tens of millions of deaths in a similar timescale.  No dragon rider has that kind of power.

It’s a nuke for that world, when the most advanced technology of war is a ship or metal sticks. We don’t need to start measuring megatons here to grasp the themes of nuclear power; and besides, the Doom is already an example of that extreme kind of cataclysmic destruction. It even causes a similar kind of radiation sickness and ecological pollution.

Cities along the Rhoyne that dragonlords destroyed are warnings about what could happen to cities in Westeros.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It’s a nuke for that world, when the most advanced technology of war is a ship or metal sticks. We don’t need to start measuring megatons here to grasp the themes of nuclear power; and besides, the Doom is already an example of that extreme kind of cataclysmic destruction. It even causes a similar kind of radiation sickness and ecological pollution.

Cities along the Rhoyne that dragonlords destroyed are warnings about what could happen to cities in Westeros.

 

A gatling gun could be quite devastating in that world, but it would not be a nuclear weapon.

Dragons can be powerful weapons, but Trident is something of an altogether different order.  As for Tsar Bomba.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

I am not certain if the throne will mean anything after the kingdom has already divided.  The north and the iron islands will have gone their own ways by then. 

She can always reunite them again, its much easier with the dragons. The North will be the first ones begging for help since they are the first to be attacked by the Others.

The Ironborn are even easier. One sight of a dragon or three, they will betray their overlords to win favor with Daenerys.
Even if they somehow remain loyal to the Greyjoys, Dany can always burn their ships and castles on their lonely islands.
Dany and her dragons on a boat is the equivalent of naval aircraft carrier, the most powerful and intimidating ship of any navy.
If the Greyjoys don't bend the knee, their egos are writing checks that their dead bodies can't cash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

I'm open to be shown otherwise but I think those saying the red door is safety or that Dany seeks safety are wrong.

Dany was afraid, then she conceived Rhaego and had the dream in which she was scoured by fire, and since then has not feared for herself.

She fears going mad and for others (and her dragons). The red door isn't anything to do with her safety anymore, it is a home, a place she is supposed to belong to, a role she is meant to fill, an answer to her purpose, deliverance from the constant human doubts gnawing her.

Dany doesn't necessarily want the house with the red door and the lemon tree for herself. She wants it for other people, particularly children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Daenerys will win but not through playing the game.  She is the ideal ruler to bring order back to Westeros.  It has been proven that no other house can hold the kingdom together as well as the Targaryens.  The Baratheons and their alllies have had their chances and failed.  The Blackfyres will get their chance through Aegon and they too will fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2020 at 6:34 PM, King Adrian Storm said:

To start out, I have nothing against Dany. I don't have a problem with her character, but she isn't going to end on top. She will never be accepted in Westeros. A big part of her arc is about her trying to find Home, but Westeros is not the place she should be looking. Westeros is not her home, and never will be. The beauty of her arc to me, is Grrm set up the princess on her journey to reclaim the throne that was stolen from her as a child like the lion king, except she isn't going to win in the end. A few reasons why:

1.  She's a foreign invader to them. The people of Westeros aren't waiting for the day that their rightful heir returns to save them, like Viserys said. Dany is going to role up to Westeros with 3 dragons, she can't fully control, an army of dothraki, which cause a lot of damage to innocent people and like to rape and enslave people, and the unsullied.

2. She's already failed at leading Mereen. ADWD is all about Daenerys leading a city in preparation to Westeros. And what does she do? She fails miserably. Her own kingdom has turned against her. 2 of her dragons are set loose over the city, and she's captured by the dothraki.  This book shows how just because Jon and Dany are "heroic" characters they aren't meant to lead. Similar to Robert Baratheon. If Dany can't lead a city, how can she manage to lead 7 kingdoms.

3. Her allies. Tyrion is the most notorious man in Westeros at the moment. A kinslayer who was sentenced to death, and escaped by killing his father. Jorah was exiled from Westeros for selling slaves. Barristan although a good man, was demoted from the kingsguard, and killed 2/3 men before escaping to Essos. And on top of that she'll have the red priests backing her up, and we know how much Westeros loves red priests.

4. She will have no friends in Westeros. Who is going to support Daenerys? Dorne is siding with Aegon, and after her dragons burning Quentin, they are definitely not going to side with her. She literally hasn't met anyone in Westeros besides 2 people Jorah and Barristan. Why would anyone trust her, I think she will accept no one wants her in the south and try to gain support from the North, but in the end, the North wants its own independence, so I doubt they'll fight to get her on the throne.

5. She will be more ruthless going forward. ADWD ended with Dany deciding to be a dragon. She's going to burn the Khals, return to Mereen burn all of her enemies, and probably pass by a few more cities along the way, and burn them down as well. This is the only thing that works for Daenerys. How did Dany get her dragons? A fire ritual. How did she get the unsullied? Burning the slave masters. What happened when she locked up her dragons? Her city tried to assassinate her. Do you think she'll stop using her dragons when she gets to Westeros? No. Why would she when it's the only thing that's working for her? She'll burn down castles and armies, and everyone will fear her or turn against her.

Daenerys wasn't meant to rule. She may save the world from the Others, but she won't be queen.

 

1) So they're racist? That's not a very sympathetic position. We're happy for Lannister and Northern troops to raise the Riverlands but at least they're from Westeros. Its also convenient that George plays down the ethnic conflict between the First Men, Andals and Rhoynar if he singles Dany out as the foreigner. 

2) By what standard? Alexander the Great inherited a Kingdom and army built up by his father. He had competent officers and generals.Daenerys has none of these things George would be very silly if he defines a good leader as being some sort of all knowing omnipotent being who micromanages everything. . Shes a 14 year old girl starting from scratch, in a country that magically doesn't have any economy beyond slavery, ignoring all the freed slaves who should be backing her and making logistical difficulties not impact her enemies. Catherine the Great wasn't doing everything in Russia.

3) If Westeros is an amoral society then why would they care exactly? It seems kind of odd that people would only make these judgements against Daenerys and her entourage whilst every other character has constantly been droning on about real politic and the Smallfolk not caring about the games of the High Lords. Why would they suddenly become active and rally against Dany specifically whilst having consented to the Red Wedding and an endless number of atrocities. Her enemies might criticise her allies but that's propaganda and not likely to change. Also, propaganda cuts both ways. Why wouldn't people be won over by the good and great things that they are doing. People cheered Julius Caesar when he boasted that he killed a million Gauls. Why would the people of Westeros and Meereen despise Daenerys for that?

4) So George invents a character to steal all the Targaryen Loyalists. That's extremely contrived especially considering there was no suggestion Aegon existed and his entire purpose would have been to set Dany against people who would have sided with her without an absurd situation. 

5) The people of Rome praised Caesar for killing a million Gauls. Why would people not hear about Dany performing all of these miracles, laying waste to her enemies, slavers btw and barbarian people they apparently don't like per point 1 and hate her. People in the Middle Ages admired strength and power intensely. Why would the same people who lauded Robb Stark for killing massive numbers of Lannister soldiers suddenly become anti war and pacifist?

 

I don't think shes going to have any hand in saving the world from the Others. I think Georges intent is to portray Dany as a false messiah and that means, by definition she won't be the one to save the world. That part is being reserved for the Stark brood. Where, shock, horror, one of the main POV characters introduced to us in the first few chapters happen to be the chosen ones destined to rule. Who'd have thought. Plot twist of the century.

If George goes down this route then he is a hypocrite who is applying a double standard and is making sweeping generalisations from absurd situations. All it will do is validate Stark/Baratheon fanboys who have been saying this about Dany for years. You are far from the first person to express this opinion. I hate to disappoint you in this. But you are rehashing a very popular and very common opinion that we're fully aware of. You are preaching to the choir here. 

Personally I think if the people of Westeros are so ungrateful as to turn against their chosen saviour in their hour of need then its them who are not worthy of her. They deserve every misery that they get. Dany should just go sunbath in Volantis and let these barbarians, warlords and peasants die from plague and undead. Its clearly their preference. If they don't want to be saved then Dany should respect their decision. I hope the people of Kings landing think this as Greyscale ravages their bodies and they look up at the pretenders castle; the jaws of the undead closing around them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SeanF said:

A gatling gun could be quite devastating in that world, but it would not be a nuclear weapon.

Dragons can be powerful weapons, but Trident is something of an altogether different order.  As for Tsar Bomba.....

And yet dragons are the ones compared to nukes, i don't really understand the resistance to it, it's quite clear that dragons are Martin's weapons of mass destruction for Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

And yet dragons are the ones compared to nukes, i don't really understand the resistance to it, it's quite clear that dragons are Martin's weapons of mass destruction for Westeros.

 

Nukes are bad because they can end all life in an instant.Unless George really wants to make a ham fisted argument that all those dragons caused the Doom then its a false analogy. A dragon can't do much more damage than could be accomplished with conventional modern weapons. Three dragons could only kill a few thousand men on the Field of Fire. Why is it more evil to do that with three lizards than a battery of cannons? Like gun powder dragons provide a military edge but they aren't world ending in their destructive potential like a nuclear bomb with its associated fallout and radiation. The world didn't end when Dragons fought Dragons. The world would end if people started throwing nukes at eachother.

All George is doing is a ham fisted satire of the power fantasy element of riding a dragon. So he heavily exaggerates how destructive that would be whilst not acknowledging how violent and bloody conventional warfare is anyway. When you're torturing people with rats as standard practice its a little silly to fixate on somebody burning a farmstead with a dragon. It seems kind of hypocritical for the people of Kings landing to call dragons monsters and kill them in the dragon pit whilst they cheer on public executions where people are hung drawn and quartered. But of course, killing dragons is going to make the world a better place because they're like nukes; somehow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, frenin said:

And yet dragons are the ones compared to nukes, i don't really understand the resistance to it, it's quite clear that dragons are Martin's weapons of mass destruction for Westeros.

Nukes are the real deal.  At their most powerful, they can finish off all human life.

Dragons can't.  They are at their most powerful, like B52's.  

Nukes are not just a more powerful form of flamethrower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

1) So they're racist? That's not a very sympathetic position. We're happy for Lannister and Northern troops to raise the Riverlands but at least they're from Westeros. Its also convenient that George plays down the ethnic conflict between the First Men, Andals and Rhoynar if he singles Dany out as the foreigner. 

2) By what standard? Alexander the Great inherited a Kingdom and army built up by his father. He had competent officers and generals.Daenerys has none of these things George would be very silly if he defines a good leader as being some sort of all knowing omnipotent being who micromanages everything. . Shes a 14 year old girl starting from scratch, in a country that magically doesn't have any economy beyond slavery, ignoring all the freed slaves who should be backing her and making logistical difficulties not impact her enemies. Catherine the Great wasn't doing everything in Russia.

3) If Westeros is an amoral society then why would they care exactly? It seems kind of odd that people would only make these judgements against Daenerys and her entourage whilst every other character has constantly been droning on about real politic and the Smallfolk not caring about the games of the High Lords. Why would they suddenly become active and rally against Dany specifically whilst having consented to the Red Wedding and an endless number of atrocities. Her enemies might criticise her allies but that's propaganda and not likely to change. Also, propaganda cuts both ways. Why wouldn't people be won over by the good and great things that they are doing. People cheered Julius Caesar when he boasted that he killed a million Gauls. Why would the people of Westeros and Meereen despise Daenerys for that?

4) So George invents a character to steal all the Targaryen Loyalists. That's extremely contrived especially considering there was no suggestion Aegon existed and his entire purpose would have been to set Dany against people who would have sided with her without an absurd situation. 

5) The people of Rome praised Caesar for killing a million Gauls. Why would people not hear about Dany performing all of these miracles, laying waste to her enemies, slavers btw and barbarian people they apparently don't like per point 1 and hate her. People in the Middle Ages admired strength and power intensely. Why would the same people who lauded Robb Stark for killing massive numbers of Lannister soldiers suddenly become anti war and pacifist?

 

I don't think shes going to have any hand in saving the world from the Others. I think Georges intent is to portray Dany as a false messiah and that means, by definition she won't be the one to save the world. That part is being reserved for the Stark brood. Where, shock, horror, one of the main POV characters introduced to us in the first few chapters happen to be the chosen ones destined to rule. Who'd have thought. Plot twist of the century.

If George goes down this route then he is a hypocrite who is applying a double standard and is making sweeping generalisations from absurd situations. All it will do is validate Stark/Baratheon fanboys who have been saying this about Dany for years. You are far from the first person to express this opinion. I hate to disappoint you in this. But you are rehashing a very popular and very common opinion that we're fully aware of. You are preaching to the choir here. 

Personally I think if the people of Westeros are so ungrateful as to turn against their chosen saviour in their hour of need then its them who are not worthy of her. They deserve every misery that they get. Dany should just go sunbath in Volantis and let these barbarians, warlords and peasants die from plague and undead. Its clearly their preference. If they don't want to be saved then Dany should respect their decision. I hope the people of Kings landing think this as Greyscale ravages their bodies and they look up at the pretenders castle; the jaws of the undead closing around them.

 

I doubt if Dany will be the only person to save the world, but I have no doubt she will play a big part in saving the world.  Even the Abomination gave her a big part in saving the world, before turning her into a batshit Nazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Nukes are bad because they can end all life in an instant.

Yes, lot of nukes can end all life in a instant, lot (more) of dragons can do the same, the difference is in degree not in category-

 

12 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Unless George really wants to make a ham fisted argument that all those dragons caused the Doom then its a false analogy.

No, he doesn't really want that.

 

13 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Three dragons could only kill a few thousand men on the Field of Fire.

Because their riders only wanted to kill a few thousand men on the field of fire, besides, killing a few thousand men in an nstant is kind of a big deal in medieval warfare.

 

14 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Why is it more evil to do that with three lizards than a battery of cannons?

Martin has not said that dragons are evil.

 

15 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Like gun powder dragons provide a military edge but they aren't world ending in their destructive potential like a nuclear bomb with its associated fallout and radiation.

But they can be destructive all the same, which is the point Martin is making, a single dragon razed the Riverlands duing the Dance, three dragons genocided Dorne etc etc etc.

 

18 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The world didn't end when Dragons fought Dragons. The world would end if people started throwing nukes at eachother.

The world does not need to end with dragons so dragons can be an analogy of wmd in Martin's world, that's simply a false dilemma that you're embracing.

 

20 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

All George is doing is a ham fisted satire of the power fantasy element of riding a dragon.

Sure, it's his world tho, he can do that.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

So he heavily exaggerates how destructive that would be whilst not acknowledging how violent and bloody conventional warfare is anyway.

That'sfalse, you only need to go with the War of the 5 kings, there were no dragons there, it is a shitshow, that does not mean that if you add a wmd to the mix it would be worse.

 

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

When you're torturing people with rats as standard practice its a little silly to fixate on somebody burning a farmstead with a dragon.

He has not fixated on them, he has not said that people who rides dragon are evil, he has said that people who rides dragons are riding on the equivalent of nukes in his world.

 

24 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It seems kind of hypocritical for the people of Kings landing to call dragons monsters and kill them in the dragon pit whilst they cheer on public executions where people are hung drawn and quartered.

... Why??

 

24 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

But of course, killing dragons is going to make the world a better place because they're like nukes; somehow. 

I didn't say that it'd make the world better or worse tho.

 

 

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Nukes are the real deal.  At their most powerful, they can finish off all human life.

Dragons can't.  They are at their most powerful, like B52's.  

Nukes are not just a more powerful form of flamethrower. 

Which is completely irrelevant to the point Martin is making, it's like pointing at faults of Martin's depictions of a medieval world and argue that since Martin has not always portrayed a medieval world accurately, therefore Westeros is not based on the Middle ages.

Dragons are an anology of nukes, simple. you can argue his intention but arguing that dragons aren't indeed an analogy of nukes, when the author is saying is a waste of time. No, Dany having nukes does not make her a tyrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

Yes, lot of nukes can end all life in a instant, lot (more) of dragons can do the same, the difference is in degree not in category-

 

No, he doesn't really want that.

 

Because their riders only wanted to kill a few thousand men on the field of fire, besides, killing a few thousand men in an nstant is kind of a big deal in medieval warfare.

 

Martin has not said that dragons are evil.

 

But they can be destructive all the same, which is the point Martin is making, a single dragon razed the Riverlands duing the Dance, three dragons genocided Dorne etc etc etc.

 

The world does not need to end with dragons so dragons can be an analogy of wmd in Martin's world, that's simply a false dilemma that you're embracing.

 

Sure, it's his world tho, he can do that.

 

 

That'sfalse, you only need to go with the War of the 5 kings, there were no dragons there, it is a shitshow, that does not mean that if you add a wmd to the mix it would be worse.

 

He has not fixated on them, he has not said that people who rides dragon are evil, he has said that people who rides dragons are riding on the equivalent of nukes in his world.

 

... Why??

 

I didn't say that it'd make the world better or worse tho.

 

 

Which is completely irrelevant to the point Martin is making, it's like pointing at faults of Martin's depictions of a medieval world and argue that since Martin has not always portrayed a medieval world accurately, therefore Westeros is not based on the Middle ages.

Dragons are an anology of nukes, simple. you can argue his intention but arguing that dragons aren't indeed an analogy of nukes, when the author is saying is a waste of time. No, Dany having nukes does not make her a tyrant.

 

They aren't even remotely in the same category. If the Dragon was Age of Sigmar level, bigger than a mountain and its breath could vaporise entire cities in an instant then it is the equivalent of a nuke. Otherwise its hyperbole.

Then how are they end the world category. Dragons have to be able to end the world for them to be like nukes.

Making them analogous to nukes is calling them evil. You're implying, like nukes, the world would be better off without them.

Its not really in an instant. More like an afternoon.

Gregor Clegane laid waste to the Riverlands with fifty men. Its clearly not an impressive achievement.

Because its not a WMD.

So why single out dragons if normal war is just as bad?

Its a poor anti war sentiment if your characters believe dragons are bad but torture, summary execution and genocide are acceptable norms. 

The only point of making a nuke analogy is to make precisely that point that the world would be a better place without them.If he has actually said that its definitely casting moral shades at Daenerys and excusing the characters who are using "normal" and "acceptable" violence. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...