Are all females set to become "villains"?

[ab aeterno]

Have they changed how words work?

No, but I think the point is that you could call someone who littered or a referee who blew a call a "villain" and it would be technically correct. You don't have to be Jack the Ripper or Sauron. :P

[OberynBlackfyre]

Said this once, gonna say it again.

Daenerys is NOT a villain. She is exactly what a CONQUEROR should be. If people believe that conquests are bloodless, then I don't know what to tell them.

By your standards then, Robb Stark should also be a villain because he KNOWINGLY sent 2000 men to their death.

[JaegrM]

Have they changed how words work?

I made the wrong assumption of assuming since everyone knows how grey GRRM makes his characters that putting quotation marks around "Villain" would be enough for eveyone to understand I meant something similar to Theon's Face/Heel turn

[Blisscraft]

Yikes, OP! I think you stepped in something. :ack:

[ab aeterno]

Said this once, gonna say it again.

Daenerys is NOT a villain. She is exactly what a CONQUEROR should be. If people believe that conquests are bloodless, then I don't know what to tell them.

By your standards then, Robb Stark should also be a villain because he KNOWINGLY sent 2000 men to their death.

Robb didn't crucify 168 people who may not even have been guilty...

[JaegrM]

Said this once, gonna say it again.

Daenerys is NOT a villain. She is exactly what a CONQUEROR should be. If people believe that conquests are bloodless, then I don't know what to tell them.

By your standards then, Robb Stark should also be a villain because he KNOWINGLY sent 2000 men to their death.

Robb didn't crucify 168 people who may not even have been guilty...

I do not want this to turn into a Dany thread.

I did NOT say Dany has become a villain, but she's being moved into a position to make a morally black choice, that could very well change how her character is viewed.

A Turning point.

[Jaime's Wench]

I think the beauty of all GRRM's characters as heroes or villains. I would say all his female leads have the potential to become villains, but none are there yet (apart from Cersei). I would say Danaerys and Arya are most likely as they could cause most destruction to Westeros and/or other characters we love in the roles they are being set up to play.

[ab aeterno]

I do not want this to turn into a Dany thread.

I did NOT say Dany has become a villain, but she's being moved into a position to make a morally black choice, that could very well change how her character is viewed.

A Turning point.

Shhhhhhh! While we turn it into a Dany thread you're off the hook on the sexism angle!

[OberynBlackfyre]

Robb didn't crucify 168 people who may not even have been guilty...

no he sent 2000 men he KNEW were innocent to certain death.....I don't see your point.

War is war. Dany was simply paying blood for blood, because shes a DRAGON

[ab aeterno]

no he sent 2000 men he KNEW were innocent to certain death.....I don't see your point.

War is war. Dany was simply paying blood for blood, because shes a DRAGON

Dany has done just the same as Robb. The difference is that she used the crucifixions as revenge after the battle had been won. She used them as punishment.

[OberynBlackfyre]

I do not want this to turn into a Dany thread.

I did NOT say Dany has become a villain, but she's being moved into a position to make a morally black choice, that could very well change how her character is viewed.

A Turning point.

I don't want it to turn into a Dany thread either, however it boggles me how people do not understand the concept of conquering or war. Her crucifying those people may have saved others from going to war, yes through fear and intimidation, but in the end game it could have actually saved lives. Also, the slavers crucified CHILDREN, so she crucified known slavers. this is blood for blood, in a world that is not judged by, and should not be judged by modern concepts of what is "right" and what is "wrong".

it is folly to do so

[Winter's Knight]

I do not want this to turn into a Dany thread.

I did NOT say Dany has become a villain, but she's being moved into a position to make a morally black choice, that could very well change how her character is viewed.

A Turning point.

But every damn character has or will have said turning point.

Jaime has abandoned his sister, Tyrion wants to murder both his siblings and has already done so to his father, Bran is warging Hodor and there are signs that Jon will either be the next Night King or at least lose part of his humanity-so why you would choose to specify females is beyond me.

Dany has done just the same as Robb. The difference is that she used the crucifixions as revenge after the battle had been won. She used them as punishment.

Robb's men had innocent women hung beause they slept with or hosted Lannisters at their inn.

[OberynBlackfyre]

Dany has done just the same as Robb. The difference is that she used the crucifixions as revenge after the battle had been won. She used them as punishment.

aye punishment to the people who crucified 200 children, like I said, blood for blood. This is not modern times and should NOT be judged as such. She needed to create a precedent that if you harm slaves or children, you will die screaming.

[JaegrM]

I don't want it to turn into a Dany thread either, however it boggles me how people do not understand the concept of conquering or war. Her crucifying those people may have saved others from going to war, yes through fear and intimidation, but in the end game it could have actually saved lives. Also, the slavers crucified CHILDREN, so she crucified known slavers. this is blood for blood, in a world that is not judged by, and should not be judged by modern concepts of what is "right" and what is "wrong".

it is folly to do so

You can argue that Jaime pushed Bran from the window to protect the realm from going to war too.

[ab aeterno]

I don't want it to turn into a Dany thread either, however it boggles me how people do not understand the concept of conquering or war. Her crucifying those people may have saved others from going to war, yes through fear and intimidation, but in the end game it could have actually saved lives. Also, the slavers crucified CHILDREN, so she crucified known slavers. this is blood for blood, in a world that is not judged by, and should not be judged by modern concepts of what is "right" and what is "wrong".

aye punishment to the people who crucified 200 children, like I said, blood for blood. This is not modern times and should NOT be judged as such. She needed to create a precedent that if you harm slaves or children, you will die screaming.

She didn't crucify known slavers. She asked the slavers to give her 168 people. If you were the slavers would you choose the most guilty ones or the most expendable? It has nothing to do with conquering, and after she did that she lost her resolve. She vacillates.

[mormont]

It was simply a trend I was noticing.

Except it's only a trend if you squint at it, lump different things together, make some assumptions and generally beg the question. I don't think you're answering my point, just restating it: you see a trend here because you're starting from the basis that there is some reason for or value in a male/female comparison. If you don't make that assumption and bend the data to fit it, there simply is no trend. Arya's story does not have more in common with Arianne's than it does with Jaime's.

[Winter's Knight]

She didn't crucify known slavers. She asked the slavers to give her 168 people. If you were the slavers would you choose the most guilty ones or the most expendable? It has nothing to do with conquering, and after she did that she lost her resolve. She vacillates.

Except that we know that at least three slavers came from a prominent family:

It was true that there was blood between her and the House of Pahl. Oznak zo Pahl had been cut down by Strong Belwas in single combat. His father, commander of Meereen’s city watch, had died defending the gates when Joso’s Cock smashed them into splinters. Three uncles had been among the hundred sixty-three on the plaza.

[JaegrM]

But every damn character has or will have said turning point.

Jaime has abandoned his sister, Tyrion wants to murder both his siblings and has already done so to his father, Bran is warging Hodor and there are signs that Jon will either be the next Night King or at least lose part of his humanity-so why you would choose to specify females is beyond me.

Jaime "abandoning" Cersei is him 1)saving both of their lives 2)he's been woken up and realizes that he didn't matter as much to her as she did to him

Tyrion is going through personal revenge, I don't think he'd ever harm Jaime and Cersei has tried to kill him a couple of times, he's no more ambiguous then before.

I don't see the Jon thing at all.

Bran... I'll give you.

That's one male compared to virtually all the females.

I was simply pointing out a trend I noticed.

I didn't say I was in favor of it or hope all the females become evil.

Pointing out something I noticed.

[OberynBlackfyre]

You can argue that Jaime pushed Bran from the window to protect the realm from going to war too.

did I ever say that? That was obviously on a PERSONAL scale and done for PERSONAL reasons, like when Jaime asks Cat what she would do if it meant the PROTECTION OF HER CHILDREN in order for the secret to be hidden.

[OberynBlackfyre]

She didn't crucify known slavers. She asked the slavers to give her 168 people. If you were the slavers would you choose the most guilty ones or the most expendable? It has nothing to do with conquering, and after she did that she lost her resolve. She vacillates.

she did not ask the slavers, she asked the freed slaves. big difference there.