jon stark I Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 You may call me whatever you want but for some reason Arya is my favourite character and I can't see her as a evil character she is just really confused kid who had seen soo much horrible things in a small amount of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 If I may add my opinion. The winesink owner was complicit with acts of treason, his life is forfeit, and Dany as every right as monarch to get to the bottom of this situation. Obviously this is something a villain would do, bit keep in mind we just learned about the murder of an unsullied who paid whores to hug him.... so the ambiguity was really laid on thick. Yes, this could be seen as a villainous act, however Dany does learn from this and later refuses to torture people.The issue of how complicit he was is why I find this so deplorable. The Sons of the Harpy had up until that point outsmarted Dany at every turn, and now suddenly they leave a corpse in a shop owned by one of their own? That would be absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versiroth Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Different situations. Gared comitted a crime punishable by death, what Ned was doing was socially acceptable, Gared's story would've seemed like mindless insanity, and so on.You are dodging my question.Ned let his honor and "the rules" over ride everything else and lopped off his head without even investigating his claims. Dany allowed the shaved pate to "persuade" some people that were thought to be in league with the people killing her people. And again, she is allowing something bad to happen in hopes that it will affect the greater good. Both were poor choices, but neither were done for cruelty or because Ned and Dany doesn't care. It's quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barty Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 If I may add my opinion. The winesink owner was complicit with acts of treason, his life is forfeit, and Dany as every right as monarch to get to the bottom of this situation. Obviously this is something a villain would do, bit keep in mind we just learned about the murder of an unsullied who paid whores to hug him.... so the ambiguity was really laid on thick. Yes, this could be seen as a villainous act, however Dany does learn from this and later refuses to torture people.He was a suspect - not proven to be guilty. He had denied all charges and instead of being given a trial he and his daughters were tortured.I think a big clue that Danny is going to end up being far more ruthless and bloodthirsty than she is now is that she can no longer even recall the name of the child that Drogon ate. She also keeps telling herself(in her final chapters) she needs to become a dragon and dragons are supposed to bring fire and blood and that she is the mother of dragons and not the mother of slaves. If she can complete this transformation then she will become a villain who only brings fire and blood and is not capable of mercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon stark I Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Ned let his honor and "the rules" over ride everything else and lopped off his head without even investigating his claims. Dany allowed the shaved pate to "persuade" some people that were thought to be in league with the people killing her people. And again, she is allowing something bad to happen in hopes that it will affect the greater good. Both were poor choices, but neither were done for cruelty or because Ned and Dany doesn't care. It's quite the opposite.Ned listened the man and when Benjen came to WF they talked about it don't you think the first ranger would have said something if what Gared said was true?Dany in an angry moment says "okey torture them".A queen has to look beyond her anger which she never does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versiroth Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 To me, it seems like people that want to believe Dany a villain are only seeing what they want. It's the same thing people do with Tyrion. Instead of seeing the good that they do, or trying to understand their motives, they take every bad thing they do and compile them. The thing is, in this world, as in life, most people really aren't all good or all evil. You do have some people, like the Mountain, that seem incapable of good, but most of the main characters are different shades of gray. So, while Dany has good intentions, she is capable of evil. It's what makes her more than a one dimensional character. But, I still think her intentions, for the most part normally derive from her attempts at being just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 She will probably end up being an antagonist to some of the characters in Westeros, that is inevitable. But all the sides in the wot5k are antagonist to each other. As far as her being the big bad main villain, not a chance. If invading Westeros and causing destruction was her primary goal she would have taken the unsullied, her dragons, and went with Quentyn to Dorne, where she would have a large army waiting for her. She wants to rule the seven kingdoms, if she burns them completely to the ground, there will be nothing left to rule. And I think there is absolutely no chance we get a "mad queen", her POV chapters would be ridiculous. Say what you want about Cersei, but she is not technically mad. Sure she starts to lose it after her imprisonment, but she is not stark raving Aerys type crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greg of House House Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 About the good guys going bad bit, let us not forget about Jon. Cat was a good girl, but to make Jon bad it would be even more difficult. But I guess dying is reason enough to make him a lot darker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Ned let his honor and "the rules" over ride everything else and lopped off his head without even investigating his claims.Ned upheld the law, killing a criminal deserter. And yes, he didn't investigate the claims of ice demons and zombies, shocking, I know.Dany allowed the shaved pate to "persuade" some people that were thought to be in league with the people killing her people. And again, she is allowing something bad to happen in hopes that it will affect the greater good.By persuade are you referring to having the man watch as his daughters were tortured? Remember, this was done because the Sons of the Harpy, who had at that point outsmarted her at every turn, supposedly left a corpse in the shop of one of their own members. Stupidly thought out cruelty done with good intentions isn't something I consider heroic.Both were poor choices, but neither were done for cruelty or because Ned and Dany doesn't care. It's quite the opposite.And here is where we differ. Ignoring the unrelated Ned part, I consider Dany's cruelty-idiocy combo more impacting than whatever intentions she had when she ordered the torture.To me, it seems like people that want to believe Dany a villain are only seeing what they want. It's the same thing people do with Tyrion. Instead of seeing the good that they do, or trying to understand their motives, they take every bad thing they do and compile them. The thing is, in this world, as in life, most people really aren't all good or all evil. You do have some people, like the Mountain, that seem incapable of good, but most of the main characters are different shades of gray. So, while Dany has good intentions, she is capable of evil. It's what makes her more than a one dimensional character. But, I still think her intentions, for the most part normally derive from her attempts at being just.I think you're being purposely obtuse here. No one is denying the obvious statements you are making here, they just don't value "good intentions" above the consequences of poorly thought out cruelty. Her intentions might definitely be in the name of justice, but it is her immensely warped understanding of it that makes her come across as so villainous. Even when it comes to the winesink example, she had originally decided to question the daughters "sweetly". However, she heard a completely unrelated piece of information that made her angry, and then decided the daughters should instead be tortured. That is not justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon stark I Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 To me , it seems like most of the people who think Dany will go villian say that according to her development in each book.In AGOT she is a innocent naive child who is trying to survive, in ACOK she is a mystical being and a queen who is trying to save her people(with horrible threats) , and in rest of them she starts making bad decisions and in last book her dragon moment and blood and fire bringer thoughts makes us think about a possible villian being born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLE Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I think eventually she will have to face the choice of whether her heritage *is* indeed something to be lived up to, or something to be escaped. I hope she will learn the good sense to choose the latter, but the signs are not promising yet.A Targaryen restoration would be ruinous - especially a single-generation restoration in which the war of succession must inevitably break out again after Dany dies childless. (Especially in a world where blood-magic and cheating death are possible, the temptation would always be there to look for a way of doing so - avoid a succession crisis by never dying... and such things always lead to greater grief in the end.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadside Rose Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 To me , it seems like most of the people who think Dany will go villian say that according to her development in each book.In AGOT she is a innocent naive child who is trying to survive, in ACOK she is a mystical being and a queen who is trying to save her people(with horrible threats) , and in rest of them she starts making bad decisions and in last book her dragon moment and blood and fire bringer thoughts makes us think about a possible villian being born. :agree: A lot of characters seem to be progressing along an arc, which I won't necessarily call good to bad. But they turn into something they would have not dreamed of becoming at the start at the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versiroth Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Ned upheld the law, killing a criminal deserter. And yes, he didn't investigate the claims of ice demons and zombies, shocking, I know.The walls original construction was to keep the Others out. You'd think a Start of Winterfell would remember that.I think you're being purposely obtuse here. No one is denying the obvious statements you are making here, they just don't value "good intentions" above the consequences of poorly thought out cruelty. Her intentions might definitely be in the name of justice, but it is her immensely warped understanding of it that makes her come across as so villainous. Even when it comes to the winesink example, she had originally decided to question the daughters "sweetly". However, she heard a completely unrelated piece of information that made her angry, and then decided the daughters should instead be tortured. That is not justice.So, Dany, a non-one dimensional character does all of these great and just things (freeing slaves, refusing to kill captives, marrying for the sake of her people, refusing to abandon her people, etc) and yet this one act of "evil" (the quotes are there because even this decision was based on her people being butchered nightly) makes her a villain? That is a prime example of cherry picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I once thought so, D&D's commentary and fanboy attitude toward Dany in regards to the show, since they know the end, has convinced me that she is to be seen pretty much the way she sees herself...as a messianic savior figure who has to 'break a few eggs' along the way in order to fulfill her destiny.I would be glad to be wrong, but don't think so.I don't think that the word of D+D has much to do with whether or not it will happen. Yes, they know the ending, but keep in mind they already read the books (multiple times?) before they were told the ending, so any appreciation of Dany - who gets some pretty awesome moments and is exactly the kind of character they like - would still stand. If I cared to I could certainly name one or two Dany fans on this site who will call Dany a hero to the bitter end no matter what she does.I don't believe she'll be the main villain though, or even a full out villain. Anti-hero would be a more accurate description. The thing is I just don't see so much being made of the Targaryen madness if no major, current Targaryens are going to have it. The only candidates therefore are Dany, Aegon and Jon. Aegon I believe to be fake so he's off my list, and Jon has really shown no tendencies of madness. Dany imo has, or at least she is a lot more prone to raging emotions. She's hardly the most stable of people imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 The walls original construction was to keep the Others out. You'd think a Start of Winterfell would remember that.When the Night's Watch doesn't, why would Ned?So, Dany, a non-one dimensional character does all of the great and just things (freeing slaves, refusing to kill captives, marrying for the sake of her people, refusing to abandon her people, etc) and yet this one act of "evil" (the quotes are there because even this decision was based on her people being butchered nightly) makes her a villain? That is a prime example of cherry picking.And this is a prime example of a strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versiroth Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 When the Night's Watch doesn't, why would Ned?And this is a prime example of a strawman.Because his ancestors are the ones who built the wall? Most people in the seven kingdoms seem very high on their ancestry. And no, that's not a strawman argument at all. You are insinuating that Dany is a villain, and yet you can only name one good example of her doing something evil. You grasp at that one event and ignore all of the times she's done something good. Which FAR out weighs anything that could be considered evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Forel's Fro Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 It's amazing people consider someone evil, villain, mad when the writer of the story doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Because his ancestors are the ones who built the wall? Most people in the seven kingdoms seem very high on their ancestry.More than 8000 years ago, yeah.Regardless, the man deserted. Whether or not Ned believed the outlandish ramblings of zombies and ice monsters is irrelevant.And no, that's not a strawman argument at all. You are insinuating that Dany is a villain, and yet you can only name one good example of her doing something evil. You grasp at that one event and ignore all of the times she's done something good. Which FAR out weighs anything that could be considered evil.You've wildly misinterpreted my posts then. I use this one event as an example of why intentions do not mean more than actions, as you originally stated. If I wanted to convince you that Dany was more villain than hero, I'd bring up the consequences of her actions in Astapor, or her handling of the crucifiction investigation (or should I say lack of), or her killing every slaver in a city without allowing them to repent when she had only recently done so herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utecifa Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Yes, it is entirely possible.I'm still not sold on The Others being some antagonistic evil that needs to be eradicated. In fact if you think about it. What's a hallmark of George RR Martin? He writes something as bad for a while and then flips as good. Especially with some of his characters. He hasn't done this yet with Dany or more importantly "fire". Most people are likely under the impression for the first 5 books that The Others = Bad, Fire = Good and the thing that will save Westeros from them.Time to flip that thinking in the final 2 books perhaps? It would fit with his style.So would it surprise me if "fire" is the real antagonist? No not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasantboy Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 If you think Tyrion would be a good advisor then you and I must be reading different books.Dany needs someone with a clear and honest mind about all Westeros and all noble houses.Right now Tyrion hates all Westeros and all noble houses.Dany already sees half of the kingdom as usurpers dogs with the help of Tyrion she will see all westeros as her enemies.Seems to me that this might be the only way to survive the game of thrones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.