MovieChat Forums > Game of Thrones (2011) Discussion > Why were people surprised by Daenerys [S...

Why were people surprised by Daenerys [Spoilers]


Why were people surprised by Daenerys' genocide of Kings Landing?

She always had it in her, no?

reply

I don't agree. I think what she "had in her" was the same capacity for harshly dealing with enemies as many other leaders in the GoT world, like Stannis or Tywin Lannister. It's an exponential and illogical leap to go from that fairly standard approach of ruling by force to the mass slaughter of innocents.

I'm sure there is a storyline for Season 8 that could make her downfall more believable, but that's not the storyline we saw.

reply

No - the whole story was about Dany rising to power, and freeing slaves.

For her to start burning innocent women and children is so out of character - just awful writing, the story should have been so much better.

reply

She was always ruthless. Destroying King’s Landing seemed counterproductive compared to her other conquests, which were more strategic and surgically executed. Who wants to rule over a pile rubble and ash? She showed ruthlessness early on when she let Kharl crown her brother with molten metal. Her actions at the end looked way out of character.

reply

Rubbish to all here. It was in total step with her mental degeneration and growing despotism - not unlike her Mad King father. There were signs from the start and it was planned all along by the writers.
People are just disappointed because they expected a clean cut liberator.

reply

"People are just disappointed because they expected a clean cut liberator."

That is totally unfair. Almost everyone I know said they would have been okay with a Mad Queen story arch if the arch had been there, there was no arch it was a nose dive story and totally jarring change of character.

"It was in total step with her mental degeneration and growing despotism - not unlike her Mad King father. There were signs from the start and it was planned all along by the writers."

I call total bullocks to this, from the beginning she had a growing concern not to abuse her power for no reason, she had always from the start been concerned with the abuse of the innocent.

She was never any more ruthless to her enemies than say Tywin, and he would never burn burn an entire city for no apparent reason other than a crazy delusion of 'freeing' them.

Her last speech was of total bizarre insanity. Talking about "freeing" people like she did in Kings Landing. She was planning on killing and burning the entire world. She never, once, showed this level of madness.

reply

"She was never any more ruthless to her enemies than say Tywin..."

Just to remind everyone, Tywin Lannister actually did burn King's Landing back in the day, he conquered his city and at the end of Robert's Rebellion, and his soldiers "sacked" the place. For those of you who aren't familiar with medieval warfare tactics, that meant he had his soldiers burn, rape, and loot anything they could get ahold of. Which seems to be terrible politics as he intended to be the power behind the new throne, which means he damaged and antagonized a city he planned to rule in all but name. Which seems like a damn fool thing to do, but there it is in the histories of Westeros.

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Sack_of_King%27s_Landing

Honestly, most of the people who insist that Danerys was crazy all along don't have a good grasp of just how rough politics in Westeros was. Every political leader in Westeros or Essos used brutality and violence to get what they wanted, what made Danerys different than most is that for seven and a half seasons she used no more violence than was absolutely necessary.

reply

Exactly, by 21st century standards yes she and Tywin were ruthless sociopaths capable of barbarism beyond reason. By medieval standards Dany was actually quite reserved. Which is why her sudden bizarre flip of a switch full out genocidal madness akin to Stalin in his last days was so jarring and completely underdeveloped.

People have a stand tendency to want to judge people of the past by today's standards and not take into consideration what was normal at the time. We could say their behavior and decisions was indeed wicked or evil but in this case Dany's madness was even beyond what would be considered reasonable for her time.

reply

"...but in this case Dany's madness was even beyond what would be considered reasonable for her time."

Well, what really bothered me about the "madness" is that her actions weren't so much crazy as stupid. Here she spent seven and a quarter seasons being a brilliant military leader who used no more violence than was necessary, and they had her burning civilian neighborhoods while Queen Cersei stood in the open watching the day go by... right where a little dragon fire could have put a stop to the whole war! The show was so intelligent for so long, it really was a crushing disappointment.

reply

That was the whole crazy part of it too. Her targeting the entire city when she was pissed at Cersei just made no rational sense, there was no real point or objective. The show did not portray her as being that detached from reality or her actions for the entire series. AS you said she was always aware of her actions and attempted to be "no more violent" than what she thought was necessary. Just look at how she handled the leaders of Slaver's Bay, she gave them all a chance and then even after they openly opposed her she still left 1 alive.

reply

Speak in ng as someone who knows what "mental deterioration" looks like in real life... she wasn't written as having believable mental deterioration. Instead, she was written as intelligent and rational, if flawed, up until the battle of Winterfell.

At that point she got stupid and whiny for a couple of episodes, seeming totally out of character, then she did something batshit with no lead-in and it rang completely false.

reply

Another excellent point. She definitely was portrayed as being flawed and those flaws could have lead her down a dark path that ended with her fully insane by way of full blown "mental deterioration". The problem with how it was portrayed was nearly the entire path was skipped. Maybe 2 or 3 skips in total then they flew by the rest. So there was no real build up to it happening.

reply

It really is too bad that they bungled the whole Mad Queen thing so badly. It could have been totally awesome if they'd fleshed it all out properly and actually shown her deteriorating over time! I even posted my own fantasy Season 8 (and 9) here, in which she slowly deteriorates and Jon realizes that for the good of Westeros, he has to make war against he woman he loves.

But no, she spent seven and a half seasons as a ruthless but comparatively benevolent tyrant, and then she went from ruthless-but-rational, to stupid and whiny, to stupid and batshit, in the space of about three episodes. They really did make a mess of something that could have been awesome.

reply

Yes, it could have been awesome; especially as others point out, the signs of it were brilliantly hinted at the entire series but it needed to be fleshed out. The last season or 2 seasons needed to have an arch of deteriorating so that the audience can accept it as a reasonable conclusion.

I like the idea too of there actually being a War between Jon and Dany instead of him just stabbing her and then it was over. That was another thing that happened too fast to, no real set up or build up. Just she goes crazy and massacres an entire city and then about 30 minutes of screen time later Jon stabs her and it is over.

"she went from ruthless-but-rational, to stupid and whiny, to stupid and batshit, in the space of about three episodes. "

Excellent summary. It is frustrating that alot of the people defending this show and Dany do not seem to understand that those of us criticizing it are not upset about what happened but because of how it happened.

reply

You saw signs starting in S1 of her capacity to do evil, starting with watching her brother die by having gold poured over his head. Lord friend zone told her to look away but she didn't and seemed ok with it.
In her climb to power:
- in Qarth, she sent the two in to that vault knowing they would die a slow death (thirst/starving). She also used her dragons for the first time to burn the wizard.
- In Yunkai, she burned the slave trader alive after she got the unsullied from him.
- She burned the Mereen fleet alive when she retook the city for good. She burned the Dothraki lords alive in that tent and become the Dothraki lord.
In each of these cases we didn't feel sorry for them because they were supposedly bad. But the manner in which she killed them was rather sadistic.

reply

But you hit the nail on the head. They were supposedly bad. I think the difference between Dany and other villains is that, throughout the first 70+ episodes, Dany never deliberately executes INNOCENTS (like Stannis does, or Tywin intends).

The three people in Qarth had deliberately betrayed her, kidnapped her dragons, and had arranged for several of her entourage to be murdered. The slave trader in Yunkai, was a sexual pervert, and both he and the Dothraki khals threatened and insulted her to her face. The Mereen sailors had been fighting on the sides of the Wise Masters. Viserys threatened to have her raped by 40,000 men, then cut out the baby she was carrying. Mirri Maz Durr performed a spell that resulted in the deaths of her husband and son. The Tarlys had been fighting on the side of Cersei and refused to submit, even after Dany told them she wouldn't take their land and title from them if they knelt. And Varys had betrayed her for Jon.

What we get in the first several seasons is foreshadowing (this is the way Dany is and always will be) rather than character development (this is the way Dany was, but not the way she will end up), and there were better ways to handle it. One thing I wish they had included was the scene in the House of the Undying where Dany is told about her three betrayals. They could have then followed it up with a couple of scenes later where she mulls over them like she does in the books. It would have shown her growing paranoia that becomes more present in the last couple episodes.

reply

Yes, the key you point out is that foreshadowing does not equal character development. All of these little 'foreshadows' that people point out as "signs she was always mad" are ridiculous because none of what she did was any more crazy, ruthless or cold than what any other ruler around her was doing.

Her brother treated her like crap and was weak, her watching him die is no less ruthless than say Jaime killing his own cousin with a rock just to escape. Would we say Jaime's character would be satisfyingly portrayed if at the end he goes on a killing rampage? No of course no.

The only 1 example that could be argued as a valid sign of her being mad was the way she killed the Tarly's, that was out of character for her previously; but there stubborn refusal to bend the knee when she was already pissed is what lead to it. This is not the same as the targeting women and children that did nothing to her but stand between her and Cersie.

Good point about the books to, Dany mulls over quite a few things in the book that suggest she might have the capacity for going mad, she even often thinks about Viserys and how she watched him die without feeling bad about it in the moment. She felt bad later because she pitied him; but not at the moment. This I am sure will be explored more and there will be an actual arch in the books; the show through away having the satisfying arch in favor of a cheap shock. And for that I will always despise the show ending.

reply

Sorry, but Danerys didnt burn the fleet at Mereen. She burned ONE ship, thereby showing them how easy it would be to burn them all, and then gracefully accepted the surrender of the others. She then used the ships to get her army to Westeros, as she was too rational to waste a perfectly good armada when she could have it nearly intact, for the price of some intimidation.

She actually followed the same pattern with the Tarlys, she fried two people with dragon fire (for excellent political reasons), and then let the rest of the surviving Lannister army go free with wet underwear. They promised they wouldnt fight her again, she accepted the promise and saved herself the trouble of feeding prisoners of war, and again used no more violence than was necessary to achieve her goals.

That was a pattern she followed quite consistently through the run of the show, up until the last few episodes.

reply

Yes. That aspect of her has been foreshadowed ever since season 1.

reply

foreshadowing does not equal character development. As I said in reply above, Dany's going mad had no satisfying arch and there was no character development. They chose a cheap shock over a satisfying character arch and try justifying it with loose at best foreshadowing.

reply

I'm literally reading a book now about mental disorders in leaders. It says how power will magnify their mental disorders and explains how and why they will become worst over time which happened to Dany. Many of the disorders in the book are reflected in Dany like narcissism and sociopathy. It gets into how a leader who has had a psychotic break may not be recognized until it's too late which is what happened in Dany's case. Part of the problem is that some of her behavior was reflected by other leaders who were not really evil or mad. The difference with Dany is her consistency and continuous deterioration since season 1. GOT is a perfect companion piece to my book which feels like a scary political thriller even though it's a nonfiction written by psychiatrists.

reply

I tend to agree with the writer Orrin Woodward who said something like 'Absolute power doesn't corrupt, but rather, reveals character.' With the case of Dany she had nearly absolute power over slavers bay and could have been totally ruthless, but instead she compromised as much as she could. And even if she was totally mentally ill, disorders typically are degenerative and don't come to a head all at once.

Especially in the case of Dany she showed more compassion and restraint then many of her counter parts. We can't judge her more ruthless moments by our modern standards she has to be compared to the other leaders around her. She never showed signs of being anymore ruthless than Tywin and even he would not burn a city to the ground killing thousands of non-combatants for no reason. The only 2 characters that would do such a thing were the Mad King and Joeffrey. The former degenerated into that over years, and the latter was always sadistic.

If you read modern psychiatry and try applying it to medieval standards you would find that nearly everyone was crazy, ruthless, fanatical, and/or barbaric.

I get that the signs are there for Dany to go mad and if the books get done I am sure her actual descent will not only make sense but be a satisfying conclusion to her arch. The fact they did not really give her an arch into madness and instead rushed to give a few over the top hints in the last 2 season followed by the 'flip of the coin' shocking twist are all signs they rushed it and did not even try to give it a fully developed arch it required. If this was the plan for her, there should have been more depraved signs of it starting as soon as she took over Slavers Bay. But then if she was already ruthless and crazy Jon would not bend the knee and 'romance' her. So it seems it was forced to be this way. I doubt it will play out this way in the book considering all the differences such as the Young Griff plot, which I think will play a key role.

reply

The good and sane leaders were not CONSISTENTLY "crazy, ruthless, fanatical, and/or barbaric."

Human nature doesn't change. Psychosis in medieval times is the same now. As for society, there is plenty of cruelty aka: "normalization of evil" now and the masses go along with it.

"disorders typically are degenerative and don't come to a head all at once. "

That's what the book said. She showed signs of narcissism and sociopathy in the beginning, but it continued to grow with time. Both disorders are diagnosed by degree. For instance, Slavers Bay Dany could have started off on a scale of 2 and have it go up to 9 by the time she destroyed King's Landing. She had compassion in the beginning and end, but notice how in the end it became twisted into how she had to kill innocent people in order to save them. By then, she had a complete break and became psychotic.

Jon was as dumb as a wall. Sam picked up on her mental state right away. Tyrion suspected it but was in denial. He kept begging Dany not to destroy King's Landing which meant he knew she was likely to do it.

They rushed the ending, but I'm not buying that she was 100% normal in the beginning. She had a traumatic childhood and was a product of incest so why would she be?

reply

"They rushed the ending, but I'm not buying that she was 100% normal in the beginning. "

Oh you are absolutely correct on her having the potential for insanity, but there needed to be development for it to get to that point. Her being a character so concerned about the oppressed does not go to murdering the oppressed on a killing spree for no good reason with some more of a transition. I would be satisfied with the ending if their had been an arch to get there that made sense. but they rushed it and choose to go for a cheap shock in place of organic development. Her speech at the end in which she talks about what she did to kings landing was a liberation was a sign she had a complete break from reality and was now as crazy as her father. Even the mad king had a descent into madness, Dany had no such descent; only a few signs. The few signs were not enough for it to be a satisfying story arch or end to her character.

reply

Seasons 5-8 got a lot of things wrong, but the progression of Dany wasn't one of them. It wasn't put in for a "cheap shock". The Targaryens have a history of madness and that Dany was actually more like the Mad King than Rhaegar was hinted at forever. I would have been pissed if she didn't go all mad-queen after all of that build up.

I know there are hardcore Dany fans out there. Plenty of them named dogs, and even children after her. They are understandably butthurt, but this was the only acceptable end for her.

reply

"It wasn't put in for a "cheap shock""

I disagree, they were definitely going for a 'twist' ending with her; but it was far to abrupt and jarring. That made it a cheap shock.

"he Targaryens have a history of madness"

But even the mad Targaryens never burnt entire cities to the ground. The Craziest of them was the Mad King and he took years and some really crazy behavior before he was crazy enough to burn an entire city filled with innocents.

"Dany was actually more like the Mad King than Rhaegar was hinted at forever

We must have been watching a different show because the show I watched Dany idolized Rhaegar and wanted to emulate him. It would be good if she tried that and failed. That would be a satisfying tragic end for her. But instead we had her going from wanting to emulate Rhaegar to being crazier than the mad king in the span of 3 rushed episodes.

"I would have been pissed if she didn't go all mad-queen after all of that build up."

There was no build up, there was a few hints at it. The biggest hint was her killing the Tarly's, foreshadowing does not equal character development. Dany had some bad instincts and was always at risk of becoming Mad Queen, but there was a counter balance to her character being interested in Justice and 'freedom' for the innocent and enslaved people. That got completely thrown away in a second without any real reason given. Why did she target innocent people? And then justify it as "freeing" them?

"I know there are hardcore Dany fans out there." "but this was the only acceptable end for her."

I am not butthurt about what happened in her end, I am butthurt about how they got there. I actually agree that her going mad was one of the acceptable endings for her, she absolutely should not have ended as queen. But how they got to her end was just rushed, underdeveloped, jarring and stupid.

reply

Aegon the conqueror (who Dany is probably most like) burned down entire settlements in Dorne during his conquest of Westeros.

Watch the series again, knowing what you know now, and the clues will be more obvious to you.

reply

That is because Dorne had not surrendered yet. Those were tactical military strikes, like what Dany was doing BEFORE King's Landing surrendered. Once they surrendered there was no tactical or logical reason to burn them all. Aegon welcomed his surrendered enemies (once they bent the knee) into his new kingdom because he was building a kingdom. Aegon was not 'mad' like Dany or the Mad King.

"Watch the series again, knowing what you know now, and the clues will be more obvious to you."

I have said elsewhere that I do not have a problem with how Dany's story ended, the problem was how it got there, it was underdeveloped. The signs her character showed she had the potential to deteriorate into a mad queen but there needed to be a deterioration period (a dark path) for her to go down. The problem is the path was skipped in about 2 or 3 bounces.

It was just not fleshed out enough for it to be an acceptable 'twist'.

reply

"Watch the series again, knowing what you know now, and the clues will be more obvious to you."

GOT is a series, not a movie. The evidence of the clues shouldn't rely on being rewatched with hindsight. If it does, then the clues were poorly placed. Yes, I can rewatch the series. But if I don't know how the series is going to end, then her conversation with Hizdar in the fighting pits -- something people point to as a clue -- speaks more to her compassion (people shouldn't kill each other for sport) than it does her mental instability (I know what's right, and you don't), and it's completely glossed over as a side note in the episode. If that was to be a clue regarding her mental health, there should have been more emphasis placed on it.

Both Sam and Sansa raise legitimate concerns for not submitting to Dany (she's not the rightful heir, she doesn't know Westeros), but suspecting her mental deterioration was not one of them.

There's nothing wrong with Dany ending up mad. But her journey to get there was rushed. The series cut 6 hours of character and plot development from the final two seasons. And it shows.

reply

She slaughtered people in every conquest with no remorse but the narrative made it seem like they deserved it. Her actions at King's Landing didn't surprise me.

reply

She never once targeted innocent people of a city. not once. She was never more ruthless than any other leader around her what Dany does at the and who mad she goes is full on crazy worse than even Cersie. One does not go from a Slave freeing/small people concerned ruler to random mass murderer without there being some sort of arch to get there. The few hints that were given throughout the show are not enough to demonstrate an actual character or story arch. The hints served only as a plot tool people could go back and 'look it was going to be like this all along'.

I like you was not shocked by what Dany did, I saw it coming since the beginning of the season, they really laid it on pretty thick. What I was shocked about was how poorly they wrote the story that lead to that end. Yes Dany always had it in her but there needed to be more development for it to be revealed naturally into the story . Sacrificing development for the twist ending was not acceptable in this case. Instead of being a twist that was awesome it was a twist that had me shut off my TV in frustration because it was so stupid.

reply

I agree her arc was weak and I suspect writers either wanted KL to be a shock, or just as likely, they didn't plan ahead. She could have gone either way because you never know what writers are going to do. Dany was never prepared for rule, she was arrogant and childish.

reply

I've asked myself the same question. I have lost count of the number of people who were blindsided by her actions in the penultimate episode. The seeds has been planted. There were signs ALL season long that she was about to descend into madness.

This did not come out of nowhere. In my opinion, this was the right move. She had already done several things throughout the course of the show that no human being would consider par for course for a protagonist. There was no going back. She couldn't end up on the iron throne because all the little clues indicated that she would have been a horrendous leader.

reply

Okay then you must group in Jon for his execution of the Nights Watch. Stannis for killing Mance Rayder, the Wildlings, using blood magic to assassinate Renly, the burning of Shireen, his own daughter and the suicide of his wife. Then you need to judge Tywin the same for the slaughter of Robb and Catelyn Stark, the murder of a pregnant Talisa Stark, all of Robb's bannermen and the rape and murder of Ellia Martel and her children at the hand of The Mountain who was sent by Tywin. You must also judge Ramsey and Roose Bolton for their complicity in the murder at The Red Wedding. You must also judge Robert Baratheon so for his murder of Rhaegar Targaryen at the Trident, the murder of any and all who died during the War of the Five Kings on Tywin who was responsible for that carnage.

Dany as not insane. The Gods didn't flip that coin to land on her, but landed on Viserys. It was cliched to say she "would always go mad" based on what? Her desire to not kill or maim innocents? Her care for her armies and her advisors? Her wish to free slave cities? What happened in that last season was obscene. Dany deserved better than that.

reply

I'm not sure we have been watching the same series. Desire not to kill innocents?she has killed countless innocents. And much more savage fashion than others.

The tangent you went off is a little weird. Not sure who mentioned Tywin Lannister of all people. and mentioned that he should have been king.

I'll address your next post if it's relevant to the discussion. Don't disgress and put forth a soliloquy replete with tangential rebuttals to non-existing points.

reply

Prior to “The Bells”, where did Dany kill “countless innocents”?

reply

Its gonna be an issue of semantics because we might not agree on what constitutes an innocent, but dragging the elders or the elite families to a dungeon and having the burned alive by dragon qualifies as such, in my opinion.

The Tarley's refusing to bend the knee to a power hungry fascist doesn't make them culpable in anything after which a murder is justified. Burning him and his son alive is just insane.

It's all got to do with how we view things and the impression we get from watching those scenes. In my case, there were lots of instances in which I though Dany - who was ostensibly going to end up as the main protagonist ruling the iron throne - was unhinged and was clearly not the right character based on what we had seen.

reply

Is it semantics to argue that three people doesn't constitute "countless"? Or a even a large number? She had one guy from the elite Mereenese families burned, and the two Tarlys.

The first case, like the crucifixion of the Masters when she first arrived, was harsh and somewhat indiscriminate but it had a just purpose -- stopping murders by the Sons of the Harpy -- and it was definitely not out of the ordinary in the world of GoT. (Related to that last note, your "power hungry fascist" description is meaningless in the context of that world.)

The Tarlys were enemy prisoners of war who refused two offers of mercy: join Dany or join the Night's Watch. They may as well have covered themselves in pitch and lit a fuse to save Drogon the trouble.

Nothing she did prior to "The Bells" episode even approached the horror and evil of burning alive 100,000+ people, the vast majority of whom had not wronged her in any way and posed no threat to her.

reply

You offer a good summary of why the Dany as we know her could not have done what she does in "The Bells" it was jarring and frustratingly stupid.

But there was always potential for her to descend into madness. The idea of her becoming more and more obsessive with the throne and starting to view the 'innocents' of Westeros with more and more scorn could have been an interesting thing to explore before she finally unleashes all of her disgust and rage on the innocent people. But that was not explored. She goes from benevolent willing to sacrifice herself for the innocent to genocidal mass murder in the span of 2.5 episodes. And this was after 7 previous season of showing her always being mindful of her potential madness and watching her actions with care so she would not be "Queen of the Ashes". I guess "she kind of forgot" about caring like she forgot about the Iron Fleet.

reply

Good point about obsessive. I saw her as a fanatic shortly after her rise to power and that's how I viewed her through the later seasons. She started by claiming she was doing everything for other people as "liberator", with lots of evidence at the beginning, but then increasing selfishness and autocracy. And in later seasons she started to focus more on the throne in her explanations.

But I didn't see her as mad, only stubborn. I think the reason the writer/producer didn't included "intermediary" steps of madness is that they wanted a big surprise.

For sure, the last laugh is on all those millennials who named their babies Khaleesi.

reply

Sadly, without those "intermediary steps", having a person go from sane to insane just isnt convincing.

They really could have made some great drama out of the idea of an unbalanced rageaholic controlling the only dragons in the world, but they didnt. They rushed the whole thing and made an unconvincing mess of it.

reply

It was rushed, I agree. I felt as surprised as Jon was about ringing the bell.

I'm just saying there is clear motivation to make a big surprise, so they didn't want to have an obvious progression/descent.

This video posted on another thread shows some of the hints along the way. It's too long IMO and has an ad buried in the middle, but it's a good refresher that might show how some viewers overlooked all the warning signs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUcT1XWn6sE

reply

Oh bosh.

None of the "hints" made the change from intelligent, ruthless, autocrat to... whining idiot who engages in pointless violence believable.

reply

Yeah those "hints" were definitely not even close to sufficient to suggest potential to become this much of a deranged mass murderer. You don't go from burning slavers and crucifying those that crucified children to burning hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children indiscriminately. It is just not a believable twist the same way the red wedding was. It didn't leave a feeling of "I should have seen that coming" but instead left me feeling "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"

reply

The biggest issue with the Battle of King's Landing is NOT that Danerys killed thousands. She's perfectly willing to kill ruthlessly, every big shot in Essos and Westeros is. The big issue is that she killed stupidly and indiscriminately, frying thousands of civilians for no gain, while the enemy queen stood in her tower in no danger at all. That's the thing about Danerys, she's always killed *intelligently* and to a definite end, and she's always been very intelligent and focused on her goals. And killing Cersei should have been her main goal - it was Cersei who looked Danerys in the eye and ordered the execution of her best friend, and the death of the heir-less Cersei would have put an immediate stop to the war. Yet... no attack on Cersei, who's standing in plain view!

I would have loved a Mad Queen storyline, if they'd done it properly. But having Danerys suddenly turn from intelligent to stupid? No.

reply

That is a good point, it is not even just that she goes crazy and kills ruthlessly but that she did so for quite literally no gain while her true target evaded her. It is not enough to say "she decided to make it personal", who is she making it personal against? The people of king's landing were bystanders and had nothing to do with her. What greater goal is served by this? The people did not love her before because they viewed her as a foreign invader, they certainly will never love her now. Ruling by fear only works if the people think there is a chance they can be spared. If the person is a crazy tyrant people rise against them, as they did against Ares.

So yeah you are right, not only did exceed the level of ruthlessness and cruelty she previously demonstrated but it was also a completely stupid thing for the character to do.

reply

Actually, burning the Tarlys alive was excellent politics... by the standards of Westeros or any other barbaric society where violence and warfare are the norm.

Tarly Sr. was Warden of the Reach then, and when Danerys told him to bend the knee, she wasnt just demanding personal obedience like a dick. She was demanding that Tarly join her side and turn over all the wealth and military might of the richest of the seven kingdoms, and in retrospect I blame the writers for making her look like a dick and not someone who was trying to intimidate her way to a massive political and economic victory. Well, if a person who's trying to win one of the seven kingdoms in a battle of wills backs down, all of Westeros will assume she's a weakling and decide they're more afraid of Cersei than Danerys, and at that point, doing anything other than making Tarly toast would have been a political win for Cersei.

Plus, after she fried those idiots, she turned to all the Lannistrr soldiers who'd surrendered after losing the battle, made them promise not to fight her again, and sent them home. So she spared herself the trouble of feeding prisoners or executing anyone else, and thereby followed her usual pattern of using no more violence than necessary to achieve her ends. That's as benevolent as rulers get, in Westeros.

reply

I gave instances, pretty convincing ones that counter anything you have to say. We don't have a "conversation" based on your rules. That's not how it's done. I gave "countless" instances where men were far more brutal and calculated than Dany. The "tangent" I spoke of was to state that others had done worse than Dany, yet we're not talking about them. I mentioned that Tywin has more blood on his hands than any of the "good" citizens of Westeros. As for what is or isn't relevant to a discussion, that's not your rule to make. I gave more than enough information to prove Dany was more benevolent than any of the others in Westeros. You just decided you wanted to ignore it.

reply