I don't think Jon will end up looking like a puppet of Danys enemies if she turns on her, because after what she did it becomes a matter of the greater good. He wouldn't do it because Danys enemies don't like Dany... he would do it because it's the right thing to do.
But he will have to compromise himself regardless, as he's going back on his word. Not to mention killing the woman he loves. So he's pretty much going to be a wreck no matter what he does. I don't think this will necessarily make him look bad... but this show isn't going out of his way to make Jon look super awesome either.
It's sort of like an RPG where you have multiple ending, where you have a REALLY BAD, a REALLY GOOD, and a couple in between.
I think the fairy tale ending is Jon and Dany getting married and living happily ever after ruling Westeros. That would likely be the Disney Channel adaptation of the story, minus the incest.
The straight up darkside ending would be Cersi somehow coming out on top or just killing everyone with the Wild Fire.
Dany ruling would be kinda bad. Jon killing Dany and ruling would be kinda good.
Right now I'm leaning towards straight up middle ground... Dany dies at Jons hands, but Jon PROBABLY doesn't get the Iron Throne. Bad guys are all gone, and the main good guy at least saves the day and survives. But no one really lives happily ever after.
If he refuses the throne yet again, after what happened, that would make him one hell of a coward as far as i'm concerned.
Responsibility is not just a funny little word you throw at teens when they misbehave. He's the heir.
A good king may give people of westeros decades of peace. Hero 101 : you answer the freaking calling.
Or then you go back home banging your sister like a good Targaryen. ^^
Last edited by Starter Set; 05-19-2019 at 07:54 AM.
Again even the most negative reading of Viserys still has him at
-never killed anyone that we know of.
-never raped anyone (possibly tried once)
-never tortured anyone.
There’s a world of difference between Viserys and Ramsay it Euron. Viserys was an abusive brother who lashed out at his weaker sister over their situation. He wasn’t a good guy. But he wasn’t a total monster.
Aegon didn't have Westerosi advisors who prioritized not killing the people over him getting on the throne. That's the biggest difference. Every Aegon battle story pretty much ends with "and then the dragons came into play and it was over".
-the toughest battle he fought was against the Stormlord Durrandon and the battle basically was that his troops kept advancing and advancing against the odds until.... they got to the dragon who roasted them.
-Harrenhall was basically just Aegon using Balerion to roast everyone.
-The Stormlands and the Reach were conquered in the Field of Fire where all three dragons just burned shit up
-The North didn't even want to tangle with the dragons and just kneeled.
-The Lady of the Vale just needed to see a Dragon and no how threatening it was for her to peacefully join.
Dorne was the only one that didn't concede because they had incredible war tactics and they got lucky killing a dragon which gave them some leverage (it's also highly rumored that they either captured Rhaenys or found something on Dragonstone that made Aegon stop pursuing them).
Meanwhile Tyrion had Dany refraining from using dragons and fighting a tactical war where they took Casterly Rock and were blindsided by Euron's fleet. Dany won everytime she used dragons
In hindsight I think it was obvious that Tyrion was favoring politics and PR over tactical war strategy. Because Dany's forces were so overwhelmingly more powerful than anything Cersi could possible throw at them, they almost didn't need to worry about military tactics. In hindsight the Dragon alone could beat Cersi's forces without Dany needed to commit a single soldier to the ground.
So Tyrions strategy, while costing Dany some defeats she otherwise might not have sufferend, in hindsight probably had the better long game. The hard part isn't winning a battle against Cersi, but rather winning the favor of the people of Westeros. The most effective means of doing the former clearly would make the later all but impossible.
So while Tyron kept looking bad with failure after failure, in a lot of ways he did end up being right.
Depending on the circumstances (as Jon may not even end up having the option to sit on the throne even if he wants it), I do agree Jon in some ways does look bad for refusing to take the throne. Honestly I don't think the show is necessarily trying to make Jon look as good as possible. It's just not that kind of show where they are trying to put the main good guy on any sort of pedistal. But I could be wrong... we'll see.
I think Jon's time with Mance Rayder and the Free Folk will inform his decisions regarding the Iron Throne.
I think Bran Stark is the North's dragon-OFF switch.
I admit, the scenario of a separation of the 7 kingdoms into independant states is a possible one.
I would be tempted, if it goes that way, to scream at the screen "those fools didn't learn a single freaking thing!!!" buuuuut, that's a possibility, no denying it.
Last edited by Madam-Shogun-Assassin; 05-19-2019 at 10:07 AM.
Firstly, Tyrion doesn't "let" Dany do anything. He can give advice, and she can either take it or not. Ultimately the ball is still in her court.
But yes, Tyrion did try and give them the opportunity to surrender to avoid any unecessary deaths or conflicts. You can argue that tactically that is a mistake, but clearly that's sort of the advisors that Dany needs. She needs to be reigned in by people like Tyrion and Varys. Their concerns over Dany ended up being justified. Dany from a purely military standpoint was correct... but I think Tyrion was more looking at the long game. The fight itself never really concerned him, since he never had any doubts that Dany could win even after her forces were decidmated fighting the Night King. The outcome of the actual battle was never in doubt, so that was never a priority to him.