Game of Thrones’ Daenerys Targaryen: Hero or Villain?

By Penn Namely

Note: Contains spoilers for Game of Thrones (Which despite its flaws, is still worth the watch!)

Throughout the seasons of Game of Thrones, there have been fierce fans and critics of one of the show’s most important characters: Daenerys Targarys. She has the critics wrapped around her finger, focusing on her complex characterization; she flips between a benevolent hero or a ruthless villain. The Mhysa of Essos, or the Dragon Queen of Westeros. If she was a hero all along, was this descent into villainy earned? If she was a villain all along, why was the conclusion of her arc so controversially received? This is a dichotomy ironically consistent with Daenerys’ worldview of black-and-white morality. The truth of her character lies in the in-between.

If we grade Daenerys’ actions from our modern-day, real-world understanding of morality, she is guilty of various crimes, involving the brutal executions of criminals. The razing of King’s Landing is exempt from discussion due to its unquestionable immorality. This ending for her character only makes sense if Daenerys’ development and characterization throughout the series was in line with the villainousness associated with this massacre. The goal of this essay is to point out that this idea of Daenerys being villainous before the final season is dependent on the imposing of double standards on her worst actions, while characters who are deemed heroic are also guilty of such actions and therefore not subject to condemnation like Daenerys is. A secondary goal would be to determine what kind of character was depicted on the show before the radical culmination of the series and whether there was a rational, plausible build-up to this turn. The dramatic turn for her character caused the writers to claim that all of her actions in the past were intended to be perceived as villainous, and thus her ending was adequately foreshadowed and built up to.

It is my belief that her character was intended by the author George R. R. Martin to show the full power and threat of a heroic, messianic figure. Daenerys achieved more good and became more powerful than any character had in the many centuries of the world. In the title, “A Song of Ice of Fire,” Daenerys was the Fire of change and warmth; contrasting the Ice of the White Walkers and human cruelty. With her innate power, Daenerys was capable of reforming the unjust status quo of her society. In order to effect change, she used extreme methods that pushed the boundaries of morality. What her story is perhaps meant to show is that because her rise to power forces her to use extreme methods against her enemies, and since they’re justified because her enemies happen to be guilty of some of the worst crimes imaginable (rape and slavery), she starts to believe that her methods should be used on all of her enemies. She would be further enticed to believe that she is justified because she receives love from thousands of people; this love becomes a sign that she has helped them as a result of her harsh methods. Furthermore, there is an issue with Daenerys’ belief that she should rule based on birthright, given that it is an arbitrary and unfair means of choosing a leader.

This intended characterization of Daenerys is not what is executed in the show. The show instead depicts a female character successfully championing revolution in a bleak and brutal society out of her compassion for others. In the final two seasons, this character behaves fairly reasonably (apart from a shift in motivation and convenient insanity sprouting overnight) while the supporting characters shift their motives and personalities in order to serve the plot where she turns evil. Daenerys’ motivation changes in the final two seasons. She says, “All my life, I’ve known one goal: The Iron Throne. Taking it back from the people who destroyed my family…” This is what the writers want us to believe about the character, when in reality she has shown much more ambition beyond the idea of her birthright. 

Earlier in the series, Daenerys refuses to sail for Westeros after liberating Meereen, because the slave masters were still opposing her abolition movement. She is reminded that freeing slaves would not help her get the Iron Throne, but she does so anyway because of her compassion for them. She later says that she can’t expect people to follow her if she cannot establish a peaceful rule in Slaver’s Bay. Daenerys disregards the notion that she could rule in Westeros simply because of her birthright, or the birth of her dragons, and instead spends three years in Essos to ensure the abolition of slavery. This is also contradicted in the final two seasons of the show. It’s also never mentioned whether Daenerys would be a good queen or not.

Daenerys’ character is commonly criticized due to her lengthy list of criminal executions. Some of her controversial actions in the series include: the burning of Mirri Maz Duur, imprisoning two people in a vault to starve to death, the crucifixion of 163 slave masters of Meereen, the execution of a nobleman, and the incineration of two lords of the Reach. In each of these instances, there is a crime for which the victim is guilty of. Mirri killed Daenerys’ husband and unborn son. The slave masters owned slaves and crucified 163 slave children. The nobleman was a former slave owner and suspected of conspiring with a pro-slavery terrorist group. The two lords of the Reach betrayed their liege lady by invading said liege lady’s castle and executing her. 

To further complicate matters on the morality scale, each of these crimes and their punishments come with extenuating circumstances. While Daenerys’ unborn child was innocent, Mirri killed Daenerys’ husband because he was the leader of a band of rapists and murderers who had raped Mirri, destroyed her village, and had plans to continue such actions. The two people sentenced to starve to death in a vault had betrayed Daenerys in a manner that would have left her imprisoned in a magical trap for eternity. The slave masters were collectively guilty of slavery, but some opposed the crucifixion of the children. The nobleman was a slave owner before Daenerys abolished slavery, but he was only suspected of being complicit with the active terrorist cell. Daenerys herself expressed that she did not know if he was innocent or guilty, but executed him nonetheless in order to intimidate the terrorists hiding among the nobility. Finally, while the two lords of the Reach were guilty of betraying their liege lady, they did so in service of the current monarch of the Seven Kingdoms. Their liege lady was supporting Daenerys’ claim to the throne, an act of rebellion against the current monarch.

Moreover, the nuances of Daenerys’ grey morality is lost on the audience due to similar moral dilemmas occurring with other “heroic” characters, but without any indication that their actions are wrong. For example, there are episodes where Jon Snow decapitates one of his fellow Night’s Watch brothers because he refuses to follow Jon’s order. The brother pleads for mercy, but Jon decapitates him nonetheless. The brother is guilty of insubordination, but as Lord Commander, Jon could have simply chosen mercy. Arya slaughters the men of House Frey, even baking some into a pie for the patriarch to eat before slicing his throat and cutting his face off. The Freys betrayed the Starks and slaughtered their bannermen, but similar to the 163 crucified slave masters, surely not all of them were complicit?

Lastly, Daenerys’ advisors Tyrion and Varys had their personalities rewritten in order to criticize her. Tyrion used to be an extremely intelligent man, but when he met Daenerys, he had only bad counsel to give. More often than not, his advice hindered Daenery; his plan of convincing Queen Cersei to an armistice resulted in significant loss for Daenerys. His strategy of dividing their forces led to Daenerys’ fleet being attacked and facing even more significant losses. Daenerys is commonly criticized for not wanting to listen to her advisors, yet she does in fact listen to them more often than not. Her reticence to do so is very reasonable considering her advisors keep causing her great defeats.  

Upon their arrival at Westeros, at the beginning of Daenerys’ campaign for the Iron Throne, Varys declares to Daenerys that his goals have always been in service of the common people. This is a contradiction to the first season when he intended for Viserys to invade Westeros with an army of Dothraki given that the only strategy Viserys would have to take the throne is to ravage the common people’s villages. In the final season, Varys outright says that Jon Snow would be a better king because he is a man. He questions Daenerys’ state of mind due to her visible grief at the post-battle feast. It’s a contrived series of events because everyone in that feast had experienced losses, yet Daenerys is the only one to be bothered by it. She is also isolated from her friends Missandei and Grey Worm for no particular reason. Any other friends she may have made from the hundreds of people who’ve followed her this far are also not present. No one among the hundreds of people present have any desire to ingratiate themselves with the future queen of the Seven Kingdoms. 

The most egregious example is that Varys and Tyrion assert vehemently on numerous occasions, going as far to stake their lives on it, that if Daenerys attacks King’s Landing tens of thousands of innocent people will die. First, this is evidently untrue given that when she finally does invade the city, she easily forces the city to surrender in less than a single day without any apparent civilian casualties. Secondly, Varys and Tyrion seem to have adopted an uncharacteristic view of pacifism despite both facilitating war plans in the past that have endangered civilians. Thirdly, the idea of invading King’s Landing is treated as though it’s an inherently evil act despite such warfare being commonplace in their medieval society. It is so common that in a previous season, Jon Snow himself called upon soldiers to fight for him because of the Starks’ birthright to their loyalty. Jon used an army to overthrow the current tyrant ruler of his birthplace at the cost of thousands of lives and it was portrayed as a heroic moment both in and out of universe. When Daenerys sought to do the same thing, she was painted as crazy and inferior to a man of Targaryen lineage. 

By employing double standards on Daenerys’ grey actions and those of the other “heroic” characters, credence is lost to the idea that she’s worse than the other characters. It’s common in the media for fans to acknowledge that realistically heroic characters would be problematic if they existed in real life, but they choose to forgive their faults because it’s more entertaining that way. An example of this is how in Captain America: Civil War (spoiler warning), Tony attempts to murder Bucky because Bucky was brainwashed into killing his parents; however, Bucky is not morally or legally responsible for crimes committed when he had no free will. Even if he was, Tony would be committing extrajudicial murder. As a result, Tony is guilty of attempted murder and demonstrates why he needs oversight because of his incompetence with his own technology. However, his attempted murder is not brought up again or held against him for the rest of the franchise. Another example is how audiences forgive Batman and generally recognize him as a hero despite his lack of oversight and how his non-lethally intended methods would realistically kill someone on accident. 

In the world of Game of Thrones, both heroic and villainous characters kill their enemies as part of a problematically barbaric and common social practice. Heroes are permitted to kill their enemies and stay moral in the eyes of the audience because their enemies are evil people guilty of many crimes, and their execution is coincidentally one of the only means of effecting justice. The punishment for crimes in the world of Game of Thrones is limited. Despite the existence of dungeons, they are not used for long-term punishment for crimes. Dungeons are used to temporarily contain criminals until their sentence (usually execution) is carried out. There is only exile, pardoning, and death. Death is the most common one. Their world does not have a department of corrections and rehabilitative programs. So when Daenerys executes criminals, it’s understandable that fans overlook it because the show chooses to overlook executions when they’re committed by other heroic characters like Jon, Arya, and Sansa. Perhaps Daenerys’ good intentions and immense success in helping others are seen as worth focusing on over her medieval methods, especially since they all live in a medieval society with relative standards of morality. The lack of moral consequences for other characters’ executions lessens the weight of Daenerys’ moral ambiguity. 

On the other hand, critics of Daenerys’ character might focus on the crimes she has committed over the positives that she has achieved. This is what the ending of the show wants fans to do. After years of endearing the audience to the character with heroic moments and examples of her compassion, the ending demands fans to suddenly impose double standards and criticize Daenerys’ actions when they are not so different from those of other heroic characters.

It is possible for a version of the show to exist where Daenerys’ crimes and foreshadowing of her fate to lead up to her destroying King’s Landing. Daenerys is a character that has committed acts that preclude her from being considered pure in her morals. In order to execute the intended version of her character, the show would need to be fair in its passing judgment on the characters and question Jon, Arya, and others for their executions as well. Plot contrivances such as Tyrion’s decrease in intelligence and the lapse in logic for Varys to think Daenerys is losing her sanity would need to be resolved. Sexist undertones such as Daenerys’ grief being considered as signs of latent madness would also need to be removed.

Daenerys may have originally been intended to be a flawed representation of a hero, but double standards, retcon of character motivations, and plot contrivances cause her moral ambiguity to be seen as in absolutes.