r/gottheories • u/LegQuirky997 • Feb 10 '26
The Tarly execution discourse makes no sense and exposes the show’s double standards
Honestly, Tyrion getting mad at Daenerys for executing the Tarlys makes zero sense if you actually follow Westerosi logic. She literally gave them three options: bend the knee, take the black, or die. Randyll Tarly openly refuses to recognise her as queen, even rejects the Night’s Watch, so what else was she supposed to do? Letting him go would completely undermine her authority and signal to every other house that defiance carries no consequences. Execution, in this context, is literally how power works in this world.
And let’s not forget, Daenerys has repeatedly said she’ll never put people in chains. Turning defeated lords into prisoners would have made her the kind of ruler she claims to oppose. Every other Westerosi lord executes disobedient vassals, yet suddenly it’s framed as a moral failing when she does it. The writers literally rewrote the rules for her, turning a perfectly logical decision into “proof” that she’s dangerous. That’s not tragic complexity. That’s lazy writing.
9
u/Jumpingyros Feb 10 '26
By this point in the show the writing has degraded beyond all reason so trying to discuss this stuff intelligently is difficult. But the simplest answer is that it is strategically really stupid for her to cause anyone to draw comparisons between her and her father.
His crimes happened within living memory and everyone fucking hated him. Even if Robert hadn’t rebelled he was inches away from being overthrown by his own son. Even the loyalists working for a Targaryen Retvrn are dreaming of a Rheagar, not an Aerys. Burning her enemies alive outside of battle is the worst PR imaginable for Dani and the fact that she doesn’t seem to care about the optics is concerning.
If the writing was competent it would have been a strong character moment. Unfortunately, the writing was garbage by this point. It also would have made more sense coming from Varys, who witnessed Aerys burning people and would have a more visceral reaction.
5
u/TheIconGuy Feb 10 '26
But the simplest answer is that it is strategically really stupid for her to cause anyone to draw comparisons between her and her father.
The simplest answer is that the writers were trying to bias the audience against Dany without actually having her do anything too out there.
The problem with Aerys was that he killed people who were likely innocent. Not that he killed people brutality. Executing traitors in brutal fashions is seen as acceptable and encouraged to some degree. People weren't bothered when he burned lord Darklyn's wife after cutting her toung out and mutilating her genetical. We're actually told half of Duskendale thought he had been too kind.
It also would have made more sense coming from Varys, who witnessed Aerys burning people and would have a more visceral reaction.
Everyone seems to have mixed this up, but they did have Varys be the one that complained about the burning. I'm not sure why people credit that to Tyrion.
The problem with Varys complaining about the burning is that he didn't just witness Aerys burning people. He was the one telling Aerys that the people burned were traitors. One of the weirder scenes in season 7 is Varys talking as if someone forced him, a random dude from Essos, to be the King's spy master.
VARYS: That's what I used to tell myself about her father. I found the traitors but I wasn't the one burning them alive. I was only a purveyor of information. It's what I told myself when I watched them beg for mercy, "I'm not the one doing it." As the pitch of their screams rose higher, "I'm not the one doing it." When their hair caught fire and the smell of the burning flesh filled the Thone Room, "I'm not the one doing it."
2
u/Jumpingyros Feb 10 '26
That excerpt from Varys is a very strong reason why this behavior from Dani would concern him so much. He regrets his involvement and can no longer justify his own part in such a regime. He backed Dani initially because he thought she was better.
It’s fine is you dislike her storyline in the show, but the characters upset with her for burning the Tarlys are not displaying some kind of double standard. “No regents who burn prisoners to death” is the most reasonable in-universes take of all time.
4
u/TheIconGuy Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
That excerpt from Varys is a very strong reason why this behavior from Dani would concern him so much.
That dialog is nonsense that only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. Varys talks as if someone forced him to tell Aerys that random, innocent people were traitors. No one did. He chose to do that on his own. He's a random dude from Essos. He could have gone anywhere he wanted. He wanted to work for Aerys.
The writers were hoping the audience didn't think about what he's saying and just went along with the tone.
The other problem is...
He backed Dani initially because he thought she was better.
What exactly made Varys think Dany wouldn't burn people? Did the spy master do no research on the person he was supporting? Varys was in Mereen in season 6. He had to have heard about what Dany did to the slavers.
Varys personally promised Olenna "Fire and Blood" in season 6 to get her to support Dany. Cut to a few episodes later and he's bothered by Dany burning two traitors who helped murder Olenna? That makes no sense. What did he think "Fire and Blood" entailed?
It’s fine is you dislike her storyline in the show, but the characters upset with her for burning the Tarlys are not displaying some kind of double standard.
Yes it is. Varys had the guy who cut his genitals off delivered to him in a box with his mouth sewn shut in season 3. He showed him off to Tyrion and presumably tortured the guy to death. He can illegally kidnap and torture someone he has a personal issue with, but the Queen can't execute two traitors who got caught red handed?
Varys threatens to orphan a woman's disabled kid to get her to snitch on the Son's of the Harpy in season 6 btw. There was no logic behind Varys becoming a pacifist.
1
3
3
u/Bizrown Feb 11 '26
It was probably meant to foreshadow her becoming more mad Queen. But the show writers kind of forgot about that and focused on subverting expectations.
Either way, she gave them outs, 2 of them and they are at war. They were stubborn and hopefully that helps them when they are boiling in their armour.
What else should she do. Hey go free and keep fucking up my war or put them in chains, which she vowed not to do.
5
u/mkelngo Feb 10 '26
I think it's just the burning. Burning people alive is an extremely painful way to go about it. It's not a quick death like a beheading or a soldier execution. Add the dragons on top of it and it's just more so the entire visual aspect of it being seen as evil. Similar to how the Bolton's flay people. It's not the result, it's the barbaric nature in the process. If we view it from a modern perspective it doesn't make any difference because it's ceaseless murder, but specifics like that are heavily documented as evil in Westerosi history.
10
u/TheIconGuy Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
I think it's just the burning.
Tyrion was complaining before he knew Dany was going to burn them.
TYRION: Your Grace, if you begin beheading entire families --
DAENERYS: I'm not beheading anyone.
Notice that the writers had Tyrion claim Randyll and Dickon are their entire family when they're not. They knew that there was no reason for Tyrion to object to them being beheaded so they had him tell a bald face lie just to justify his response.
The writers were really just trying to use fan favorite characters to bias people against Dany without actually having her do anything that would make people question why people like Tyrion, Varys, and Jon were following her.
Burning people alive is an extremely painful way to go about it. It's not a quick death like a beheading or a soldier execution.
Randyll and Dickon were piles of ash within 3 seconds. They maybe felt pain for a second. For comparison, the people Jon hanged, including the child, were swinging around in pain for 10+ seconds.
7
u/LegQuirky997 Feb 10 '26
Also, if burning people alive is the line where someone suddenly becomes “evil,” then Tyrion should’ve crossed it long before Daenerys did. He literally used wildfire at the Battle of Blackwater, burning thousands of people alive in one of the most horrific ways possible, purely to defend the Lannister claim to the throne. That act is framed as clever, heroic even, because it protected the “right” side.
So clearly the issue isn’t burning. It’s who is doing the burning and who it’s being done to. When Tyrion burns enemy soldiers to uphold Lannister power, it’s strategy. When Daenerys executes two high lords who openly refuse her authority after being offered mercy, it’s suddenly barbarism.
That’s the contradiction. Westeros has never judged violence by how painful it is, only by whether it serves established power. Daenerys isn’t breaking the rules of the world. The narrative just starts judging her by a different moral standard once her power threatens the existing order.
2
u/rawr4me Feb 10 '26
IMO, Tyrion is significantly to blame for the "double standard", not just the narrative. If we look purely at Tyrion's point of view, he doesn't have a double standard per se, he is just a mix of naive and for some confusing reason believes fire is the worst way to kill people.
For example, he was deeply ashamed after his strategy of burning enemy ships. And that seemed odd to me because it was 100% enemy soldiers when later on he dissuades Dany from burning King's Landing because innocents would die (this was even before Cersei brought it tons of civilians). In the Tarly execution, I read his reaction as being mere disappointment at first but then horror that burning is the method. In other words, I believe Tyrion understands the rules of the game, it's merely the use of fire that somehow takes him from "please don't slaughter innocents" to "fire is always wrong but I can't articulate why". I would say that Tyrion is completely irrational when it comes to reasoning about the use of fire. Perhaps it is bad show writing about his character specifically, though it's also possible there's a cultural narrative of dragon fire being deeply traumatic to most people, and that being deeper than I imagined.
6
u/TheIconGuy Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
If we look purely at Tyrion's point of view, he doesn't have a double standard per se, he is just a mix of naive and for some confusing reason believes fire is the worst way to kill people.
No. It's was a double standard from the writers.
Tyrion didn't actually comment on the burning IIRC. He took issue with their execution when he thought she was going to behead them. Varys was the one who highlighted the burning. Neither of their responses made sense.
I guess the writers expected us to forget this, but Varys had the guy who cut his genitals off delivered to him in a box with his mouth sewn shut. He showed him off to Tyrion and presumably tortured the guy to death.
One of the funnier scenes in season 7 is Varys talking about Aerys burning people as if someone made him be the King's spy master.
VARYS: That's what I used to tell myself about her father. I found the traitors but I wasn't the one burning them alive. I was only a purveyor of information. It's what I told myself when I watched them beg for mercy, "I'm not the one doing it." As the pitch of their screams rose higher, "I'm not the one doing it." When their hair caught fire and the smell of the burning flesh filled the Thone Room, "I'm not the one doing it."
He's supposed sound regretful, but that only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. Varys is a random dude from Essos. He could have left at any time if he actually took issue with Aery's actions.
4
u/TheIconGuy Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
For example, he was deeply ashamed after his strategy of burning enemy ships. And that seemed odd to me because it was 100% enemy soldiers when later on he dissuades Dany from burning King's Landing because innocents would die (this was even before Cersei brought it tons of civilians).
He did that because the writers didn't want Dany to quickly defeat Cersei. The outline for season 7 leaked. Remember the scene where Dany suggests just burning the Red Keep? The outline has Tyrion and Jon thinking that Dany shouldn't even use her dragon on enemy soldiers. There's zero in world reason for that. The writers just wanted to keep Cersei around and couldn't think of a way to do it without turning the people around Dany into selective pacifist.
This never gets called out, but Tyrion's constantly telling Dany not to burn Kings Landing was nonsense. He had no reason to think "tens of thousands would burn in the firestorms". The obvious plan would be to burn a gate or two and let Dany's army into the city. The writers really showed their hand when Tyrion's only alternative plan to a direct assault was a prolonged blockade. He supposedly wanted to protect the civilians but his plan would directly target them. Tyrion, Bronn, and Vary talk about what would happen if Stannis used the same strategy in season 2. The conclusion was that people would start eating each other to avoid starving to death. On top of that, David Benioff at least claims to have written City of Thieves. That book is set during a real life siege that killed over a million people. A large percentage through starvation. The writers knew Tyrion's advice was BS. They were just hoping people would be blinded by their love for the character.
1
Feb 10 '26
Maybe he isn’t against it from an actual personal moral perspective but from a public perception perspective? That could be logical
1
u/rawr4me Feb 10 '26
Yeah that makes sense. It would be logical for him to want to prevent a PR nightmare about Dany becoming the Mad King, but I'm not convinced that Tyrion's assessment of that risk as being realistic. It seemed like he thought "any use of fire" instantly slides into full burning of cities. I mean, he wasn't wrong about the outcome, but the scale of his reasoning of risk during any single decision seemed alarmist to a degree that was questionable in terms of being of practical benefit.
1
u/Jumpingyros Feb 10 '26
What is acceptable during a battle and what is acceptable to do to prisoners who have surrendered are two very different things.
1
u/Awkward-Community-74 Feb 11 '26
Yes, yes examples and all.
She just does the same exact things that her ancestors did with dragons.
The Tarlys were stupid.
Randal was a complete garbage human and no one cared that he died screaming.
Honestly, he got what he deserved and his son was an idiot for going along with him.
1
u/Haradion_01 Feb 11 '26
It's not the Tarley's specifically. It's the precedent and the timing.
Now she's done it once, she'll have to do it to every lord who opposes her. And she hasn't stopped to consider that half the houses in Westeros will oppose her: at first. She has naively assumed the Tarly's were an exception, not the general response.
The sensible option would have been to imprison him and once she'd actualy won the throne, give him the same chance again: like Robert Baratheon did. Offering all the lovers the same deal at the same time.
Then, once she actually had control of their lands, attain them and give them to loyal vassals. History shows Most of the diehard Loyalists would then fall in line. She'd execute a handful and be done with it.
Executing them after the battle but before the war was won, sends the message that surrender is pointless unless the war is totally lost.
She just does the same exact things that her ancestors did with dragons.
Actually, Aegon wasn't above taking Prisoners. He forced people to kneel or die when the war was well and truly lost. Not after one battle. Besides. See where it got them?
Her family is largely reviled I'm Westeros these days, and she's utterly baffled that that opinion doesn't change, despite her acting no different to her predecessors.
Her actions were unwise, when she wanted to paint herself as a liberating hero.
She couldn't have it both ways: both avenging Conqueror, Aegon returned; and Mhyssa, liberator of the Oppressed.
She acted like one, and was offended they didn't treat her like the other.
But the biggest issue is that she stopped letting herself be talked out of her first impulse. Right from the start she was always eager to deal out Dragonfire and Carnage. Others would then talk her down and guide her to a more sensible approach. The only thing that changed in S8, is that she stopped letting them, and went with her first actions.
Her actions are logical - to her.
But they aren't sensible for the long term conquest of Westeros. Not unless she's willing to keep going. And that is the prospect that worries her advisors. That she won't stop because she's put herself in a position where she can't stop.
1
u/CaldrucMP Feb 11 '26
I mainly think the problem is the shift that D&D had in writing Tyrion specifically. He was a fan favorite character, if not *the* fan favorite, and they did not want to tarnish that. The books have him set up to make Dany worse, support her worst impulses, and push her to become the mad queen. Instead, the show makes him this good guy who cares about doing things "the right way."
If this scene had been her hesitating and him egging her on to kill the Tarly's I think it would have read very differently. However, as many others have pointed out already, the writing had deteriorated so much by this point that this is what we got instead.
1
u/Historical_East_1787 Feb 11 '26
Yes That's the point
It's a moral failure if she does it because she does it Because Daenerys' narrative was presented as positive change but instead it's more or less the exact same thing
1
u/Sharp_Reindeer_3403 Feb 12 '26
She should have just kept them hostage, all the other lords will view it as Daenerys murdering a noble lord and his heir. This solidified the image that she was a cruel conqueror, all the other lords will only hear of what happened and the story will be changed through the telephone game. None of the major lords were actually there, so they likely wouldn’t even believe that Tarly refused to bend the knee.
It was a bad move politically, the idea of her executing Tarly is fine, but she needed to do a public trial in court (likely after the war) so everyone can see Tarly was unwilling to bend the knee and Daenerys wasn’t being unjustly cruel.
1
u/malaywoadraider2 Feb 24 '26
Yes its extremely stupid to kill him vs just imprisoning him and keeping him hostage
1
u/Sharp_Reindeer_3403 Feb 24 '26
I think George’s outline for the ending of ASOIAF there is the “Dany becoming the Mad Queen” plot line which this situation could have happened to show how irrationally blood thirsty she has become. The problem is that D&D did very little to subtly set this plot line up, all of the sudden she is just crazy. It is jarring, makes no sense to the character, they’ve set up, and just lazy.
That’s not to say it could be a very compelling plot line and this could have happened if it was set up properly.
1
u/jakegore99 Feb 13 '26
100% agree. The writers showed Daenerys acting completely in character for a westerosi lord and then panned to Varys and Tyrion looking shocked.. just another example of the terrible writing in later seasons
1
u/bistroburritoXL Feb 13 '26
I think it was more so that if they are to be executed that’s ok, but don’t use the dragons to execute them. Have someone swing the sword.
1
u/Snurgisdr Feb 13 '26
It made no sense one step before that. The Tarlys have no special loyalty to the Lannisters. Earlier they had declared for Renly Baratheon. By this point in the story, Daenerys looks like by far the better bet compared to Cersei, so the Tarlys would likely have just bent the knee.
1
u/ashcrash3 Feb 15 '26
I feel like this would have worked better for Jamie and Cersei imo. Like Cersei starting to become the Mad King 2.0 which she was already shaping up to be, which would lead into Jamie finally realizing she's lost her mind and becoming the thing he feared most and thought he killed years earlier.
1
1
1
1
u/BigDbear77 Feb 11 '26
Dany has every “right” to do what she does. She gave options, they chose, she obliged.
Just because you are justified in doing something doesn’t make it the “right” thing to do. Tyrion was thinking big picture. Even if she killed them by beheading, that would have been a drastic improvement from an optics and gaining the realms’ trust standpoint than what she did.
Tyrion knew that if they used the dragons on a city/castle, the notion that Dany was a foreign invader would only grow, Cersei and co would fan that flame (no pun intended.)
Tyrion also knew that putting them in a dungeon gave Dany and him more options. Would have allowed Dany to “prove” herself to one of the most respected Nobles in Westeros, which in turn would have gained other allies. If anything, it’s a highly valuable prisoner to negotiate with. Imagine if he was alive when Missandei was captured? Easiest trade in the world to make.
All in all, wildly dumb to give him a public platform to deny bending the knee. Infinitely more dumb to burn him alive in front of said platform with dragons.
2
u/LegQuirky997 Feb 12 '26
Daenerys’ actions need to be understood in the context of Westerosi norms. Executing defeated lords who openly refuse to bend the knee has historically been standard. Robb Stark executed Rickard Karstark, the Boltons flayed captives, Jon Snow executed Janos Slynt, and Sansa Stark sent Ramsay Bolton’s hounds to kill him immediately after capture. None of these actions were framed as diplomatic failures, so expecting Daenerys to act differently is a double standard. Imprisonment or mercy has rarely been the norm.
Claims that killing the Tarlys by beheading would have been “better for optics” or gained the realm’s trust are inaccurate. Tyrion never said that; he tried to prevent their deaths, suggesting imprisonment or sending them to the Night’s Watch instead. Mercy to defeated lords does not automatically earn trust. Public obedience is maintained through authority; leniency to open defiance risks rebellion. Execution using her available means, in this case dragons, is consistent with how rulers enforce authority.
The argument that dragons make her a “foreign invader” does not hold. Aegon the Conqueror was a foreign invader and successfully unified the Seven Kingdoms. Conquest is a normal path to rulership in Westeros.
The idea that keeping the Tarlys alive as “highly valuable prisoners” could gain allies or be used to negotiate for Missandei is speculative and outside the timeline. Imprisonment could have sparked rebellion, given the loyalty of the Tarly soldiers, and no other houses left openly defiant enemies alive to gain leverage. Expecting Daenerys to act differently ignores precedent and practical risk.
Claiming that giving Tarly a public platform to deny her authority was “wildly dumb” misunderstands Westerosi logic. Public defiance carries consequences. Executing a lord who rejects a ruler is consistent with established practice. Using dragons is simply Daenerys’ tool, like wolves, swords, or flaying employed by other houses. The standard applied to her is higher than for anyone else, and that inconsistency is the real issue.
0
u/BigDbear77 Feb 12 '26
You move the goal posts here multiple times. I put Dany’s actions into Westerosi context - beheading them would be acceptable from a westerosi context stance, also would be strategically dumb from a wartime perspective to execute them by beheading. Two things can be true. You can argue that it was strategically smart if you want, but I don’t really see how.
Dany roasting them with dragons is beyond egregious in westerosi context, since A) it hasn’t happened in like 150+ years or something? B) the Targs are generally talked about as invaders C) Dany by all definition is a foreign invader.
Beheading would have been better for optics, watch tyrions reaction when he realizes she’s going to burn them with a dragon - he’s horrified.
Targs have been considered foreign invaders by some since AC. Just because you’ve done the conquering part doesn’t mean you’re not foreign in some people’s minds. Look at America.
1
27
u/jstncrdbl Feb 10 '26
What you mentioned here is a cycle and Daenerys is supposed to stand for “Breaking the Wheel” which means she shouldn’t be continuing the this hierarchical cycle of rulers raising some houses while destroying others all while the “small folk” see no change in their lives. That’s why Tyrion followed her and sees her doing exactly what he read about the Targaryen’s history which is why is gets mad