Rereading Fire and Blood and I still don’t get why Daemon Targaryen keeps getting labeled as this “morally gray” character.
Because from where I’m standing, his only “good qualities” are:
– hot
– cool dragon
– cool sword
And that’s it. Which is fine! You’re allowed to like a character because he’s hot and messy and fun to read about. Fiction is not a morality test. But let’s not pretend that aesthetics = moral complexity.
And please don’t say “he fought to the death for his queen.”
What he actually did was spare Nettles (which, good, but you can't call this a Redemption ) , and then he basically chose to go die dramatically while the war was still VERY MUCH happening.
There were still dragonriders on the opposing side. The conflict wasn’t over. Rhaenyra was unraveling. Daemon knew Mysaria was in her ear, actively poisoning her mind, feeding her paranoia and he just… didn’t go back.
And let’s talk about his kids. He didn’t secure their safety, didn’t remove them from danger, didn’t even seem particularly concerned about what would happen to them if he died. He just peaced out to the God’s Eye like “welp, guess this is my final arc now."
His children were still exposed, still vulnerable, still very much part of the bloodbath.
Sparing Nettles doesn’t magically balance out abandoning his wife, a still-raging war, and unprotected children.
Because what I see isn’t a man torn between right and wrong. It’s a man who consistently chooses himself (his impulses, his pride, his desires, his preferred version of honor) and forgets about everyone else
So… did I miss something? Do I have to read another book?