In the intricate political and familial tapestry of Westeros, characters often serve as archetypes for broader philosophical ideas. Aemond Targaryen, the second son of King Viserys I and Queen Alicent Hightower, emerges as one of the most compelling figures in the narrative of the Dance of the Dragons. Often reductively labeled a villain, his character possesses a chilling coherence when interpreted through a Nietzschean lens. Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power posits that the essential drive of human beings is not a Schopenhauerian “will to live,” but a more profound “will to power”. The instinct will for growth, expansion, and the overcoming of all obstacles, including societal morality (Nietzsche 1968). Aemond Targaryen’s life represents a literal and metaphorical performance of this will, making him a tragic exemplar of Nietzschean thought in a feudal fantasy world.

To understand Aemond, one must first understand the philosophical terrain. Nietzsche’s will to power is not merely a desire for political dominance but a metaphysical principle. He asserts that “life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation” (Nietzsche 1968). This drive necessitates the rejection of slave morality which labels the powerful “evil” out of resentment in favor of a master morality that creates its own values (Nietzsche 1966). The ultimate expression of this will is the Übermensch (Overman), who transcends the herd mentality and affirms his own values through self-creation and self-mastery. While Aemond is no idealized Übermensch, his actions consistently follow the path of this transcendent, amoral will.

Aemond’s early life is defined by the frustration of his will to power. As a second son in a dynastic system, he is structurally marginalized. His initial powerlessness is compounded by his lack of a dragon, the ultimate symbol of Targaryen potency. This lack makes him an object of ridicule, most painfully during the incident where his nephews Jacaerys and Lucerys Velaryon prank him with a pig disguised as the “Pink Dread” (Martin 2018, 376). This humiliation fosters what Nietzsche termed ressentiment: a corrosive, repressed hatred born of weakness that seeks compensation (Nietzsche 1994).

However, Aemond’s path diverges from the passive ressentiment of the slave. Instead, it fuels a furious drive for self-overcoming. He dedicates himself to martial prowess, becoming the most skilled young warrior of his generation. This discipline is an early manifestation of his will to power, transforming his inferior status through sheer force of will and effort.

The pivotal moment in Aemond’s arc is his claiming of the dragon Vhagar, the largest and most powerful in the world. This act is a pure Nietzschean appropriation. He does not ask permission; he simply takes, risking his life to overpower the will of a ancient creature. His success is the ultimate act of self-overcoming, instantly transforming him from the powerless little brother to one of the most formidable individuals in Westeros.

The subsequent confrontation, where he loses his eye to Lucerys Velaryon, becomes a crucible for his Nietzschean transformation. His declaration, “I may have lost an eye, but I gained a dragon” (Martin 2018, 384), is a profound act of what Nietzsche calls the “transvaluation of values”. He rejects the common-sense valuation (an eye is a tragic loss) and creates his own value system: the acquisition of ultimate power is worth any price. He spiritualizes his loss into a symbol of his triumph, moving beyond conventional judgments of good and bad. The wound becomes a badge of honor, a testament to his willingness to risk everything for power.

Later on, Aemond’s kills his nephew Lucerys . Kinslaying is the most heinous taboo in Westerosi society, a foundational element of its “slave morality.” Aemond’s initial intent was to carve out his nephew’s eye as repayment, an act of brutal reciprocity that already places him outside the norms of civilized conduct.

The accidental nature of the dragons’ fight does not absolve Aemond in the eyes of the world, nor does he seek absolution. He embraces the identity of “Aemond the Kinslayer.” This acceptance is critical. Rather than being crushed by societal condemnation, he incorporates it into his identity, wearing the title like armor. By accepting the mantle of the ultimate sinner, he demonstrates his transcendence of Westerosi morality. He is, in effect, Nietzsche’s “sovereign individual” who has the right to make a promise and answer only to himself, even for a monstrous act (Nietzsche 1994, II).

Upon becoming Prince Regent for his injured brother, Aegon II, Aemond’s will to power finds its fullest political expression. He seizes the iron-and-ruby crown of Aegon the Conqueror, stating it looked better on him than on his brother (Martin 2018, 504). This is a symbolic act of supreme Nietzschean assertion: he openly declares his superiority and appropriates the ultimate symbol of power for himself. His rule, though brief, is characterized by decisive and ruthless action, further demonstrating his transition from a creature of ressentiment to a wielder of active, political Macht.

Despite embodying the will to power so thoroughly, Aemond remains a tragic figure rather than a true Nietzschean Übermensch. The Übermensch is a creative, self-mastered being who channels his will into affirming life and creating new values. Aemond’s will is ultimately reactive and destructive. His identity is forever tied to his childhood humiliation and his rivalry with his nephews. He is driven by a need to compensate for past injuries rather than a purely affirmative creative drive. His story ends not in transcendence but in a mutually destructive battle with his uncle, Daemon, a mirror of his own ruthless pursuit of power. He is consumed by the very forces he sought to master, demonstrating the perilous and often self-destructive nature of an unchecked will to power that lacks higher purpose or self-awareness.