Which Game Of Thrones Character Is Most Likely To Die Next?

Okay, candidly, I keep circling back to Sansa as someone who could realistically die next — not because I want it, but because her storyline puts her in an alarmingly fragile spot. She's a prize and a symbol; whoever controls her gains legitimacy in the North and beyond, and that makes her a constant bargaining chip. Hands change, loyalties shift, and the people who would use her as leverage are ruthless. In addition, Sansa's growth into a political player means she attracts both allies and secret enemies who might see her as an obstacle to their plans.

I also think the emotional sting of her death would be massive for readers, which is exactly the kind of wrenching move the saga sometimes makes. It would be a brutal narrative blow that reshapes the Stark trajectory and forces other characters into darker, more desperate choices. I'd be devastated but admit it would be a powerful storytelling turn, and honestly I keep hoping the writers spare her because she’s become one of my favorites.

I keep circling back to Tyrion Lannister when I imagine the next big casualty. He’s a brilliant survivalist, sure, but he’s been walking a razor’s edge for ages — outmaneuvered family members, political enemies, and his own vices. Tyrion's arc has always flirted with the tragic: his wit and empathy make him beloved by readers, which is exactly the kind of setup the saga loves to complicate by slamming fate into a character you care about.

Look at how frequently he escapes death by a hair: that pattern can either cement him as the story’s lucky survivor or set the stage for an eventual, shattering payoff where his luck runs out. Killing Tyrion would be narratively rich — all the cleverness, the counsel, and the moral reckonings that follow would hit harder because he’s the conscience who’s often been sidelined. If the world needs a moral sacrifice to galvanize others, Tyrion is the kind of character whose fall would sting and change the game forever. I’d be gutted to lose him, but it’d be unforgettable storytelling.

Alright, here's a spicy pick: I think Cersei Lannister is the most likely to bite the dust next. I've been buried in theories and rereads of 'Game of Thrones' scenes for years, and everything about her arc just screams ticking time bomb. She's enraged, surrounded by enemies both obvious and hidden, and has that classic tragic-kingmaker hubris where every move to secure power only digs the hole deeper. The prophecy threads in the books — the ominous whispers about her children and a 'valonqar' — still hang over her like storm clouds, and if Martin wants to deliver a gut-punch payoff, her fall is the kind of Shakespearean end he'd craft: isolated, betrayed, and poetic.

Beyond prophecy, think of the practical threats: wildfire as a scapegoat or instrument, the Mountain's terrifying loyalty providing a grotesque shield that makes any eventual downfall even more dramatic, and political maneuvering that has already stripped her of allies. Cersei’s methods turn nobles into enemies and breed rebellions the way others breed armies. In narrative terms, killing her clears a monstrous obstacle and lets new coalitions form — it's a brutal, cleansing pivot.

I love how messy and human her arc is; even as I root against her, part of me is curious about the exact cadence of her collapse. If someone’s going next, my money’s on her getting the kind of end that both hurts and fits, and I’ll be oddly satisfied when it lands.

Bran Stark feels like the next likely casualty to me. It's a weird pick, but consider the symbolism: he's not just a person anymore, he's a living archive and a moral cipher. Rulers who are symbols rather than active leaders are vulnerable because they're a rallying point for opposition. Someone who resents being ruled by a whispering greenseer could make a move, and assassinating Bran would be a clean way to upend the political order.

There’s also the mystical angle. The more magic gets woven into power structures, the more likely it is to attract cosmic payback or tragic misuse. If the story wants to explore the cost of sacrificing humanity for omniscience, Bran’s death would be a brutal but thematically neat way to show that even knowledge has consequences. I’d hate seeing him go, but in the messy world of 'Game of Thrones', that’s what makes his survival feel fragile to me.

My gut says Arya Stark has the highest personal-risk profile, so she feels likely to die next. She barrels into danger on purpose, collects enemies like trophies, and her whole skill set is about close-quarters, high-stakes violence. That makes her excellent for a sudden, dramatic exit: one mission gone wrong, one face misread at the House of Black and White, and it’s over.

Also, Arya’s personality is impulsive; unlike a ruler or a schemer, she actively seeks out peril for justice or curiosity. Thematically, her death would be a savage commentary on how revenge chews people up, and it would echo the series' grim lessons about consequences. I’d rather she keeps stabbing her way through obstacles, but if the writers wanted a visceral, heartbreaking twist, Arya’s path makes her loss feel brutally plausible to me.

If I step back and look at the structural role someone plays in 'Game of Thrones', Aegon (Young Griff) stands out as a candidate with a high probability of dying soon. He's been introduced as a major destabilizer — a potential crown claimant who can upend existing plans — and stories often remove such wildcards once they've served their narrative shock. His presence forces characters into new alignments, and that makes him both a target on the battlefield and a liability to keep alive. Whether he's truly Aegon Targaryen or an impostor, his usefulness as a plot device is peak right now.

War and intrigue are converging around him, too. Armies move, loyalties fracture, and commanders tend to be ruthless about eliminating future threats. If a big battle or an assassination plot happens, Aegon is positioned exactly where he'd be exposed. From my fan-theory-filled reading list, killing him off would be an elegant way for the author to reset certain power balances while delivering emotional shock; it's the sort of bold move that shakes readers awake. I'm equal parts excited and nervous imagining that outcome, because it would rewire the whole political map.

If I had to bet on who bites it next in 'Game of Thrones', my money would be on Sansa Stark — and I know that sounds harsh, but bear with me.

She's sitting on a throne of thorns: everyone's watching her, she represents the North's stubborn independence, and her emotional armor makes her a political lightning rod. In both the show and the books, Sansa's arc has been about learning to survive in the halls of power; that makes her indispensable narratively, but also makes her a target. Characters who survive too long while holding sway tend to attract old grudges and new conspiracies, and Sansa's history with Littlefinger and the Boltons shows how personal vendettas can resurface.

Beyond politics, there's thematic precedent: the story loves tragic ironies, and killing a character who finally learns to rule would hurt in the way George R. R. Martin or the show's writers often exploit. I don't want her to die — I root for her — but if the plot needs a reverberating, emotional gut-punch, Sansa fits that bill, and I'd be quietly devastated if they took her out next.