Spoilers Game of Thrones: The Final Season

Well, in that case I think if you allowed Winterfell to vote they would have elected the Starks, so that particular case is a bit different.

But I would submit that any other leader on the show with the exceptions of Ramsay and Jaffrey would have accepted the surrender, and at most executed the top generals and the enemy leader. Even Cersei would have brutally tortured Dany if the roles were reversed, but would have stopped burning the city when they surrendered.

There's a huge amount of moral grey in the show, but there's a HUGE difference between killing people in war, and executing people after the war.

So that's why it is in line with her previous actions. No, her prior actions are not objectively worse than other characters' actions previous to that point. But they ARE more predictive of a mass murdering of noncombatants.

 

So? How is the same not true for Tarlys (Except that they at least were adults.) Tarlys were traitors who led the sacking of Highgarden. They certainly had way more blood in their hands than Olly. And they were even given a way to avoid the execution, so certainly Daenerys was much more merciful with them than Jon was with Olly.

 

You mean exactly like Dany did with the Tarlys? Except that she gave them an option to submit instead.

No one is defending burning of the city! That was bullshit insane levels of evil! (Though considering that Cersei wildfire on her own city, I really wouldn't be sure she wouldn't burn an enemy city.)

Yes.

No. In fact Daenerys was a character who had shown unusual concern for the wellbeing of the commoners, and her self image was largely built around that. Being ruthless towards people who directly oppose her or people who hurt and exploit smallfolk would be in character, burninating thousands of commoners certainly wasn't.

 

Season 8 Soundtrack Now Available

 

Like I said, the fact was she was on a road to believing that her family deserved to be overthrown. We also have the fact Rob Hayes started a war to avenge his father and also there was Jon Snow invading Winterfel to avenge the Stark family. None of the characters are free from Medieval bias.

BUT as we see with Westeros, Daeny's armies ended up saving all of humanity.

 

Was Olly only 10, I thought he was about 12 or 13 in the show?

The Targaryens only had about 300 years of history to back her claims to rule compared to thousands of years in the case of the Starks and many other of ruling families. Even the Baratheons had the Durrandon line going back to the Age of Heroes.

As the Targaryens came to Westeros as non-Westorosi conquerors than it is only fair and just that they lost the throne by conquest and don’t see any reason why the Westerosi should have to give any credence to either Daenerys’s and Jon’s claim to the Seven Kingdoms.

 

They saved the world from zombies and the alternative is an incestuous psychopath?

 

Having watched the final episode now - well, most of it - I can well imagine that perhaps this happened without enough foreshadowing in the immediately preceding episodes and "felt rushed" to a lot of folks.

That said, the turn of events makes perfectly fine narrative, emotional and moral sense. It's almost classic in certain regards - Shakespeare's Julius Caesar comes to mind, for one - and, to be blunt, assertions that it's poor writing or somehow "fails the characters" are utterly without foundation.

Okay, we loved Daenerys and didn't like seeing it all turn out badly for her, got that. So?

 

An article that summarizes a lot of my problems with the Game of Thrones finale. https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ersei-jon-snow-zizek-revolution-a8923371.html

 

Yes, I think that's the main sticking point with the detractors of the final season. We didn't want Ned Stark to be executed either, nor we wanted Rob Stark and his mother and pregnant wife getting murdered. Unexpected events are what made this show famous, and Dany turning into the dark side was foreshadowed plenty of times. I have no issues with it and I am more than happy that the real heroes of the series (The Starks) got happy endings.

 

You are a sick and twisted person to be holding up Ramsay Bolton as a justification for your beliefs.

 

Oh, so now again it matters whether the cruelty was committed to evil people or not! Make up your mind!

 

The children Dany killed were not offered the option of surrendering and bending the knee. Olly was offered by Jon that option.

As far as the Tarlys, Dany had a choice. She could respect free will and negotiate a truce, or she could kill them mercilessly with a terrible death of being burned alive. Her choice tells us much.

 

I have made up my mind. You are sick and twisted. You are holding up Ramsay Bolton as an example of moral equivalency. That says all I need to know.

 

What are you talking about? Olly was not offered an option, he was just hanged. And I am not talking about Dany's actions in the Bells, but before that.

 

Good lord, if you really don't understand this scene it's not worth talking to you.

 

You're now called me sick and twisted twice for an opinion on a TV show. That might be against the board rules.

Tyrion said that Dany’s actions were only acceptable to us because all her previous victims were evil. No shit! Just like it was acceptable to us that Ramsay was killed, because he was evil! And that is fine. Because there is a massive difference between killing evil people and killing innocent people and pretending that there isn't is pretty damn twisted. That Dany killed evil people (often as punishment for hurting the innocent) should not lead to conclusion that she would hurt innocent people too, anymore than we would conclude the same from Jon executing traitorous murderers or Sansa killing Ramsay.

Dany's turn in the Bells was unnatural. It would have felt equally bizarre if Jon had suddenly started to chop down fleeing civilians, and then people would say, well, he executed those traitors, so obviously we should have seen it coming that he would start to murder civilians next! Targaryen madness!

 

Yes, that scene where he offers no second chances. He asks for last words. You know, last, because they're gonna be killed.

 

Why did he bother? Why not just kill them?

 

Because he is a nice guy? Or it is a custom? I don't know, but it was pretty clear that it was too late to repent at that point.