SeanF

The slavers would have known well enough what the slaves would do to them, if they lost control. They certainly understand that they are doing harm to others - as Kraznys and Xaro make plain, in their discussions with Dany.

I think the Freys will be treated with great cruelty, by their enemies.

I suspect the triangle will be Tyrion, Daenerys, Jon.

I find that plausible. But if the argument from the author is that it is immoral to use violence to oppose slavery, it must follow that every other war in the tale is immoral. It was immoral to use violence to defy Aerys. It was immoral to use violence to suppress the Greyjoy revolt. It is immoral for Jon and Stannis to fight the Boltons. It is immoral for Robb to lead an army South. The argument that “thou shalt not kill” must apply to everyone. It is an argument that I reject.

I think it is the war with the most just cause, along with Jon/Stannis’ war against the Boltons, of any that we see in this tale. Everyone else is fighting for gain/revenge. That’s not to say Dany is a pure altruist. She does get an army and a city state out of it, but there’s no such thing as a purely altruistic leader in this tale.

It’s hard to think that Abner Marsh was not speaking for the author.

Dany is not a professional soldier, whereas Robb, Stannis, Jon are. When she orders killings, her feelings are often running high, and quite often she'll agonise, subsequently, over whether she made the right choice. Robb, Stannis, Jon are far more dispassionate about killing, so to the reader, it comes over as much less of a big deal. Killing is just the way things are, a soldier's duty. And, much of the killing that is ordered by Robb and Stannis takes place off stage. Robb's soldiers hang peasant women, burn towns and villages, pillage crops and livestock, and rape widely. Roose Bolton turns Harrenhall into a concentration camp, but because he's a traitor, Robb gets exonerated from Roose's actions. The peasants are quite clear, through Arya's POV, that wolves are almost as bad as lions, but we never get to see the Northern army rolling up at some luckless village, the way we get to see the Dothraki at work in Lhazar. We never get to see a POV where Robb orders the hanging of young women, whereas we do get Dany's POV when she recalls crucifying the 163 Great Masters. Likewise Stannis, who certainly does well to prevent rape of prisoners, and protect Asha. Yet, Tyrion sees that his soldiers are burning villages as they march through the Kingswood; he employs men who torture young women (Ser Clayton Suggs likes to join in), but again, it's all taking place off stage. The one and only time we get to see Stannis do something horrible is when he has the four soldiers burned. Even then, it is ususally defended as harsh, but necessary, to maintain discipline. So, Daenerys can seem less justified when she kills, because of her emotional state, her habit of beating herself up over the decisions she's made, and because we see them upfront. Whereas killing that is dispassionate, and which takes place off stage, seems less bad. But, one ought not really to see much ethical distinction between these forms of killing.

Twain's quote applies very well to the use of violence against the slave lords of Essos, IMHO. "THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” I should add that for some of the fandom, the Terror inflicted on the slave owning class makes them "shudder" far more than the Terror inflicted by the slave owning class.

To my mind, there are characters who are unambiguously depraved. Ser Gregor, Walder Frey, Ramsay Bolton, Varamyr Sixskins, Vargo Hoat, are vile men, without redeeming features of any kind. There are no shades of grey there. To my mind, most of the slavers fall into the same category. It’s not just that they own slaves. They revel in their cruelty towards them. They institutionalise what Ramsay does at an individual level. But, I get what you saying. Adam Feldman makes the argument that the peace with the slavers was real, and just. And that thematically, Hizdahr represents peace to Dany, whereas Daario represents violence. IMHO, Daario represents terror wrought in hot blood, whereas Hizdahr and his class represent terror wrought in cold blood, lasting centuries (adopting Mark Twain’s analysis of the French Revolution). The Shavepate and Daario are not good people, but they are right that the master class needs to be purged. Not because of past crimes, but because they are incorrigible. Each concession to them fuels more demands. They hold a slave market outside the city, and Hizdahr tries to feed Penny to lions, both in breach of their promises. And, they never tell Dany about the bargain their envoys struck with Volantis.

They probably mated slaves to them, too, as in Gorgossos.

Bad fanfiction. It’s light years removed from Christopher Tolkien/Guy Gavriel Kay producing The Silmarillion.

I’d thoroughly approve if Sansa had poisoned Joffrey. Poisoning him was performing a public service. The one who must have had nerves of steel was Margaery, marrying a man who she knew would die at the feast, and then putting in an Oscar-winning performance as grieving wife.

Parts of the fandom are completely toxic. Dany's one of my favourite characters, but I'll happily acknowledge she has a vindictive streak, and makes some terrible mistakes. Sansa is a less favourite character, but I still like her, and attempts to portray her as a monster in training are absurd.

Chaining up the dragons emboldened the slavers, and led the Second Sons to switch sides.. Those who are demanding their deaths are 200 Great Masters, the Yunkish, and the Green Grace. A freedman knocks a master to the floor, when he calls Harghaz a hero. I’ve no reason to believe that Barristan is lying to himself about the state of affairs in Mereen. (Dany was not mocking Quentyn. She was laughing at the coincidence between his being called Frog, but actually being a Prince, and the fairy tale. Gerris chose to treat it as mockery, and Barristan was right to correct him). As for the Pit, it’s worth noting that Drogon was not the aggressor. He was attacked by Harghaz, and other guards, egged on by Hizdahr. It may have disgusted them to see Barsena being eaten, but they were perfectly content to see her being gutted by a boar, and perfectly happy to get off on seeing dwarves being chased and eaten by lions, so my sympathy is limited. The old slave who talked to Tyrion was clear that it was the masters who gave him “a show”, as he and other slaves looked down from the upper tier. The elite aficionados were in the front rows, closest to the action.

Dragons can be used to burn peasants - or to burn an invading pirate fleet to the waterline, or a tyrant in his castle at Harrenhall. Hargaz is a “hero” to the elite of Meereen, for his attempt to kill Drogon. The freedmen spit at the mention of his name. I see dragons as neutral, like any other weapon. A war can be unjust or it can be just, but either way, you prosecute it to the best of your ability. Warfare is not made gentler, by the absence of dragons. The War of the Five Kings is as brutal as the Thirty Years War or the Deluge. Every army, Lannister, Stark, Greyjoy, Tyrell, Baratheon perpetrates atrocities - with edged and pointed weapons. And the worst atrocity of all is inflicting death by starvation. By way of comparison are direwolves symbols of death and destruction, given that Nymeria and her pack, and Summer, kill and eat people? I likewise disagree with the O/P that the Starks are villains. But I see no ethical distinction between them and Daenerys, or between House Stark and House Targaryen, in general. One House conquered a continent, the other conquered half of it. The similarities between the families outweigh the differences.

Se7en, Threads, or The Wargame.

AIUI, space travel is purely about transportation. There is no fighting in space. With space travel now, effectively, under Paul’s control, presumably they can isolate each enemy planet in turn, and destroy its forces.

What’s really sad is that it made them millions. Maybe I should claim that I discovered some post-it notes written by Tolkien, and write a fanfic.

Skimming through Learning to Lead, we miss a lot of those posters. A lot is made at the end of Dany choosing to be Dragon, rather than Mhysa, but to me, it’s a case of both/and, rather than either/or. A good leader has to be both Mhysa and Dragon, on occasion. Striving too hard for peace in Meereen, nearly led to disaster. States don’t launch armadas, and bring thousands of soldiers onto your soil, because they want peace. People rarely lay down the whip, unless they are compelled to. And a “peace” that can only be secured by allowing people to be eaten by lions for the amusement of sadists, is a peace that is not worth having.

If it's an external enemy, then there is no issue. If say, the King faced an uprising from a section of the nobility, and he summoned the LC to take command as Hand, then it's a grey area, I think. One can argue it's taking a side, or one can argue that defending the King is defending the Realm. The doctrine of neutrality generally, becomes an even greyer area if central authority essentially collapses, as we see in ADWD.

If the Realm faced a major threat, and the LC was the best general, I think it would be entirely legal (and sensible), for the King to appoint him. Defence of the Realm is entirely in accord with the Night’s Watch vows.

I think this was a good series, which I participated in.

I think it’s justified, given that Russian oil revenues are funding the invasion.

There’s a video of the one who had his ear hacked off having it being fed to him.

Terrible vengeance was exacted on the Darklyns and Hollards, but the townsfolk lived. Had the king been killed, probably every living creature in the city would have been killed.