If Tommon dies before Myrcella would Trystane have the best claim to SE?

[Protagoras]

3 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Words forming sentences

First and foremost, house Baratheon are responsible for the deaths of Rhaegar's children. Tywin might have commited the act, but Robert legalizes Tywins slaying and therefore takes the full burden upon himself for doing so. And it might not be the fault of the entire house but the house is still associated with the event. Why assume from Daenerys side that the

Secondly - there is certainly a moral right to act "wrongly" (Right and wrong are matters of opinion btw - since you seemed to be fond to point that out to my post - if you had bothered to read my signature you would had known my position on this). Its called tit-for-tat or eye for an eye. You might not like said view but it doesn't matter if you do or not. It still exists. And that you think this makes Daenerys "as bad as Maegor II, or Aerys II" by using such a ethic certainly speak loudly about your false view of justice and responsibility. Daenerys are allowed to strike back and that you try to paint her as even more evil than the original aggressor is so much devoid of fairness that it is baffling. Its like blaming a victim for striking back at the bully. You seem to think that acting in revenge is not justified, but in a society with no legal justice this is as just as you get and even in this society you will come of as one with zero interfering right (I am imagining you as the teacher who wrongly tells the kid who beats someone, that violence is wrong and refuses to see that it is a reaction to the first kids punch that you think just should be ignored). It beats letting it slide everytime, that´s for sure.

Thirdly, Daenerys only have to deal with what she find and lets get real here - the Baratheons won´t hold Storm´s End to the end of the series

Spoiler

In fact, It has already been take by Aegon in WoW. And I doubt Stannis and Shireen will ever leave the North.

so the reality Daenerys need to adapt to is that someone else but them is controlling it. So, if she end up queen why should she give it back to the Baratheons? Its not like there exist a good relation between the two and the house are very unlikely to have that much to offer anyway. As Batman said - "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you" applies here. Why reward a family who is not only claiming the crown but have done its best to kill your family in the future. If she doesn´t want to keep it herself for some reason then give it to a supporter or let the ones currently holding it, when she is sworn in, keep it.

Fourthly, I have no problem if, say Shireen, tries to take revenge on Daenerys. In fact - I like that kind of scenario. One of my favorite scenes from Kill Bill is when the Bride instructs the black girl to take justice on her one day. In general I have a soft spot for vendettas and people giving some harsh justice on innocents and guilty alike as retaliation for other injust acts. There is no double-standard here, its just you that are unable or unwilling to understand what I mean.

Fifthly, Daenerys doesn´t have to claim right of conquest but rather that she is the natural ruler and that the false ruler Robert was never really king. She could of course claim right of conquest but everyone knows that there is no really a coincidence that she invades. But no matter how she presents it there is very unlikely that the Baratheons will accept, ice zombies or no. Because acknowledging this will paint the house as a house of usurpers who rebelled against their rightful masters and that is a huge prestige-loss. And if they want to make an alliance for the future they must make work out some sort of deal, yes. Something the Baratheons didn´t do when they ousted the Targs in the first place (which was my point). So she is doing them a favor even by talking with them in the first place! Still, I am very, very sceptical that they will reswear fealty and think that if she is willing to see beyond their treason that she is overqualified to receive the Nobel peace prize.

[Daemon Blackfyre IV]

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

If they have sworn oaths to Robert then they wouldn´t accept Daenerys queenship, wouldn´t they? They would see Robert as a true king and that outlook destroys any and all possibilities toward an alliance. 

Why would they deny Robert the King as an usurper yet follow their sworn oaths to him and Edric. In fact, giving this power to Edric is bound to give problems later when said individual starts to see himself as king. 

I had posted 3 different scenarios in what I said there. I think we have to look at the Stormlands as a large group you need to unify a child of Robert would do that otherwise everyone is scattered. I believe the oath to the Lord paramount comes before the Throne. 

In Daenerys or Aegon's case they will need to rally those individual kingdoms so to get Renly and Robert's old Kingdom they will be wise to use Edric and legitimize him if they did that the Baratheon loyalists would rally to him they loved Renly and Robert.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

2 hours ago, Protagoras said:

First and foremost, house Baratheon are responsible for the deaths of Rhaegar's children. Tywin might have commited the act, but Robert legalizes Tywins slaying and therefore takes the full burden upon himself for doing so. And it might not be the fault of the entire house but the house is still associated with the event. Why assume from Daenerys side that the

Secondly - there is certainly a moral right to act "wrongly" (Right and wrong are matters of opinion btw - since you seemed to be fond to point that out to my post - if you had bothered to read my signature you would had known my position on this). Its called tit-for-tat or eye for an eye. You might not like said view but it doesn't matter if you do or not. It still exists. And that you think this makes Daenerys "as bad as Maegor II, or Aerys II" by using such a ethic certainly speak loudly about your false view of justice and responsibility. Daenerys are allowed to strike back and that you try to paint her as even more evil than the original aggressor is so much devoid of fairness that it is baffling. Its like blaming a victim for striking back at the bully. You seem to think that acting in revenge is not justified, but in a society with no legal justice this is as just as you get and even in this society you will come of as one with zero interfering right (I am imagining you as the teacher who wrongly tells the kid who beats someone, that violence is wrong and refuses to see that it is a reaction to the first kids punch that you think just should be ignored). It beats letting it slide everytime, that´s for sure.

Thirdly, Daenerys only have to deal with what she find and lets get real here - the Baratheons won´t hold Storm´s End to the end of the series

  Reveal hidden contents

In fact, It has already been take by Aegon in WoW. And I doubt Stannis and Shireen will ever leave the North.

so the reality Daenerys need to adapt to is that someone else but them is controlling it. So, if she end up queen why should she give it back to the Baratheons? Its not like there exist a good relation between the two and the house are very unlikely to have that much to offer anyway. As Batman said - "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you" applies here. Why reward a family who is not only claiming the crown but have done its best to kill your family in the future. If she doesn´t want to keep it herself for some reason then give it to a supporter or let the ones currently holding it, when she is sworn in, keep it.

Fourthly, I have no problem if, say Shireen, tries to take revenge on Daenerys. In fact - I like that kind of scenario. One of my favorite scenes from Kill Bill is when the Bride instructs the black girl to take justice on her one day. In general I have a soft spot for vendettas and people giving some harsh justice on innocents and guilty alike as retaliation for other injust acts. There is no double-standard here, its just you that are unable or unwilling to understand what I mean.

Fifthly, Daenerys doesn´t have to claim right of conquest but rather that she is the natural ruler and that the false ruler Robert was never really king. She could of course claim right of conquest but everyone knows that there is no really a coincidence that she invades. But no matter how she presents it there is very unlikely that the Baratheons will accept, ice zombies or no. Because acknowledging this will paint the house as a house of usurpers who rebelled against their rightful masters and that is a huge prestige-loss. And if they want to make an alliance for the future they must make work out some sort of deal, yes. Something the Baratheons didn´t do when they ousted the Targs in the first place (which was my point). So she is doing them a favor even by talking with them in the first place! Still, I am very, very sceptical that they will reswear fealty and think that if she is willing to see beyond their treason that she is overqualified to receive the Nobel peace prize.

No, there isn't. When you stoop to someone else's level you become as bad as they are. That's why there's a common phrase about "losing the moral high ground."

Indeed. The character in question seems to be of the opinion that harming children is wrong. 

We're required to read each others' signatures? I missed that memo.

Not blaming children for the actions of their parents is a false view of justice and responsibility? Maybe under the rock where you live, but certainly not under my rock. It's funny that you insist Dany will take your view when she has consistently chosen compassion for children since she started conquering. Even her talk about the Usurper's Dogs does not include any references to destroying their houses and killing their heirs.

No, I'm saying that Dany engaging in the same actions as Maegor and Aerys engaged in would make her AS evil, not more. That would also make her as evil as Tywin, as evil as Robert, as evil as anybody else who commit such evil acts. 

Your imagination is amusing but inaccurate. But you're right if you think that I don't equate revenge (which is personal, petty, and prone to being overdone) with justice (which is, at least in theory, objective and fair). I also believe in mercy, something that's lacking in your argument. 

Those who wronged her family are dead. It's up to her to decide the rest. But the Baratheons, if there are any left, will be seen by Westeros noble society as a whole (whatever is left of it, I mean) as the strongest claimants should anybody even want the castle after the Others are dealt with. By your logic the Starks have no claim to Winterfell because Theon took it and Ramsay burned it. By that same logic, technically Dany has no claim to the throne because her family lost it. 

That's readily apparent.

I understand it perfectly. I'm saying Daenerys is not you, and her character development thus far seems to indicate that she will not act the way you are saying she can/should. It IS in fact a double-standard to say Daenerys' exile as a result of her family's fall from power is a punishment and say that Shireen's not having a claim to her family's ancestral home due to her father's actions is not one.

Uh, no. If she claims right of conquest the entire who-usurped-who thing is moot. Several nobles houses have rebelled against their lieges over the course of the history of Westeros, and for most it did not make a huge difference in their prestige long-term. 

I see that point but I wonder what kind of deal you would have expected anyone to make with Aerys. Pulling him off the table we have Rhaella, and if she'd been interested in making any kind of deal she would not have crowned 8 year old Viserys. Viserys was not legally able to make any deals, crown or no crown. Dany wasn't born yet. Tywin's actions prevented any sort of option regarding a regency for one of Rhaegar's children. Assuming somebody suggested a deal, what would they have proposed?

Well Robert certainly wouldn't have, nor would Renly because that would have meant no crown for him. Stannis it's hard to say. He doesn't want the throne anyway, and he didn't feel quite right about rebelling against the Targaryens in the first place but couldn't fight against his own brother. But we don't know if he'll be alive by the time Dany finally arrives in Westeros. However, there's no saying what the kids (Shireen, Mya, Gendry, Edric) might do. The dragons are going to be a VERY compelling argument in favor of everyone swearing fealty to Dany. The ones who committed the treasons will likely be dead. But I like the idea of the Nobel going to her. She certainly tried her best in Meereen to reach a peace that the Harpy and Sons did not deserve. 

[Protagoras]

9 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Stuff

Did you completely miss that the entire arc for Daenerys last book was to choose war, the dragon over peace and Hizdahrs tepid kisses? And that peace means letting wrongs go unpunished where war is simple?

At any rate, we will have to wait and see, but I am speculating in a more vicious Daenerys, the one who cruxified the masters as payback 1:1. The Daenerys that realize that peace is not necessary a blessing.

As for the morality, there is no way we can reach any type of intersubjective reality. I strongly disagree on that stooping to someone else's level = you become as bad as they are, because one is a reaction to the formers action and the deterministic chain clearly say that the reaction wouldn´t have happened without the initial action, therefore giving the responsibility of the reaction to the first action as well. 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

9 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Did you completely miss that the entire arc for Daenerys last book was to choose war, the dragon over peace and Hizdahrs tepid kisses? And that peace means letting wrongs go unpunished where war is simple?

At any rate, we will have to wait and see, but I am speculating in a more vicious Daenerys, the one who cruxified the masters as payback 1:1. The Daenerys that realize that peace is not necessary a blessing.

As for the morality, there is no way we can reach any type of intersubjective reality. I strongly disagree on that stooping to someone else's level = you become as bad as they are, because one is a reaction to the formers action and the deterministic chain clearly say that the reaction wouldn´t have happened without the initial action, therefore giving the responsibility of the reaction to the first action as well. 

Daenerys' arc in the last book is about balance. She tried doing things at one extreme and it didn't work, because she was denying part of herself. Riding off on Drogon saved his life, but was not a rejection of the justice, fairness, mercy, or any of her other qualities. The point of her arc is not that it has to be one or the other, the point is that she needs to find balance.

Peace does not mean letting wrongs go unpunished. It means not allowing an endless revenge cycle to destroy everyone. And war is not simple. If it was, then Robert wouldn't have been called a Usurper, and Dorne would have been conquered with dragons.

That wasn't payback. Payback implies revenge, and revenge is personal. The crucifixion of the masters was justice for the children they themselves had crucified, and a necessary evil to make them understand that Dany would not be manipulated or intimidated by their savagery. And it was not done entirely in kind, as she did not order the killing of children but adults, and even allowed them to choose which ones among them would be killed.

The problem is that in this story there is no consensus on what constitutes the first action. Was it Robert's claiming the throne? Jaime's killing Aerys? Aerys' plan to blow up King's Landing? Tywin's order to kill Rhaegar's children? Aerys' consistent humiliation of Tywin throughout the years? Jon Arryn's refusing to give Robert and Ned's heads to Aerys? Aerys killing Brandon's friends and their fathers as well as Brandon and Rickard in a farce of a trial? Rhaegar abducting Lyanna? Rhaegar giving the QoLaB crown to Lyanna at Harrenhal? Everything that's gotten the characters to this point has been people reacting to what they considered the "first" action, and all it does is perpetuate a cycle of violence that can only end when somebody rises above it or everybody is dead. Which I might add is one of the central themes of the story...people being so caught up in their petty power struggles that the entire world is endangered by their missing the far more important threat to all of them.

[Protagoras]

5 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Daenerys' arc in the last book is about balance. She tried doing things at one extreme and it didn't work, because she was denying part of herself. Riding off on Drogon saved his life, but was not a rejection of the justice, fairness, mercy, or any of her other qualities. The point of her arc is not that it has to be one or the other, the point is that she needs to find balance.

Peace does not mean letting wrongs go unpunished. It means not allowing an endless revenge cycle to destroy everyone. And war is not simple. If it was, then Robert wouldn't have been called a Usurper, and Dorne would have been conquered with dragons.

That wasn't payback. Payback implies revenge, and revenge is personal. The crucifixion of the masters was justice for the children they themselves had crucified, and a necessary evil to make them understand that Dany would not be manipulated or intimidated by their savagery. And it was not done entirely in kind, as she did not order the killing of children but adults, and even allowed them to choose which ones among them would be killed.

The problem is that in this story there is no consensus on what constitutes the first action. Was it Robert's claiming the throne? Jaime's killing Aerys? Aerys' plan to blow up King's Landing? Tywin's order to kill Rhaegar's children? Aerys' consistent humiliation of Tywin throughout the years? Jon Arryn's refusing to give Robert and Ned's heads to Aerys? Aerys killing Brandon's friends and their fathers as well as Brandon and Rickard in a farce of a trial? Rhaegar abducting Lyanna? Rhaegar giving the QoLaB crown to Lyanna at Harrenhal? Everything that's gotten the characters to this point has been people reacting to what they considered the "first" action, and all it does is perpetuate a cycle of violence that can only end when somebody rises above it or everybody is dead. Which I might add is one of the central themes of the story...people being so caught up in their petty power struggles that the entire world is endangered by their missing the far more important threat to all of them.

Ok, fair enough. I get how you think. I don´t necessary agree and I think you will disappointed next book but I am willing to see it as a possible, logical position.