The burning of the Tarlys - discussion

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

10 hours ago, cade said:

I thought this scene was one of the best this season. I love how it contrasts with all the uplifting and inspiring moments we've seen with Dany and her dragons. It's important to show this dark side and highlight the duality in Dany. So many want her to either be a villain or a Mary Sue so that she can be easily dismissed, but GRRM always intended for her to have a lot of moral ambiguity and inner conflict. That conflict often isn't apparent on her face because she's learned the hard way the necessity of projecting strength and resolve, but underneath there's been an almost perpetual struggle between Mhysa and Dragon. Of course, sometimes they blend together beautifully, but the world is rarely so easy. Here, Dany recognized that strength was terrible. She took no pleasure in it. It's the first time she said 'dracarys' in a subdued way. And while the form of execution was horrific, it is Dany's way of swinging the sword, as it's established that she has a telepathic connection with Drogon.

We still saw some of Dany's good side with her offer of mercy and reiterating her pledge to help build a better world for the people, but she's in a war, she's Mother of Dragons and it was long past time to see some of her ruthlessness come out. (No, last week didn't count nearly enough for me.) I think D&D have already been straining credulity by not letting her attack the Red Keep, and I expect GRRM to take her into much darker territory in the books (though she has a long way to go before becoming a villain, and I've always been confident it won't happen).

Varys' claim that Dany needs wise counsel to avoid becoming like her father was patently absurd, and sickening moral hypocrisy. Varys conspired to sell Dany into sex slavery and have Mad Viserys (No, claiming ignorance of how crazy he was is no excuse whatsoever) invade Westeros with a khalasar. Then he used his spy network to find out that Dany was pregnant, after which he informed King Robert and followed his predictable order to have her and her unborn child assassinated. He's damn lucky that Dany has kept him alive. If she was in any danger whatsoever of becoming like her father, he wouldn't be.

Every indication is that Varys also supports Tyrion's barbaric plan to besiege a city of 500,000 civilians, which would  be far worse than anything Dany has ever done, and would almost certainly cause far more civilian deaths than attacking the Red Keep. 

To those saying Dany should've tried to persuade Randyll to become her general, I am so glad that didn't happen. Despite whatever skills he may have had, he'd proven himself to be a disloyal bigot and thus shouldn't have been trusted to serve under Dany at all, let alone in a command position. I'm already concerned about the other enemy soldiers she has now allowed into her ranks. It's reminiscent of how terribly easy she went on a vast majority of the slave masters, allowing them to stay in their palatial pyramids and retain most or all of their stolen wealth. They ended up nearly killing her and her entire anti-slavery revolution.

The writers once again dumping cold water on the "Mad Queen" theory:

David Benioff: "One of the things that Dany has found immensely frustrating in the beginnings of this war against Cersei is that she's being asked to fight on a certain moral standard and Cersei isn't. Because of that, Cersei has an advantage over her. The more ruthless opponent will often win. I wouldn't say she's acting like the Mad King, because it's rational. She's given them a choice and they choose not to bend the knee to her, and she accepts that choice and she does exactly what she told them she would do. From her standpoint, she's not acting insane in any way. She's just being tough, which is what she needs to be to win. That's one perspective. Tyrion has a different perspective, and hopefully people watching will have their own and they'll decide for themselves whether they think what she did was just or immoral."

Dave Hill: 
On Dany executing the Tarlys: "At least Dany offers them a choice. Every conqueror offers the choice of ‘bend the knee or die.’ These lords disobeyed her and disrespected her in rebellion against the rightful queen. Then she gives them a way out and they don’t take it. Her deal wasn’t even ‘I’ll let you live.’ They could have kept all their titles and land. So, yes, in one way, it’s a horrible death. On the other hand, they kind of asked for it. It’s a win-win situation and they somehow managed to find the ‘lose’ in that."

On Dany letting Jon go on his mission: "Once they know the Army of the Dead is marching, it’s time to put up or shut up. She knows he’s honest — and is honest to a fault. She’s seen the cave. She can’t continue a war and still have Seven Kingdoms to rule after the war is done. Jon is not about to send others on a deadly mission that he wouldn’t shoulder himself. She’s gotten used to the technically-in-rebellion King in the North advising her. They’re both, in a way, cut from the same cloth — they’re both idealists. They both care about the people they govern, which makes them unique in Westeros. And they both feel the same weight of the crown. All that that draws her to him. He’s good hearted and would want to ‘break the wheel’ with her."

 

They are talking from a perspective. As David Benioff says, it was written to people to make their own judgement as to Dany's sanity.

 

We must remember, this moral standard is self inflicted. She is the one claiming to be better, claiming to save Westeros. Sinking to Cersei's level invalidates that argument and makes her no better than Cersei. She can't have it both ways. She either drops the act that she's different and good or she lives up to it no matter the cost. The moment she drops it, she is comparable to Cersei but Cersei never said she was there to be good and just like Dany does.

We also have to remember that 'bend the knee or burn' is not a valid choice, its an ultimatum. No fair choice comes with the threat of death. She's not being kind or benevolent there. 

 

 

 

[Runaway Penguin]

9 minutes ago, Moon Boy for all I know said:

 I can't really blame them for not following her in her revenge-fueled rebellion against the crown.

Especially as the revenge-fueled open rebellion was, by her own admission, just continuation of plot to murder the ruling King.

[Eddard Scissorhands]

5 hours ago, I prefer summer said:

To quote Davos and Stannis, "Fewer."

true!

[Sir Dingleberry]

7 hours ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

Well, usurpers aren't allies. Euron is the head of the Greyjoy family and the Iron Islands. He reasserted his control over the fleet and arrested Yara. In Dorne, well, it's hard to say if there is anyone there except the Sandsnakes who support her. Seems pretty convoluted.

As for the Reach, (apparently) nobody there except the Tyrells themselves supported her -- the Tyrell bannermen all remained loyal to Cersei.

I'm still seeing essentially 0 support for Dany in Westeros. If she wants to reign by terror as opposed to carefully building allies and winning support, I suppose she probably can...  but why should the audience be sympathetic to her?

Ally according to Dictionary.com

verb (used with object), allied, allying.

1. to unite formally, as by treaty, league, marriage, or the like (usually followed by with or to):

Russia allied itself to France.

2. to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

verb (used without object), allied, allying.

3. to enter into an alliance; join; unite.

noun, plural allies.

4. a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose:

 

I don't really understand how you can say userpers aren't allies.  Just because they're usurping doesn't mean they can't form an alliance with someone. Under that definition, the North, Stormlands, and Eeryie weren't allies but simply three rogue kingdoms that just so happened to act to the benefit of each other during Robert's rebellion. 

 

Under your explanation for "can't be allies because usurpers and therefore can't form an alliance," the Freys were not allies of the Lannisters (even though stated several times by the Lannisters and Freys), and the Tarley's could not be allies of the Crown until the tyrells were removed because the Tyrells were the Wardens of the Reach still. 

 

Also, literally no terror is happening on Dany's part here.  Propaganda wise on the part of Cersei spreading that is but Dany is not sacking, burning and raping their way through the Riverlands like the Lannisters did, blowing up entire portions of a city in order to eliminate enemies, torturing prisoners, stealing crops from the Reach farmers, murdering past kings (Robert and his wine), ... Do I need to go on?

[snow is the man]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Tarly is a bigot, but it's not bigoted to hate the Dothraki.  They have a vile reputation for cruelty across the world.

I do think it was a good scene, as the rights and wrongs of the characters' actions can be argued either way.

This is true but I was saying it essentially made him blind to any argument if it involved siding with them. I agree the dothraki are not people I would want around either but he if the other option is cersei I would at least hear dany out

[Nerevanin]

17 hours ago, Sir Dingleberry said:

I kind of disagree with you on this but also see your point.  I think context is key.  Dany had seen individuals crucified when she took the Unsullied.  She had seen slavery on a large scale.  She may have crucified indiscriminately against the noble families of Meereen but I don't believe she wasn't justified in her response after seeing however many children crucified on her march.  Whereas Cersei dug her own whole and then blew up the sept. 

On your second point, I don't understand why everyone wasn't forced to go to the Wall either.  Makes the most sense and follows along with the whole idea that dead are coming and there aren't enough living to win.

I get that Daenerys was angry that the innocent children were killed and that she wasn't particularly keen on slavery overall. But she went and killed hundreds of innocent men too. it's very likely that only the head of every family was deciding the politics. He probably had a bunch of sons, grandsons, nephews etc who have no influence on the politic direction. Yet it is not unlikely that the head could be spared while 15 of his innocent off-springs (at least innocent of killing the children) were crucified. Daenerys got like 15 of the guilty men on the crosses, if she was lucky. The rest were probably innocent.

I agree that Cersei can blame only herself. Despite this, she was captured by a trick and then kept for weeks in a cell without a trial or anything, which isn't really fair. She was later allowed to return to the Red Keep but if she attended the trial, she would with 99,9% probability face life imprisonment, if not execution. She had no allies, Jaime was out of town, she had only one guard. I'm not saying that blowing up the sept was a good thing to do, but I kind of understand why she did.

 

16 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is an incredibly evil moral philosophy.  Dany is in a position where she is a captive, and is being threatened.

 

Daenerys was captured by Dothraki and her future was to live with former khaleesis. Cersei, although guilty, was captured by High Sparrow and her future was life imprisonment or execution. They both killed their captors to break free. I can't blame them for doing it.

[Sir Dingleberry]

22 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

I get that Daenerys was angry that the innocent children were killed and that she wasn't particularly keen on slavery overall. But she went and killed hundreds of innocent men too. it's very likely that only the head of every family was deciding the politics. He probably had a bunch of sons, grandsons, nephews etc who have no influence on the politic direction. Yet it is not unlikely that the head could be spared while 15 of his innocent off-springs (at least innocent of killing the children) were crucified. Daenerys got like 15 of the guilty men on the crosses, if she was lucky. The rest were probably innocent.

I agree that Cersei can blame only herself. Despite this, she was captured by a trick and then kept for weeks in a cell without a trial or anything, which isn't really fair. She was later allowed to return to the Red Keep but if she attended the trial, she would with 99,9% probability face life imprisonment, if not execution. She had no allies, Jaime was out of town, she had only one guard. I'm not saying that blowing up the sept was a good thing to do, but I kind of understand why she did.

 

Well I feel like 15 is an understatement but I'm with ya.  .  The only other thing that I could see in the situation is in the show Dany attempted to break the slavers and then let them rise again.  She punished for the children crucifixion then attempted to broker peace between slavers and slaves in her new order.  She failed miserably and I think it is largely because the masters made no attempt to really maintain a peace.  I mean we also saw this in the books (crucified masters and then took children hostages and none of it helped the problem). So I would agree with you a little more had the masters actually attempted to live in Dany's new world rather than becoming the sons of the harpy.

And ditto with your statement on Cersei. Except, with her life imprisonment option, wouldn't that have been like confinement to the Red Keep or am I making that up.

[Samwell_Tarly]

30 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

Daenerys was captured by Dothraki and her future was to live with former khaleesis. Cersei, although guilty, was captured by High Sparrow and her future was life imprisonment or execution. They both killed their captors to break free. I can't blame them for doing it.

There is a massive difference, yes they effectively killed their captors to break free. Daenerys did not bring this on herself, her Khal dying was not intentional. She had to do this to escape.

While Cersei was captured due to her own plans backfiring. Her blowing up the Sept was the only was she was going to get out of the mess she had created. By her smile on the balcony its look like she enjoyed it, and didnt really bother her, that as a consequence, it effectively killed her son too.

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

41 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

I get that Daenerys was angry that the innocent children were killed and that she wasn't particularly keen on slavery overall. But she went and killed hundreds of innocent men too. it's very likely that only the head of every family was deciding the politics. He probably had a bunch of sons, grandsons, nephews etc who have no influence on the politic direction. Yet it is not unlikely that the head could be spared while 15 of his innocent off-springs (at least innocent of killing the children) were crucified. Daenerys got like 15 of the guilty men on the crosses, if she was lucky. The rest were probably innocent.

I agree that Cersei can blame only herself. Despite this, she was captured by a trick and then kept for weeks in a cell without a trial or anything, which isn't really fair. She was later allowed to return to the Red Keep but if she attended the trial, she would with 99,9% probability face life imprisonment, if not execution. She had no allies, Jaime was out of town, she had only one guard. I'm not saying that blowing up the sept was a good thing to do, but I kind of understand why she did.

 

 

Daenerys was captured by Dothraki and her future was to live with former khaleesis. Cersei, although guilty, was captured by High Sparrow and her future was life imprisonment or execution. They both killed their captors to break free. I can't blame them for doing it.

Just because the head of the family makes the decisions doesn't mean that his offspring, especially the elder ones, don't carry out the orders. I highly doubt that she executed children or women that had no part in decisions of the family patriarch. Not to mention that slaver masters had overseers and advisers that were directly complicit in the treatment of the slaves, they probably boosted the numbers of the crucified people.

I agree that both Cersei and Daenerys had to kill their captors to break free. But Daenerys only killed her captors, who threatened to rape her in turn, as opposed to Cersei, who blew up the whole sept, including innocent people, Queen Mary, who's only sin was to be pretty and politically savvy, and her own family- Lancel and Kevan. 

[El Guapo]

55 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

I get that Daenerys was angry that the innocent children were killed and that she wasn't particularly keen on slavery overall. But she went and killed hundreds of innocent men too. it's very likely that only the head of every family was deciding the politics. He probably had a bunch of sons, grandsons, nephews etc who have no influence on the politic direction. Yet it is not unlikely that the head could be spared while 15 of his innocent off-springs (at least innocent of killing the children) were crucified. Daenerys got like 15 of the guilty men on the crosses, if she was lucky. The rest were probably innocent.

I agree that Cersei can blame only herself. Despite this, she was captured by a trick and then kept for weeks in a cell without a trial or anything, which isn't really fair. She was later allowed to return to the Red Keep but if she attended the trial, she would with 99,9% probability face life imprisonment, if not execution. She had no allies, Jaime was out of town, she had only one guard. I'm not saying that blowing up the sept was a good thing to do, but I kind of understand why she did.

 

 

Daenerys was captured by Dothraki and her future was to live with former khaleesis. Cersei, although guilty, was captured by High Sparrow and her future was life imprisonment or execution. They both killed their captors to break free. I can't blame them for doing it.

I am sorry but there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for you make such a claim other than you trying to make a character you don't like look as bad as possible.

[cade]

 

[Nerevanin]

58 minutes ago, Sir Dingleberry said:

Well I feel like 15 is an understatement but I'm with ya.  .  The only other thing that I could see in the situation is in the show Dany attempted to break the slavers and then let them rise again.  She punished for the children crucifixion then attempted to broker peace between slavers and slaves in her new order.  She failed miserably and I think it is largely because the masters made no attempt to really maintain a peace.  I mean we also saw this in the books (crucified masters and then took children hostages and none of it helped the problem). So I would agree with you a little more had the masters actually attempted to live in Dany's new world rather than becoming the sons of the harpy.

And ditto with your statement on Cersei. Except, with her life imprisonment option, wouldn't that have been like confinement to the Red Keep or am I making that up.

To your first paragraph: Sure, I agree. But I can't really blame the maesters for not bowing under a foreign invador who came to destroy their culture, however bad or good it was. But I agree with what you said.

To your second paragraph: I dare to say that the conditions of imprisonment are very unpredictable. On one hand you could argue that Tommen would try to protect her and to make the rest of her life as comfortable as possible. On the other hand, at the time of the trial Tommen was under influence of Margaery who was doing whatever High Sparrow wanted. It's hard to say imo what Tommen would or wouldn't do and if he would try to defend Cersei.

 

53 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

There is a massive difference, yes they effectively killed their captors to break free. Daenerys did not bring this on herself, her Khal dying was not intentional. She had to do this to escape.

While Cersei was captured due to her own plans backfiring. Her blowing up the Sept was the only was she was going to get out of the mess she had created. By her smile on the balcony its look like she enjoyed it, and didnt really bother her, that as a consequence, it effectively killed her son too.

Now we are playing with words. We can easily say that Daenerys was captured by Dothraki because her plans of ruling Meereen backfired or because her efforts of commanding Drogon failed.

Yes, Cersei is guilty of killing her husband and of incest and a few other things. I'm not denying it. But I don't get what you mean by her not caring about Tommen committing suicide when arguably she did what she did to protect Tommen too. Like against HS and Margaery who was just a HS' puppet at the point.

 

38 minutes ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

Just because the head of the family makes the decisions doesn't mean that his offspring, especially the elder ones, don't carry out the orders. I highly doubt that she executed children or women that had no part in decisions of the family patriarch. Not to mention that slaver masters had overseers and advisers that were directly complicit in the treatment of the slaves, they probably boosted the numbers of the crucified people.

I agree that both Cersei and Daenerys had to kill their captors to break free. But Daenerys only killed her captors, who threatened to rape her in turn, as opposed to Cersei, who blew up the whole sept, including innocent people, Queen Mary, who's only sin was to be pretty and politically savvy, and her own family- Lancel and Kevan. 

Fine, let me rise the number to 50. Still it's very likely that some of the crucified ones were innocent. That's my point.

I'd say that most of the persons that she wanted to kill while blowing up the sept were quite well guarded. HS and his sparrows, Mace, Kevan and Margaery had their guards. It's not that easy to get to them and if they started to die one by one, the rest would be suspicious. So she killed them all at once. Sure, she killed even people that didn't really have anything to do with it. I'm not saying that it is a good thing to do. It isn't. I wouldn't call Margaery and Kevan and Lancel innocent though, they all were Cersei's enemies and dangerous ones. Innocent people are the audience in the sept and potentially some civilians outside.

Daenerys' main point was to break free. It's hard to say if it would stop her if there were some non-dothraki-leaders in the building because it's likely that she wouldn't have another chance. But this is just speculations and I am not trying to suggest anything by it.

30 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I am sorry but there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for you make such a claim other than you trying to make a character you don't like look as bad as possible.

If you think that Meereen was working as a kind of democratic republic with every non-slave person having a vote to cast to decide the principles of the politics, okay.

[Samwell_Tarly]

4 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

Now we are playing with words. We can easily say that Daenerys was captured by Dothraki because her plans of ruling Meereen backfired or because her efforts of commanding Drogon failed.

There is no play with words :S your misunderstanding the point....

4 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

Yes, Cersei is guilty of killing her husband and of incest and a few other things. I'm not denying it. But I don't get what you mean by her not caring about Tommen committing suicide when arguably she did what she did to protect Tommen too. Like against HS and Margaery who was just a HS' puppet at the point.

I didnt say what she did was to protect tommen or not protect tommen for that matter...... I said the consequences of what she did ultimately killed her son and she wasnt bothered about the death.....  please re read what i put and it will clarify that.

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

2 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

Yes, Cersei is guilty of killing her husband and of incest and a few other things. I'm not denying it. But I don't get what you mean by her not caring about Tommen committing suicide when arguably she did what she did to protect Tommen too. Like against HS and Margaery who was just a HS' puppet at the point.

 

Fine, let me rise the number to 50. Still it's very likely that some of the crucified ones were innocent. That's my point.

I'd say that most of the persons that she wanted to kill while blowing up the sept were quite well guarded. HS and his sparrows, Mace, Kevan and Margaery had their guards. It's not that easy to get to them and if they started to die one by one, the rest would be suspicious. So she killed them all at once. Sure, she killed even people that didn't really have anything to do with it. I'm not saying that it is a good thing to do. It isn't. I wouldn't call Margaery and Kevan and Lancel innocent though, they all were Cersei's enemies and dangerous ones. Innocent people are the audience in the sept and potentially some civilians outside.

Daenerys' main point was to break free. It's hard to say if it would stop her if there were some non-dothraki-leaders in the building because it's likely that she wouldn't have another chance. But this is just speculations and I am not trying to suggest anything

How do you know every one was innocent? They were all complicit in the slaver trade and hideous treatment of the slaves- even if they didn't personally order the crucifixion or carry out the orders, they still bought and sold human beings and created emotionless killing machines by gelding little boys and making them kill newborns and puppies. Maybe they didn't deserve to be crucified, but to call them innocent is a bit of a stretch.                                                        Margaery didn't start off as her enemy, anymore than Sansa did. She wasn't even aware of Joffreys poisoning until the event took place, and neither was Mace. They had a bargain with the Lannisters- we help you with food and army, you make Margaery a Queen. Without Tyrells, Cersei would've probably been slow roasted by Melisandre. The only reason Cersei considered Margaery an enemy is because she was younger and more beuautiful and clearly had both Joffrey and Tommen under control. Which, I agree, would be grating to someone like Cersei, but that's no reason to kill Margaery. Nor was Margaery HSs puppet- she was clearly trying to make best of the situation Cersei has put her and Tommen in by arming Faith Militant- an organisation so zealous and powerful, even Maegor I struggled to contain it. Tommen wasn't strong enough to oppose FM and HS, so reconciling with them was the best option for Tommen. 

Cersei did nothing to protect Tommen, she was the one who put him in danger in the first place. If she let go of her hatred of Marg and desire for power, he'd be much safer. She didn't attempt to reach out to him after his wife's death- sure, she hated Marg, but it was clear that he'd be cut up about her death, but instead of consoling what essentially was a 15 year old who just lost someone dear to him, she was drinking wine and gloating how she bested everyone. 

Kevan was her uncle, and as far as I know, his only fault was becoming the new hand of the King and attempting to stabilise the Lannister rule and trying to control her somewhat. Again, I agree that it is grating, but he had a point- she made colossal mistakes, alienated the few remaining allies her already infamous house has and was on the road to self destruction. That still doesn't make him her enemy.

Lancel- yes, he was dangerous to her. Again, he only became dangerous once she started scheming against Marg. 

 

[Nerevanin]

10 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

There is no play with words :S your misunderstanding the point....

I didnt say what she did was to protect tommen or not protect tommen for that matter...... I said the consequences of what she did ultimately killed her son and she wasnt bothered about the death.....  please re read what i put and it will clarify that.

Sure, she wasn't bother at all by the death of her last child. A prophecy, that you were trying to avoid all your life, coming true doesn't do a thing to you. I think it was the other way. Tommen's death broke her.

[Samwell_Tarly]

4 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

Sure, she wasn't bother at all by the death of her last child. A prophecy, that you were trying to avoid all your life, coming true doesn't do a thing to you. I think it was the other way. Tommen's death broke her.

Dont have a clue what your on about..... how can it not bother her then break her??

[Nerevanin]

4 minutes ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

How do you know every one was innocent? They were all complicit in the slaver trade and hideous treatment of the slaves- even if they didn't personally order the crucifixion or carry out the orders, they still bought and sold human beings and created emotionless killing machines by gelding little boys and making them kill newborns and puppies. Maybe they didn't deserve to be crucified, but to call them innocent is a bit of a stretch.                                                        Margaery didn't start off as her enemy, anymore than Sansa did. She wasn't even aware of Joffreys poisoning until the event took place, and neither was Mace. They had a bargain with the Lannisters- we help you with food and army, you make Margaery a Queen. Without Tyrells, Cersei would've probably been slow roasted by Melisandre. The only reason Cersei considered Margaery an enemy is because she was younger and more beuautiful and clearly had both Joffrey and Tommen under control. Which, I agree, would be grating to someone like Cersei, but that's no reason to kill Margaery. Nor was Margaery HSs puppet- she was clearly trying to make best of the situation Cersei has put her and Tommen in by arming Faith Militant- an organisation so zealous and powerful, even Maegor I struggled to contain it. Tommen wasn't strong enough to oppose FM and HS, so reconciling with them was the best option for Tommen. 

Cersei did nothing to protect Tommen, she was the one who put him in danger in the first place. If she let go of her hatred of Marg and desire for power, he'd be much safer. She didn't attempt to reach out to him after his wife's death- sure, she hated Marg, but it was clear that he'd be cut up about her death, but instead of consoling what essentially was a 15 year old who just lost someone dear to him, she was drinking wine and gloating how she bested everyone. 

Kevan was her uncle, and as far as I know, his only fault was becoming the new hand of the King and attempting to stabilise the Lannister rule and trying to control her somewhat. Again, I agree that it is grating, but he had a point- she made colossal mistakes, alienated the few remaining allies her already infamous house has and was on the road to self destruction. That still doesn't make him her enemy.

Lancel- yes, he was dangerous to her. Again, he only became dangerous once she started scheming against Marg. 

 

First, I didn't say "every one". Second, if you went back through my posts, you'd see that I specifically said "innocent of crucifying the children" which is what they were punished for by Daenerys.

Margaery made it clear that she would go over deadbodies to be "the queen". I don't remember when it happened exactly, but I remember a dialogue between Margaery and Cersei when Margaery said something like that Cersei is only the "queen widow" or something like this. It's not like Margaery was all saint. Did she deserve to die because of it? No. Did it make her a dangerous? Yes.

Kevan didn't lift a finger for Cersei although she needed help and although he was in a position of power. The same thing as Margaery: Did he deserve to die because of it? No. Did it make him a dangerous? Yes.

In a Survivor episode, one man said that if you are not with me, you are against me. Cersei is aware that it is very true in a world like GOT and she acts according to it. Still, I'm not defending her actions, I'm against killing people.

[Nerevanin]

7 minutes ago, Samwell_Tarly said:

Dont have a clue what your on about..... how can it not bother her then break her??

The first and the second line of my post were sarcasm. I forgot to add it, sorry that it confused you.

[Lord Okra]

I don't think Dany is like the Mad King.....yet.

That's kind of the whole point of the scene to show that Dany could slip down that road.  This has been a recurring theme on the show for a long time as I mentioned earlier.  This is why Tyrion and Varys have the long convo about needing to keep her from going further down that path.

Dany has a tendency to "go too far" when it comes to punishments.  Is it Mad King level yet?  No.  However, it is concerning.

As far as the Tarly stuff and the Lannister POW's......Dany turns from Westerosi traditions right away.

Tyrion tells her she can hold them as POW's........his father did that as well as Robb and all the other "good" leaders (even some not considered good) have done.  Sure, you have the Boltons and others who flay and torture prisoners but they are the exception in Westeros, not the rule.

Dany said she didn't come to put people in chains so she offered them servitude or death.

Now, that's probably better than what the Dothraki would have normally offered captives as they'd just be made slaves or killed right off.

In Westeros there are certain "rules" of war and Dany has repeatedly broken rules/traditions in Westeros.  Starting with not offering Jon guest rights and now not following the accepted rules for the treatment of enemy forces.

I like Dany but this is a recurring theme on the show when it comes to her character.  She is brutal and not very compassionate when it comes to defeated enemies UNLESS she is talked down by her advisers.

She needs Jon Snow to keep her in check.

[Princess_of_Sunspear]

25 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

First, I didn't say "every one". Second, if you went back through my posts, you'd see that I specifically said "innocent of crucifying the children" which is what they were punished for by Daenerys.

Margaery made it clear that she would go over deadbodies to be "the queen". I don't remember when it happened exactly, but I remember a dialogue between Margaery and Cersei when Margaery said something like that Cersei is only the "queen widow" or something like this. It's not like Margaery was all saint. Did she deserve to die because of it? No. Did it make her a dangerous? Yes.

Kevan didn't lift a finger for Cersei although she needed help and although he was in a position of power. The same thing as Margaery: Did he deserve to die because of it? No. Did it make him a dangerous? Yes.

In a Survivor episode, one man said that if you are not with me, you are against me. Cersei is aware that it is very true in a world like GOT and she acts according to it. Still, I'm not defending her actions, I'm against killing people.

Even if they were innocent of crucifying the children, they were still complicit of slave trade, with all that it entails. 

Margaery didn't make it clear that she will go over dead bodies to be a queen. And no one claimed she was a saint. She was repeatedly married to various kings to further her family, and she was more manipulating and calculating than someone like Sansa, but she did not threaten Cerseis life or freedom. She did insult Cersei when she asked whether she should call Cersei a "Queen Mother" or "Dowager Queen" (and funnily enough, both titles would apply, whether Cersei likes it or not), but then, Cersei has previously threatened  to have Marg strangled in her sleep for calling Cersei "sister" and pretty much insinuated that Tyrells were upjumped upstarts. The Tyrells were that, but it was rude and given how they bailed her arse out of being roasted by Stannis and having her children die in front of her, she really was biting the hand that fed her. So no, nothing justifies Cerseis scheming against Marg, it all comes down to Lannister arrogance and complete lack of understanding how politics of alliances work. It's only through the sheer strength of plot armour that's a Cersei is still alive, and her days are counted.

Kevan could help her? Did you miss the part where even combined forces of Jaime and Mace couldnt stop HS and his Sparrows? They were religious fanatics, not someone you can buy off or kill easily, if that was the case, Margaery would be back in Highgarden. Kevan couldn't help Cersei out of her own mess, even if it meant his niece paraded around the streets. Do you think someone who had worked for his house and Lannister name all their life would allow a prominent member of the family to be humiliated like that if he could stop her? His first priority was mending the stuff Cersei has wrecked, and Tommen, and he was doing just that. 

It's not a simple case of "if you're not with me, you're against me" or "killing people". Even in GoT world people rely on alliances and working towards a common goal- to quote Jaime in the very first episode "To win a war we need allies. Where are our allies?". The Tyrells and Kevan weren't pushovers for Cersei to lord over, but they were her allies, and she needed them. She doesn't act according to Westerosi logic, the only logic for Cersei is surrounding herself with lickspittles. The fact that she broke everything her father has managed to arrange speaks volumes of her ineptitude, which she blames on everyone else. 

Daenerys managed to not kill Jon and provide him with dragon glass even though he hasn't declared for her, because she's advised by competent people who realise that she needs allies in order to rule. Cersei just wants everyone who opposes her or doesn't actively fawn over her to go and die a horrible death, it goes far beyond simply  killing people. Tywin killed people. Rob killed people. Jon killed people. But no one is so dumb as to kill the very people she relied on.