WalkinDude

Really? Ned married Cat. Ned took the position of Hand. The only time Ned broke duty was when he lied about Jon, and when Cersei claimed to have both Arya and Sansa and threatened their lives. No one know about the former in the books, and we have no idea if they ever will. While his public confession to save his daughters is in itself understandable, realizing that Renly and Stannis would soon be bickering over the throne with the Lannisters is enough to give him pause if he wants to bring the North into a war.

No more than Cersei was in control under Robert. Assuming Aegon VI gets the throne at any point and Arianne is his queen, there's no way she has any real power over the kingdom. This isn't the TV show.

See, I question if Aerys was actually "mad". Yes, ordering the pyromancers to burn the city is bat shit. But Rhaegar was plotting against him, and it appeared most of the realm was open to it. He was kidnapped, tortured and probably raped while held at Duskendale. Do you think it never got back to him that Tywin wanted to sack the city, and if not for Selmy, he would have done so. That's the whole point of this series. We're told this person is one thing, but when we get to know them and see them from a different point of view, we find that one encompassing statement to be inaccurate. Jamie pushed a child out of a window, but he also saved King's Landing, stopped Brienne from being raped, and went North to fight the undead. Shades of grey. That was Martin's entire point, no one is completely good or evil.

Bingo! And people don't want to acknowledge they cheered on someone who crucified 162 people, some of which we were told in plain english were good folks and advocated against slavery. Dany told us she was awesome and good, and a lot of people don't want to acknowledge they cheered on a very dangerous person for 8 seasons.

Only because you see her through the prism of a noble and righteous liberator. But every action she took since marrying Drogo conveniently improved her personal position and power. She didn't liberate Qarth, she demanded an audience because she believed she was special. She "stole" the Unsullied in Astapor and liberated the slaves, but she also left with an army she didn't have before. She sacked Yunkai and was worshiped as a God for liberating them, which spread the legacy of her destiny. She crucified and burned nobles in Mereen, to "free slaves", but she conveniently stayed to rule and impose her version of justice on a culture and society she was never a part of. She then turned to Westeros where she claimed the Throne by virtue of her father, ignoring that her father was the horrible tyrant she claimed to despise. She burned thousands of soldiers, before turning North to deal with the Night King. Sure, she said she did it because she loved Jon, but the Night King had also killed one of her "children." Should we really champion her because when faced with an army of unstoppable undead monsters, she chose to use her dragons to stop them from killing every living person in the world? Immediately after the battle her thoughts were on how Jon was getting the credit and love, and not her. She says she's doing these things for morally right reasons until the very end when Job stabs her in her heart. But isn't it entirely possible if not probable, her actions throughout the series were equally based on her desire for ultimate power and the claims of liberation were just her rationalizing behavior we'd condemn anyone else for in this universe. Unless you think Arya massacring the Freys was the "right" thing to do. In that case your moral compass is completely broken and there's no point in trying to convince others otherwise.

Totally, it was rushed in the show. But the idea it came out of nowhere and her previous actions didn’t set the stage for her burning KL is bunk in my opinion.

No, I’m clearly saying some of their actions were wrong. It’s up to us to decide and evaluate one act relative to all actions taken. I dont think Arya is a good guy. I do think Jon is a good person. Sansa and Tyrion are in the middle. I clearly think Dany went mad with power.

So when D&D start their next show on the idea the American South won the civil war, no one in the audience is going to be conflicted that their “heroes” presumably support Slavery? We’re going to need them to tell us Slavery is wrong?

Right, so the idea of slavery being morally reprehensible and justifying the thousands she killed in Essos falls kind of flat if you follow your own logic. Valyria was a slave city. Danerys is Valyrian. Her ancestors had no issue with invading a foreign land and using their dragons to burn and murder anyone who didn't recognize their genetic superiority. This is the basis for her entire claim to the throne. I don't see how Serfdom is morally superior to the slavery of Essos.

So when she burned the noble in the dragon pit of Mereen, and forced Hizdar to marry her, that was a morally good action?

The Army of the living did nothing that entire fight. We all saw the Dothraki flaming arakhs fade out. We saw the Unsullied retreat to inside the walls of winterfell. And we saw the Army of the dead kill everyone but main characters. If Arya hadn't jumped from out of nowhere and stabbed the Night King, the Others would have won. Dany's forces were a bumper like every other Army. She roasted the Night King and it had zero impact. Danerys absolutely deserves credit for assisting in the battle, that can't be denied. But the idea that her contribution was greater or had a larger impact than anyone else doesn't match the story we were shown.

So you're unhappy they showed a person committing terrible atrocities that no person would tolerate in our own world, and forced you to face your approval of such crimes? Do you think Arya murdering all the Freys and forcing Walder to eat his sons is morally ok?

This is clearly what Martin is doing too. He's breaking a trope. I fully expect Jon to be the one to be the "savior" in the Battle for The Dawn in the books, instead of fan service Arya. We saw how Danerys acted when the people cheered Jon as the leader of the North. Imagine if he's the Hero of Winterfell too. If you don't like Danerys becoming the "Mad Queen", you're not going to enjoy the books either.

She was portrayed that way. That's my whole point. Most of us (including me) cheered her on when she did these things, because the idea of a noble liberator destroying a corrupt and unjust system is appealing. I also enjoyed it when Cersei blew up the Sept of Baelor or locked Septa Mordane in a tower, or locked Ellaria Sand in a tower after poisoning innocent Myrcella. I'm going to assume most fans had a moment of satisfaction in these moments too. I don't know why you're calling her a liar, she's been pretty consistent since season 1. She was giddy at the thought of her son (Rhaego) murdering hundreds of thousands. (Mirri Maz Duur told her this before the pyre). She demands Qarth open its gates to her, because of reasons. She agrees to buy 10k Unsullied for a dragon, then murders the leaders of the city and reclaims her property. She claims to have moral authority over the city of Yunkai and claims she has the right to dissolve thousands of years of law and culture. She does the same in Mereen. Crucifying 162 people and burning nobles along the way, all because she was right. She then "invades" Westeros, assists with the Army of the Dead, before nuking tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands in King's Landing, before telling everyone she will continue to do the same until the whole world submits to her rule. It was there from the beginning, but most of us ignored the morality of her actions because we liked her as a character/person.

You cheered as she crucified 162 "slave owners." Some of those men were pieces of shit, but all 162? Yes, slavery is outlawed in the 7 kingdoms just like it is in our world, but unlike our world, you don't get executed for not bowing low enough to a highborn. Did you not watch the finale as the main characters chuckled at the idea of democracy? Comparing you and I to a horse or dog? Protip: Feudalism isn't morally superior to the quasi feudalism and slavery practiced in Essos. Danerys would have killed anyone who didn't submit to her rule or her way of existence, she was a tyrant. There isn't a good character or an evil one. For the premiere forum of book readers, I'm shocked at how many people fail to grasp this message. Danerys believed she was right, just as every other character in the series. She just happened to have nuclear weapons at her disposal, and showed the world she wouldn't hesitate to use it to burn a hundred thousand innocent people, including children, to get her will. She had a higher body count than the Night King, and people are debating if there was any moral "shades of grey" to her character.