Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About frenin

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's not uncommon that willful and independent people marry who they are told. It's not like she would have other options. Disgrace was all that would follow her. Nor her family paid attention to her complains and went on with her bethrothal anyway, if she ever told her father, we're assuming that we know much about her.
  2. I don't really see how you can agree and then double down the bet. Tanselle was targetted by a mad Prince because she was a nobody Aerion could beat up with impunity, which is the reason why Duncan's case went as far as it did, Duncan was another nobody. Comparing the case of two peasants with the case of the heir of Winterfell seems like cheating at solitaire to me, especially when there were far egregious cases with far less justifications that ended up with a slap on the wrist when highlords were involved. Doubtful, as there were extenuating argument for him, argument that nearly other king would have had in mind. Too late for whom?? For Brandon et co?? Unlikely but who knows. For Rickard and all those who followed?? That seems like absurd. We have actual info, you're dismissing said info not by something said in the books or by Martin but because you personal taste do not match with those two therefore they are wildly generalised description. You, with no other basis than how you perceive A or B character, are deciding that their versions has no actual connection to the event. Seems a wild step to me. If both Dany's and Robert's versions are the same in principle but different in reasons, it seems to me that they may have an info that the reader does not posses, mind you that Dany repeats the same tale to Barri and the man doesn't contradict her. How Rhaegar carrying his northern girl by swordpoint does not have an actual connection to the event, what is then a connection to the event for you. Yes it is. The propaganda is the love part, not the abduction, the abduuction remains prevalent in both stories, so we should take that as the truth until proven otherwise, not build an argument based on nothing. Btw how do you know that it's super simplified propaganda?? Martin does not call the man love struck for nothing. We don't know where Dany heard it from, nor we knoe where Viserys heard it from, for all we know, Viserys received the tale from Rhaegar himself. Who is saying that Jaime is lying?? I'm saying that Jaime is ommiting info he doesn't care about to recall because they are not relevant to the tale he's telling. There is a circle, a big one actually. Jaime's the only account we have, we know that Jaime account is incomplete as he gives casually info we didn't know about (the treason charges) and does not bother to expand on that. By the fact that Jaime's tale is incomplete, acting as if was the full picture it's simply bad faith. It being the fullest account we have=/ It being the full account. So far there is a gap of 7 months or so of the Robellion, the only things we know next to nothing about Maekar's reign but how he died,the only bits we know about the first Blackfyre Rebellion is how it ended and some feats of Fireball etc etc etc. Do you believe those records are full?? No, he didn't. He elected trial by combat for himself. Himself, not his son/child/heir. He was suddenly the one being charged for treason. No, you don't as Jaime could have easily ommit things. True. No, the fathers don't have to pay the price, the just have to answer for their sons. There is no price paid for the fathers. Jaime does not say that Rickard was demanding it for Brandon, he quite literally says that Rickard needed to prove himself innocent of treason. You're arguing against the book, headcanon is not canon, there is nothing that says that Aerys mispelled or even if Jaime was quoting Aerys and not simply suming up the facts. We don't know what they believed, and Jaime is recalling the story and Cat already knows whether they were charged or not. That's an odd reasoning. Not true, he demanded a trial by combat for himself as per Jaime, anything else is you trying to pass your believes as fact. That's some major goalposting there. I did not say that only those knew... Huh?? It was a supposition not a statement. Hmm no. Rickard did not know how batshit Aerys was and their brief meeting at Harrenhall, was just that a brief one, we don't even know if Brandon was there when Aerys had his attacks. So, Rhaegar and/ or Lyanna deserve even more blame, they were the ones who made the situation a tinderbox. Brandon is resnposible of his fate, saying that he shares as much blame as Aerys is just absurd. If you don't know when they were murdered why do you state when they were not?? We know that they accompanied Rickard to the Red Keep, we know that they never came back to the North, we know that Aerys felt freaky that day... Do you think that the fathers of those young men would travel without retinue?? It's the 100s i made out, i think. Indeed his place, nor Rickard was close. That's a whole different thing... And how that changes that Rhaegar has kidnapped Lyanna?? Because... In fact we don't even know that Brandon triggered nothing in Aerys. I doubt that Aerys cared two shits about Lyanna and whether Rhaegar was despoiling her or not, he'd use to bring about his heir's downfall, nothing else. Yes he did. But we're told that there was a risk of a brutal civil war between father and son just as we were told that there was risk of civil war between the Unworthy and his heir. Nor until the war erupted and started going awry, Rhaegar meant anything else than a threat to Aerys. He certainly was not the shining hope of Aerys in the years between Duskendale and the Robellion and he had started to be a shining hope, for a good deal of Great Houses. I'd say that they enter the window, i don't still know that Aerys was triggered or that he cared much about Rhaegar. I'd say that he perceived a lot of enemies anywhere and Brandon's actions simply allowed him to destroy some of those, he tried to pull a Rains of Castemere on the Starks, Arryns and Baratheons. Not that Brandon triggered him but that he had given him and opportunity. Which is why i believe he passed on the other given by Brandon. So, then Rhaegar is still responsible, since he was the first to stimulate...
  3. That cannot be argue, but just as i would not be treated the same way a judge would treat Prince Harry, I doubt that the heir of Winterfell would be treated as Tanselle was. Oh, I don't consider it nasty, i'm just echoing the first definition. Hmm, fair enough. The folk and the majority of the nobles recognize their peers or betters by clothes or facial traits, Westeros know the Targs by their hair and eyes, the Lannisters by their lions and golden hair. If someone as famous as Barri the Bold could just go in hiding just by removing the white cloak, i doubt that those three would've been as stubborn to wear it the entire journey. He had days for his rage to grow and grow. No he didn't call for his sister's return, he rode into the Red Keep calling for the head of her abductee. Who knows what else he could've said. Yet, she was not the heir. Unless we're operating on the basis that Brandon Stark is literally the dumbest man on existence, I'd think that we can believe that if he did not said it at the very beginning, when facing the charge of treason pointing at Rhaegar as a extenuating for their act would be on the top of ihs head. And per Yandel we know that demanded "redress for Rhaegar's wrongs". And if the news had not travelled all the way back to King's Landing yet, by the time the parents came back for the ransom, they sure had. And how the fact that Brandon did or did not demand the return of her sister factor on Rhaegar kidnapping said sister, when facing the King?? Is it then any less treasounous?? It seems more of an offender if there was a war in between. And different accused, Tanselle and Dunk are not Brandon and Lyonel. Yet you compare them. When both comparisons are way off. Absolutely not, it just means that each case is world, with a different King and having the whole context in mind, i very much doubt that Brandon would have received anything more severe than a few years in exile, if he was punished at all. Yet, the info we have points towards one direction. Robert's comments are biased, heavily, yet there they are. There is nothing stupid to Dany's, she received info all from heavily pro Targaryen bias and she still thinks that Rhaegar took Lyanna at swordpoint... for love. Dany's pov is important because it shows how her family and the loyalists choseto frame the situation. Just as Robert's rants show his pov too. And they still think it was kidnapping with extenuatings ofc. We don't know what Ned thinks about the affair or what he thought once and stopped thinking with years or what he never thinked at all. For what is worth Ned has some kind of sympathy towards Aerys, i doubt that means that Aerys did not horribly kill his brother and father. It may turn to be wrong all the way, some kind of "who really killed Jon Arryn"?? So far is what we have. Taking Lyanna at swordpoint is covering the actual event. How is an accurate account of all we know of that event when prior Jaime's tale, we only knew that: This are all the accounts we have prior Jaime's tale, we have that Ned's father answered the call of his king, something really messed up happened to his father and brother and that his family got a very dialed down version of it. After that we have Jaime remembering how Lord Rickard had screamt and then nothing until the World book when we're told more of the same. So quite literally, the only account we have about what it happened it's Jaime's. So, it's really a circular reasoning. How Rickard Stark went from being an innocent man ransoming his child to stand accused of treason it's a rather important tidbit that Jaime does ommit. Since Jaime cuts to the chase and all that. There is a lot that we actually miss. There is a good lenght of time from the fathers standing entering innocents and them dying traitors, time that Jaime does not bother to cover. You don't know that. This is even more absurd since the only thing we have about Rickard are his last moments while he is charged with treason. By that reasoning, Rickard did not go to King's Landing to ransom his heir, since at any point we see him addresing that. I don't how it's interesting when there are chuncks of info we don't know about. Sure she wasn't the key part of Rickard's story, his story was literally having him facing a trial by combat. Why would a drunk Jaime who gives no shits about either of them, not omit that part when it literally has zero impact on the story he's talking, Jaime is talking the story of how they died, no the story about how worried they were about Lyanna. He demanded the head of the kidnapper, that seems a perfectly natural reaction, especially in someone that hothead. Hoster did not know that Brandon was heading to his death, no one could have known that, he just knew that he had gone to King's Landing enraged. It's necessary to know that Hoster believed Brandon a fool to see that racing in black rage to King's Landing it's foolish?? Mind you that it being foolish and it being understandable have little to do one thing with the other. We do very foolish things that we still consider understandable or at least relatable. She knows that they died there, she knows how Brandon died, what again, she does not knoe are the specifics. I'm talking about 4 families. The Baratheons, the Starks, the Lannisters and the Arryns. Robert, Jaime Ned and old Jon would def know, Ned hid a fact of 20 to his family, Cersei does not show any knowledge of it, neither do Tywin and Kevan tbf but i don't think that would be the sort of info that they would miss. Neither Stannis or Renly were involved and they don't seem to care enough to ask. It does, we have covered that. Lyonel did far worse, he got away clean. He demands Rhaegar's death because Rhaegar kidnapped his sister, any level headed King would have understood that. The only way to avoid death was not going to King's Landing, the moment he went to the Red Keep, he was dead meat, as showed by his father's and the hundreds of deads. He could wait for Rhaegar, wait for the small Council to summon Rhaegar, a lot of things, he was at the hands of a deranged man, so his fate was sealed regardless but that there was no positive outcome?? I'm doubtful. That's simply bs. Brandon is in no way or shape guilty for Aerys actions, saying that "he has to accept as much as Aerys" is simply laughable. Both Rogar Baratheon and Lyonel Baratheon got away with treason, the idea that Brandon could not is wishful thinking, the idea that Brandon shares the blame for all those deads reeks to apologism to me. Like blaming someone for walking for the wrong side of town. Huh, we can blame others for mad men doings, because that does not mindless or unreasonable. Sure but anyone outside of the Red Keep were hardly to know that Aerys was full of paranoia and distrust. A reasonable king understands the circumstances, not just go full Stannis. I don't consider Aegon V the very best king so it's silly make that comparation. How Brandon's actions traduces to the fathers and their retinues?? Brandon Stark, Kyle Royce, Elbert Arryn and Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce's father, Jeffory's Mallister father, Ethan Glover father, whatever retinue that accompanied them, Rickard Stark and 200 men. All dead. If that's not a mass murder orgy i don't know what it is. Farce of trials aren't trials. If you say so. Brandon was the heir, he could go. Rickard went quietly, to ransom his son and he still got murdered. It seems to me that you're going for the we'll never to make a point, Aerys was not interested in making any pact. In fact, outburst or not, Rhaegar and Brandon had given Aerys a golden opportunity to disown his heir without trouble, no one relevant would have protested after what Rhaegar had pulled. The only thing the Martells would demand would be either that Aerys respected Aegon's place as heir or that Viserys were to married to Rhaenys. Yet, that's not what Aerys did.
  4. Because said Crown Prince had kidnappedhis sister. It seems a reaction for anger. Tanselle was not the heir of Winterfell, nor Prince Baelor had abducted her baby sister. Lyonel Baratheon also commited treason, he was not punished for it. And received the King'sown daughter as a future bride for his son and hostage against said King. The info we have, actually points out about a nasty kidnapping. Where the sources differ is about the reason of said nasty kidnapping and what said nasty kidnapping developed into. Jaime is ommiting a good lot of juicy details, so it's bad faith actually claim that, Rickard came to ransom his own son and ended up burned for treason. There is a good in between that a drunken Jaime retelling an old story would simply ignore, at the end of the day,Cat, as most of the senior Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Stark and Lannister clan, does know what happened there, what she doesn't know, and i assume that no one but Jaime, Ned, Robert, old Jon and perhaps Tywin and Kevan knew was the manner of their deaths. Not true, what he did was extraodinary flammable, but any reasonable king would have let it go given the context, or as the most severe judgment, Brandon and co, would have been forced to take the Black, that would not have turned into a mass murder orgy. As if Brandon had gone to Aerys quietly, Aerys would not have seized him and done the very same thing anyway. I see Brandon's wave of accusations as another way to redirect the blame from Rhaegar and Lyanna. He believed he was there.
  5. It's commonly known where they died. Cairns are rather obvious. To OP's question, I think that they were not wearing the white cloak all that often. Arys Oakheart had to do it. Nor i think that they stayed very long there anyway before they all died.
  6. Agency belongs to those who have will. Otherwise, you can't blame Littlefinger for Jon's murder. As such, he was a nobo Sex and Talk was all he needed to get Lysa to kill her husband. That doesn't mean that she has no power whatsoever, influence is power. In fact that's how women exert their power in Planetos. We have evidence that she knew the logical outcome of her instigation to war and she accepted it as the price to pay. So, again. Petyr can't be held responsible for anything. Were they now?? Dany herself doesn't believe her own brother. Dany believes the Usurper and his dogs the devil, yet she did not believe that he was after them. Dany's actions also come after she is truly safe, as far as she knows, surrounded by thousands of bloodriders and married to the most powerful Khal in Essos. No, the attempt on her life arose said fears, It does not confirm any believes she already had. Doubtful as she did not fear for her life, her brother did. How is natural? She was the one pushing for it to become something real. And does that erase the fact that. 1) The Lhazareen were still going to be sold to fund her war. 2) First, she did accept their situation as the price they had to pay.
  7. Yet after Dany was married, Viserys was killed and Illryio did no longer factor in the ecuation. It was Dany, without any kind of pressure whatsoever, the one that was continuously trying to instigate a Dothraki invansion. It was not the Golden Company or Illryio or JonCon. According to ADWD, they knew that someone was going to do something, but little else. But there is a difference between holding them in a higher standard and exonerate Dany altogether. Child bride or not, chattel or not, forced to obey or not. It's a fact that Dany did all she could, albeit she could not do much more than talk and sex, to get Drogo to invade Westeros. That's agency. Which is related to Mirri. The worst that can be said about her is the same that can be said about the Golden Company and it's worst that can be said about JonCon. But she was trying to get back at Robert from the get go, nor she stops her quest once she knows that Robert's dead and Eddard's dead. So, why should we pretend that it was the attempt what set her off?? I don't exonerate Tywin for the Elia affair because, "the blood is not in his hands". Both Tywin and Dany used mad dogs fully knowing that they were mad dogs. Dany does not incite or persuade the Dothraki to rape their way through the Lhazareen, but she knows that would happen and she accepts that as a way to further her war, she says it herself, she needs them to be enslaved and sold if she ever hopes to see Westeros. Likely, we like to judge characters, and real people, that were in situations so fucked up that there is no outcome, it's our passtime. Yet, I very much doubt that my 13/14 would trying to get a continent by fire and blood without regard for others lives. If I had done that, I would be as guilty as she. That was not Dany's gift and Dany had no other reason to insist on it but ambition or revenge. It was not in progress, Drogo cared little for the pointy chair. Dany was the one who unilaterally kept going on and on. When Drogo says that he's going gift her son with his grandfather's Throne, those are Dany's words, not Drogo's. Then it's not simply "go" to Westeros.
  8. I'm not trying to hang a dog, and you have tried to shift the blame to Illryio or JonCon, for doing less than Dany. So, I'm pretty confused. Moral wrong and legally wrong are not the same, nor are judged equally by people and judges. Sure, but her unborn child was not targetted, if it was targetted at all, for that. It was targetted because of the threat he represented. How so?? That Dany did not order the rapings cannot change the fact that she sanctioned the fate of the Lhazareen as a lesser evil to get back at the Baratheons. Criminal law has little to do when we can rather literally read Dany's train of thought. Because Dany used that attempt to convince to invade Westeros. Wanted to go?? Or wanted to bring Fire and Blood upon those who wronged her family and take by force what was hers?? Depends of how you phrase it... No, I'm def blaming her actions. Likely, but that's not what it happened. Dany seized the opportunity to convince Drogo to invade Westeros.
  9. Don't you understand what i mean by saying that?? She egged her husband to avenge her family. Dany did urge, promote and incite a war with Robert Barathein, fully knowing that said war would need to be funded and that the slaves her husband was making and the lives he was ruining would serve fine for her cause. Untrue, Daenerys knew that people would have to pay the price for her war, she knew and she gladly accepted but as Tywin said, war is a butcher's work, and Dany had no taste for that. Her reaction is irrelevamt, those people were targetted because of Dany's war. I do not understand why you're grasping at legalisms, seems to me the Tywin's approach, yes, you would be morally guilty and in this case, Dany deserves Mirri's retribution.
  10. Over what?? Certainly It gives him no authority over an army, nor his peers treat him like an equal. His whole way to ascend is sucking off the powerful... No, It does not. Not even now, when Martin said that despite all his money and titles, he had no army. It certainly wasn't the case at the very beginning of AGOT. True. No, just the ones he foresaw and worked towards. Sure, war is war, he couldn't have foreseen every event. He's loosely responsible, since the whole mess is his fault but that's about it. The Dothraki invasion literally could've only gone to one step, which was funding. Step, Dany was aware of and accepted as a lesser evil in her path to take back what was rightfully hers. Just as Petyr's actions are not really comparable to Dany's, the hundreds of thousands of ramifications of the war of the 5 Kings can be comparable to the very obvious raiding for slaves. Dany could not have known who was going to be the target, but she did know someone was going to be the target. And she accepted so long as they furthered her quest. About your example, If i urge the allies to attack Dresden and by chance Churchill listens to me, It does make me guilty. Sure, I couldn't know that they were going to go that far, but i did know they were going to do something. Can you tell me where I said that Dany ordered anything?? I said that she instigated. And my quotes do prove it, they also prove that she knew and accepted the price of taking back the Iron Throne.
  11. It's not laughable, it's the logical conclusion one can draw from your argument. Since Petyr "did not possess a military command role. That ought to be obvious from the text. ", therefore he should be exonorated, no matter what he actually did. Petyr did not murder Ned's retainers, Cersei's gold cloaks did. True. Completely untrue. She was already arguing for war well before the murder attempt, Robert's foolishness only made Drogo heed to his wife's advice. What do you call this if not instigating?? False. She argued for a war with Westeros, fully knowing that said war had to be paid somehow and she accepted. Ergo, Dany is guilty. Depends of your weapon. I'd argue that anyone willingly using the Dothraki is already guilty of war crimes simply by association. Being the target Robert Baratheon, Aerys II Targaryen or the Wise Maesters. Ah, I see. How many people do you think Drogo would've continue to die and slave?? You seem to forget that Dany's hubby was one of the slavers's greatest suppliers. Sure, but they would not be Genghis. Which means that millions would've been spared. She was not trying to solve any problem. She was trying to eliminate the greatest threats she perceived. So, screw Sic Semper Tyrannis. No, It wasn't. It makes no sense that you create her goals, when those are pretty clear.
  12. No command role is needed to instigate, just influence over the ones that do have them. Wich she has. Or are you arguing that Petyr has no role whatsoever in the start of the war of the 5 Kings?? War was on her part, instigated since the very moment Viserys died, she tried to get Drogo to invade Westeros time after time. Sure it's Dany's war, Dany's one of the main instigators and she's the one giving the idea of her claim being passed down to her son. That Dany's not going to seat on the pointy chair is simply inmaterial. Certainly, it's not the war of an unborn child. Her position as child bride is irrelevant, did she have influence on Drogo and used said influence and other people and events she could influence to sway her husband's opinion towards invading Westeros?? Yes, ergo she's guilty, sure not as guilty as Drogo but guilty nonetheless. @Tyrion1991 Sure, just to point how extravagant yours was. Dany has freed millions of slaves, and look at Yunkai, look at the Reconstruction mess, look look. If you're simply judging by body count, then Dany is as good as any to start. The most powerful of the khals was put down thanks to her, perhaps future Genghis Khan was also averted. Question of perspective.
  13. That people suffered?? Let's put an extreme comparison, Dany's war on slavers bay, should she give up on her quest to end slavery because there is a lot of people dying?? It's a silly exampple, just to point that just because people die does't mean that overall the outcome is bad. What would have happened if Drogo had not died?? Well, a wholo lot of people's life would have been destroyed. You said that Mirri had two innocent lives on her hands...
  14. They possess the level of agency their husbands decide to give them and Dany started to have more and more as time passed on. And with those who instigate them. Which is indeed enough. The Lhazareen may or may not have been targetted anyway, but when they were indeed targetted was to fund Dany's war. None of them instigated any kind of violent retaliation/war. Dany did. Sure, all of them are guilty to a significant higher degree than Dany, that does not mean that she is not. But it makes little sense trying to blame Varys, Illyrion or JonCon while trying to exonerate Dany when all four were playing the exact same game. Egging Drogo into invading Westeros. Is not sufficient justification to whom?? She closed her eyes to the fact that a village would be targetted to fund her war, she closes her eyes until she can't do it anymore. She is a 13 year old, she isn't stupid however, she very much knows how the Dothraki get the money and Jorah does not have to explain her anything that she doesn't know. In fact, the only thing Jorah tells Dany that she does not know is where are they going to get the best price for their newly acquired products. She very much understands the rest and it's never made vague anyway. That's not true, the targets are, if they were ever really targetted in the first place, Drogo and Rhaego, Dany is simply caught up in the middle, but Mirri simply states that her help was meaningless to her, as she had already lost everything. What?? You did not argued that nor did i. Dany does expect gratitude from Mirri and Mirri is saying that she's not grateful for nothing. She's not trying to make herself the victim, she's a victim. I can't follow your reasoning. Dany's later decisions are not/don't have to be the same if she actually had lived ¿happily ever after? with Drogo. Dany was quite neutral regarding slavery, she had grown up with them in her life anyway, until she sees the horror of Yunkai. The hindsight Dany you're using as argument simply can't exist without Mirri. A lot of characters have successfully read the future, the most prominent is Daenys Targ. How we have zero reasons to assume her knowledge when she's the one teaching Dany?? No, I don't seem to believe that, i'm just stating that your reasoning cuts both ways. You're using hindsight to make a point, that's absurd, the silver haired Queen is going to tell them to stop and they might obey because of dragons. Which ties to Mirri. Drogo was innocent?? Didn't know that. I mean, you directly blame her for possible catastrophic courses of time... Which is simply wishful thinking. We can however draw a straight line between Drogo's, Rhaego¡s and Mirri's death and the dragons.
  15. She knew someone had to pay the price for getting to Westeros, even if she chose to close her eyes to the very obvious. Dany is not by any means, the main culprit of the fate of the Lhazareen, Drogo is, or to the upcoming war with Westeros, Robert and Drogo are. But she sure as hell did everything in her power to convince Drogo to war against Robert to take her Throne and she did capitalize Robert's attempt to her needs. Which makes her guilty, in a small part but still guilty, of the fate of the Lamb people. How comes?? She sees no difference between Dany and the Dothraki, she sees them as the same and her help meaningless, even when Dany and part of the fandom believe otherwise. No, she doesn't. Dany indeed expects gratitude, which is why she's so shocked. She is shocked that someone's whose world was ruined by her husband and who is told that her child would be x10 times worse would kill them?? And how many would've die otherwise?? Drogo planned on raiding people to fund an even more destructive war against the might of Westeros. What makes you think that allowing Drogo to keep breathing is going to safe more lives. She's weighing the outcomes she can tell and deciding that a world without Drogo and Rhaego is preferable. It's selfish, egocentric and short sighted, ironically. Evil tho?? I don't think so. How?? Dany decides to abolish slavery after she herself tried to buy slaves... To war against Joffrey. Which is pretty much unrelated with Mirri. That he had an army and a khalassar in the first place, was directly because of Mirri's sacrifice. Were those slaves freed?? I didn't remember. But you're forgetting two things. 1. Mirri never claimed to speak for any other than her. 2. Dany becoming the Unburnt and the Mother of Dragons, was a massive game changer for everyone. True. No, that she's def not. How many more women will be spared because of her actions?? Given that you're so keen on using hindsight, without Mirri's actions there are no Dragons, no fight against slavery, no Dany, no Dragons against the Others, no nothing. Fair enough. Planetos is full of idiots anyway, because prophecies tend to be believed to the letter. With a mix of outcomes, from saving your whole family to killing your family. How do you know that?? If Dany's vision was any type of indication... Why?? Greater good or lesser evil rationalizations are given in those kind of contexts. If you consider that to be the greater good... Then, no. At that point, Dany is only trying to take Westeros. And millions can also be or were outright saved as a result of her actions. @the Other Wolf Nah, the Mirri argument is quite recurrent.
  • Create New...