Problem with Dorne Dany alliance.

[OldGimletEye]

22 hours ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

The most likely outcome - if it comes up - is that Dany sentences Elaria to death for Myrcella's murder, & Dorne rebels under one or more of the Sandsnakes (Obara I would guess), and Dany loses at least half the army.  They swear to resist the Targaryens as long as their ancestors did and probably kill several people on the way "out".  Perhaps one of the other SS will see the writing on the wall and defect to Dany, so she retains some of the Dornish army.  

I've always thought that a major reason for Aegon's eventual defeat would because of his uncautious and impatient behavior. Hence his selection of a "young man's" formation, and his likely attempt to defeat Dany through a war of annihilation, rather than the traditional Dornish strategy of defeating invaders through a war of attrition.

Given the fact Ellaria and the Sand Snakes are seemingly imprudent and reckless, and are in bad need of some anger management counselling, I can see them making the same mistakes as book Aegon would. I do think it's possible that Dany's army will take significant causalities while fighting the Dornish, but not as nearly as many if Ellaria and the Sand Snakes were willing to engage Dany in the traditional Dornish style.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think @A spoon of knife and fork's explanation of how a Dorne and Dany conflict might come about is interesting, as in the books I've always considered a Dany & Dorne conflict to be highly likely. But since the character of Aegon is gone, D & D will have to engineer a plot to bring their conflict about.

I'm usually wrong in my predictions so unfortunately I'm a bit afraid it just won't come up - which would be really disappointing...  But there were a couple things I guessed last season that actually happened, so maybe? 

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And the fact is that Ellaria and the Sand Snakes, as portrayed in the show, are a bunch of psychopathic nut jobs. There is going to be a question here whether Dany really wants to associate herself with such people.

Also, Ellaria's excuse for murdering Myrcella is no better than Tywin's excuse for ordering the murder of Targaryen children.

Yes, my thoughts exactly (especially the 2nd part).  I hope that Tyrion (or Jaime maybe?) will remind Dany of what happened to her niece and nephew and how it's practically identical to what happened to Myrcella.  And I think there has to be some reason for them to have Elaria changed to a total black hat - it makes it "easier" for Dany to ultimately reject her as an ally and (potentially) sets protagonists against each other.  If Doran had survived there would be no reason at all for Dany to break with the Dorne's sensible leadership, so he had to go.  

Though... it is pretty weird for her to accept them first, most likely Varys had expected to meet with Doran due to a lack of information and is winging it.  Pretty odd for Varys to be acting on a lack of information.  But his birds seem to be Qyburn's now, and Slaver's bay is pretty far away.  

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

It would actually be rather a good plotline.  It would be a convincing way of showing Dany receiving a setback during her invasion. 

Thanks.  I thought of it because I was trying to figure out a way for Cersei to survive for most of the 6-7 episodes. As it is it seems she ought to be doomed by episode 2.  If there is conflict in Dorne, that can delay things for long enough for a break between Jaime and Cersei to occur and for Cersei to get some other allies (Euron, probably).  

[SeanF]

21 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think @A spoon of knife and fork's explanation of how a Dorne and Dany conflict might come about is interesting, as in the books I've always considered a Dany & Dorne conflict to be highly likely. But since the character of Aegon is gone, D & D will have to engineer a plot to bring their conflict about.

And the fact is that Ellaria and the Sand Snakes, as portrayed in the show, are a bunch of psychopathic nut jobs. There is going to be a question here whether Dany really wants to associate herself with such people.

Also, Ellaria's excuse for murdering Myrcella is no better than Tywin's excuse for ordering the murder of Targaryen children.

To you and me (and A Spoon of Knife and Fork) Ellaria and her daughters are a bunch of psychopathic nut jobs.

But, I'm not at all sure that the producers view them in that light.  I've a horrible suspicion that they want us to view the murders of Doran, Trystane, and Myrcella as positively good things.  So, while Spoon's suggestion makes good dramatic sense, it may not be a plotline that they follow.

[OldGimletEye]

25 minutes ago, SeanF said:

To you and me (and A Spoon of Knife and Fork) Ellaria and her daughters are a bunch of psychopathic nut jobs.

But, I'm not at all sure that the producers view them in that light.  I've a horrible suspicion that they want us to view the murders of Doran, Trystane, and Myrcella as positively good things.  So, while Spoon's suggestion makes good dramatic sense, it may not be a plotline that they follow.

Yeah, that's a good point. I'm not so sure if they view them as being nut jobs or whether they just view them as being "bad ass".

[khal drogon]

Great suggestion spoon. It is exactly what I want with the invasion plot next season. I don't think even the producers have a favorable view of the Sand Snakes. So there is a chance that they will do despicable things and get executed for it.

[khal drogon]

51 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, that's a good point. I'm not so sure if they view them as being nut jobs or whether they just view them as being "bad ass".

But they do understand what fans want with them and they are not shy to do fan service the reason why they included SS-Olenna scene. So there is hope. 

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

But they do understand what fans want with them and they are not shy to do fan service the reason why they included SS-Olenna scene. So there is hope. 

Surprisingly perhaps, Ellaria and her daughters do have fans.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

To you and me (and A Spoon of Knife and Fork) Ellaria and her daughters are a bunch of psychopathic nut jobs.

But, I'm not at all sure that the producers view them in that light.  I've a horrible suspicion that they want us to view the murders of Doran, Trystane, and Myrcella as positively good things.  So, while Spoon's suggestion makes good dramatic sense, it may not be a plotline that they follow.

I rather doubt it. 

In season 5 they were portrayed as the villains in Jaimes storyline.  With Doran playing the voice of reason.  Then the villains brutally murdering an innocent.  The first episode of season 6 the villain brutally murders the voice of reason. They are villains. 

I do think that Elarias actions made sense from her perspective. That is to say that er actions weren't "nutty," but merely evil.  I think some viewers take the "vengeance" thing too far.  She didn't kill Doran for vengeance, she killed him because she despised his inaction and decided she was more fit to lead Dorne into a glorious war.  

That the Dornish follow her seems slightly unbelievable but we are meant to assume they really hate Doran / want war too I suppose. 

[khal drogon]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Surprisingly perhaps, Ellaria and her daughters do have fans.

I hope that doesn't mean more screentime for them.

[OldGimletEye]

35 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

I rather doubt it. 

In season 5 they were portrayed as the villains in Jaimes storyline.  With Doran playing the voice of reason.  Then the villains brutally murdering an innocent.  The first episode of season 6 the villain brutally murders the voice of reason. They are villains. 

I'd hope that most people would see the Sand Snakes and Ellaria as irresponsible war mongering nitwits who murder children. I'd hope most people would see Doran as somebody trying to be responsible with the lives of his people.

On the other hand, I'm not always too sure about what D & D are trying to convey here.  Was Doran a responsible leader, trying to spare his people from a disastrous conflict? Or was he "a weak man" that was indecisive?

[A spoon of knife and fork]

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd hope that most people would see the Sand Snakes and Ellaria as irresponsible war mongering nitwits who murder children. I'd hope most people would see Doran as somebody trying to be responsible with the lives of his people.

On the other hand, I'm not always too sure about what D & D are trying to convey here.  Was Doran a responsible leader, trying to spare his people from a disastrous conflict? Or was he "a weak man" that was indecisive?

Generally in fiction when you have an obvious, over the top villain, make a judgement of another character (especially a "good" character) that is not meant to be seen as a universally correct judgement.  Elaria considers him the second way but seemingly Jaime sees him as the first (the letter he sends to Doran indicates this). 

If Show Doran is anything like Book Doran (and he seems to be in many ways) it is actually true that many - even those close to him - see him as indecisive and "weak".  Because by all outward appearances he does nothing, and never makes the argument to the people that his way is better. 

[House_Tony_Stark]

2 hours ago, khal drogon said:

I hope that doesn't mean more screentime for them.

I'm sure everyone is hoping for another scene like the one where they were in jail lol.

[House_Tony_Stark]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd hope that most people would see the Sand Snakes and Ellaria as irresponsible war mongering nitwits who murder children. I'd hope most people would see Doran as somebody trying to be responsible with the lives of his people.

On the other hand, I'm not always too sure about what D & D are trying to convey here.  Was Doran a responsible leader, trying to spare his people from a disastrous conflict? Or was he "a weak man" that was indecisive?

I feel as if they saw it as a way they could introduce women with power into the show. Not that there is anything wrong with that but their decisions just literally make no sense. They risk war with an enemy that they can't beat, the crown. They get lucky and see a way out with Danny which will probably backfire on them. If she resolved to banning the way of life of the Iron Born I'm quite she she won't tolerate the genocidal war they want.

Part of me just thinks Varys probably made a huge mistake here due to lack of information. He may not know what they did to Marcella and may not know what Tyrion's response to them will be. Sure, it will be nice if he says "What's done is done"

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, House_Tony_Stark said:

I feel as if they saw it as a way they could introduce women with power into the show. Not that there is anything wrong with that but their decisions just literally make no sense. They risk war with an enemy that they can't beat, the crown. They get lucky and see a way out with Danny which will probably backfire on them. If she resolved to banning the way of life of the Iron Born I'm quite she she won't tolerate the genocidal war they want.

Part of me just thinks Varys probably made a huge mistake here due to lack of information. He may not know what they did to Marcella and may not know what Tyrion's response to them will be. Sure, it will be nice if he says "What's done is done"

Varys probably would know what happened to Myrcella;  he's probably not happy with it, but no doubt takes the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend, and would urge Dany to let it pass, if it were to come up.  It's Tyrion's likely reaction that would throw a spanner in the works. 

[khal drogon]

Another interesting conflict with Dany's alliance is Olenna. Is Tyrion in the same team with the women who murdered Joffery and framed him for it? Will this part be explored or will it be covered so that the 'gurl power' alliance will work?

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, khal drogon said:

Another interesting conflict with this alliance is Olenna. Is Tyrion in the same team with the women who murdered Joffery and framed him for it? The more I think about this alliance makes less sense. Will this part be explored or will it be covered so that the 'gurl power' alliance will work?

Murdering Joffrey?  No problem.  Everyone hated the little shit, including Tyrion.

Framing Tyrion?  In a way, I think that would be easier to forgive than the murder of  Myrcella. Framing Tyrion was always business, never personal.  Plenty of dynasts will work, at least cautiously, with people who have tried to have them killed in the past, in order to pursue their ends.

But murdering Myrcella?  No one could say that was a business matter.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

Generally in fiction when you have an obvious, over the top villain, make a judgement of another character (especially a "good" character) that is not meant to be seen as a universally correct judgement.  Elaria considers him the second way but seemingly Jaime sees him as the first (the letter he sends to Doran indicates this). 

If Show Doran is anything like Book Doran (and he seems to be in many ways) it is actually true that many - even those close to him - see him as indecisive and "weak".  Because by all outward appearances he does nothing, and never makes the argument to the people that his way is better. 

In several prior posts, I have compared Ellaria to General Scott, the chairman of the joint chiefs, in the movie Seven Days In May. Scott honestly believed that the president had made an arms deal that seriously undermined the security of the United States. In fact, the movie's main protagonist, Colonel Casey, who ultimately discovers and foils Scott’s intended military coup, agrees with Scott that President Lyman had made a serious error in judgment

Yet why is Scott seen as a villain, if many agreed with his basic position, including Colonel Casey, and if Scott sincerely and honestly believed his position? Probably because, even if Scott had good reasons to believe what he did, he could not have been absolutely sure that his fears would have come to pass. The direness of the situation was not patently evident and didn't require immediate and drastic action, at least not a full blown coup. And because Scott’s actions would have likely done irreparable harm to civil authority, the constitutional structure of the US, the legitimacy of future elected leaders, and create a great deal of instability.

Few people, I think, would try to make Scott the standard bearer of “empowerment” or "bad assery". Yet, it seems there has been quite a bit of positive praise for Ellaria's and the Sand Snake's actions.

I do not know what precisely is the source of the disconnect. It seems it might be:

1. Because many viewers are being simpletons and are not considering the issues beyond "empowerment" or "bad assery".

2. D & D are not doing a very good job of portraying Ellaria and the Sand Snakes as being villains.

3. Or a combination of the above.

OR

D & D believe that Ellaria and the Sand Snakes are not villains and honestly believe they are portraying the empowerment and bad ass thingy here and didn't consider that many might take exception to Ellaria's and the Sand Snake's actions.

With regard to the murder of Myrcella, let's just remember that, evidently, D & D referred to Tywin Lannister as being "lawful neutral".

[House_Tony_Stark]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Varys probably would know what happened to Myrcella;  he's probably not happy with it, but no doubt takes the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend, and would urge Dany to let it pass, if it were to come up.  It's Tyrion's likely reaction that would throw a spanner in the works. 

Could but the logic just does not add up. Tyrion and he are allies that are both working to elevate Danny's position. Considering how fast he arrived there he had to have known where he was going prior to leaving. So the notion that he goes there with the knowledge of their declared war against the Lannisters seems out of character. It would be logical if he had told Tyrion of his plan prior because there is no need for secrecy...and it would eliminate a huge conflict.

I'm going to guess he didn't know because her death was not something that was announced to the whole world. And his little birdies don't belong to him anymore.

[House_Tony_Stark]

It just makes way more sense that he didn't know and Danny grants Tyrion the chance to decide if it's worth it to ally with them or make them the first target.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

In several prior posts, I have compared Ellaria to General Scott, the chairman of the joint chiefs, in the movie Seven Days In May. Scott honestly believed that the president had made an arms deal that seriously undermined the security of the United States. In fact, the movie's main protagonist, Colonel Casey, who ultimately discovers and foils Scott’s intended military coup, agrees with Scott that President Lyman had made a serious error in judgment

Yet why is Scott seen as a villain, if many agreed with his basic position, including Colonel Casey, and if Scott sincerely and honestly believed his position? Probably because, even if Scott had good reasons to believe what he did, he could not have been absolutely sure that his fears would have come to pass. The direness of the situation was not patently evident and didn't require immediate and drastic action, at least not a full blown coup. And because Scott’s actions would have likely done irreparable harm to civil authority, the constitutional structure of the US, the legitimacy of future elected leaders, and create a great deal of instability.

I haven't seen the movie but that sounds like a really good comparison.  The last part is why primarily I'd consider her a villain w.r.t the Doran murder.  In addition to child murder never being an acceptable means to any end (though plenty of people here disagree with that).  

Quote

Few people, I think, would try to make Scott the standard bearer of “empowerment” or "bad assery". Yet, it seems there has been quite a bit of positive praise for Ellaria's and the Sand Snake's actions.

To be honest I haven't seen much of that.  I read unsullied boards as well and I've literally never seen anyone think they are "good" characters or even "badass".  I also have family I watch the show with that either haven't read the books or read them once years ago.  

The opinions I've seen run from "They appear completely insane and their motives/actions make no sense" to "They are evil child murdering war mongering assholes" to  "oh god not those stupid @$&"! again".  Most people think they are really stupid superficially (dumb clothes, they look weak and not at all dangerous, they say stupid shit).  

Quote

I do not know what precisely is the source of the disconnect. It seems it might be:

1. Because many viewers are being simpletons and are not considering the issues beyond "empowerment" or "bad assery".

2. D & D are not doing a very good job of portraying Ellaria and the Sand Snakes as being villains.

3. Or a combination of the above.

OR

D & D believe that Ellaria and the Sand Snakes are not villains and honestly believe they are portraying the empowerment and bad ass thingy here and didn't consider that many might take exception to Ellaria's and the Sand Snake's actions.

With regard to the murder of Myrcella, let's just remember that, evidently, D & D referred to Tywin Lannister as being "lawful neutral".

You and I think Tywin is pretty effing evil but I'd say (unfortunately) probably half this board would agree with their assessment (or maybe true neutral).  You have a disturbing number of people on this board and elsewhere that believe in ends >> means arguments in a literal short term sense.  AKA Red Wedding is morally justified because the war was put to an end. Or Tywin's vassals betrayed him and he's justified to do whatever he wants to them.  Or the Targaryen children needed to die to prevent a later war of succession (look how well that turned out!).  

I don't really see how anyone can justify Elaria's actions even with strict ends >> means utilitarianism.  She's committing a murder in order to start a war, not to end one.