(Spoilers) - The War makes no sense

[jcmontea]

19 minutes ago, Jabul said:

For now, I'll take one element of your extremely weak case and analyze it. Accordingly, I present--

Argument I

Joe said that only four people in the United States of America supported Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump won the presidential election. He is now president. There is no one in-universe who denies he is president. There are no Hillary-appointed members of the cabinet. 

Therefore, what Joe said is true. 

Do you actually believe that this argument is valid? It is of the same form as--

Argument II

Falcotron said that only four people in Dorne wanted to go to war. 

These four people were captured or killed. Cersei, Tyrion, and everyone else in-universe agrees that Dorne is out of the war. 

Therefore, what falcotron said is true. 

Neither one of these arguments is valid. Actually, I'd say that I is slightly better than II, but there's no need to go into that now. 

Do you maintain that Argument II is strong? If so, why? If not, what is your basis for saying that only four people in Dorne wanted to go to war?

The Dorne thing is obvious only a smart person could find a way to complicate it. 

Elaria controlled Dorne. Elaria is dead. No one controls Dorne. No one controlling Dorne means leadership struggle which means Dorne is not going to be projecting power anytime soon.

That is really all there is to it. It was clear just from watching the show this year. 

Then i read the outlines that were leaked and they even had dialogue around this that was cut, probably because it was so obvious. 

No other details are provided nor really matter to the story. 

[Jabul]

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

...

Some people knew about his crimes, even before his public confession. It was a common knowledge that the Mountain and one more member of Lannister's knights killed Aegon's wife and two children. Though people never complained, or argued whether he should be allowed to be a KG. 

...

As with my last post to falcotron, I’ll take one element of your weak case and analyze it: 

“It was common knowledge that the Mountain… killed Aegon’s wife and two children.” No, this is not common knowledge. Aegon was Rhaegar’s son. Aegon and his sister Rhaenys were murdered.  

“ Though people never complained…” People never complained about the Mountain? Are you serious? 

Or do you mean that people never complained about the fact that the Mountain killed Rhaegar’s children and raped and killed his wife? Well, we have this: “"You don't know your own people, their disgust for you. Elia Martell, raped and murdered and you did nothing. Oberyn Martell, butchered, and you did nothing. You're not a Dornishman. You're not our prince." Is your point that the people of Dorne are not people? Do you think that Ellaria and Oberyn were not people?  We also have this from Season 1, “A Golden Crown”:  

Eddard Stark: In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, I charge you to bring the king’s justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane and all those who shared in his crimes. I denounce him and attaint him. I strip him of all ranks and titles of all lands and holdings, and sentence him to death.

Do you think that the former Lord of Winterfell was not a person? Or do you think that he never had a complaint about the Mountain? He had a terrible argument with his liege lord, Robert, over the murders of the Targaryen children. Do you think he never complained about the Mountain concerning this matter?

[Jabul]

58 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

The Dorne thing is obvious only a smart person could find a way to complicate it. 

Elaria controlled Dorne. Elaria is dead. No one controls Dorne. No one controlling Dorne means leadership struggle which means Dorne is not going to be projecting power anytime soon.

That is really all there is to it. It was clear just from watching the show this year. 

Then i read the outlines that were leaked and they even had dialogue around this that was cut, probably because it was so obvious. 

No other details are provided nor really matter to the story. 

What is obvious is that you have not answered my questions. You have not even replied to them. 

Elaria controlled Dorne. Elaria is dead. Therefore only four people in Dorne wanted to go to war. This seems to be the essence of your "logic." 

[jcmontea]

33 minutes ago, Jabul said:

What is obvious is that you have not answered my questions. You have not even replied to them. 

Elaria controlled Dorne. Elaria is dead. Therefore only four people in Dorne wanted to go to war. This seems to be the essence of your "logic." 

My logic never depended on just four people in Dorne wanting to go to war. The show quite clearly showed us that is not true since at the very least the palace guards supported Elaria's coup. 

My only point is what I laid out is the simplest explanation. It just so happened to be the one they intended due to episode outlines. 

And frankly, I seriously doubt they thought about it more than five minutes so why should we think about it more than them. 

Dorne was just a plot device to kill off one of Cersei's kids and to allow Cersei to get revenge for that and notch some victory over Dany. Trying to analyze it and treat it as something more than just a simple plot device pays it more respect than D&D ever did and thus is probably not likely to lead to any sort of satisfactory answer. 

 

[Jon and Dany Targaryen]

No it doesn't make any sense. The simplest of reasons being that ANYONE would EVER trust cersei to hold up her end of the bargain in such an agreement. Jon? Tyrion? Really? Really, TYRION?? After everything she has done. Tyrion has single-handedly destroyed Dany's chances for taking over King's Landing. Deep down it's true- he does not want to "hurt" his family and needs to recognize in himself someone so conflicted with conflicts of interest should not be advising her!

[Jon and Dany Targaryen]

Almost comical in a way in that Jamie and Tyrion just have that glimmer of hope that there is some good left in Cercei. They keep trying to find it and have some proof of it. Her small speech at the dragon pit I really think Jamie felt was sincere. Her and Euron deserve each other.

[Count Balerion]

I do understand wanting to have Cersei around; but it was handled with incredible clumsiness:

1. I still can't get past the sept. The argument has been made that the citizens of KL roughed up a High Septon in the past. But Cersei apparently didn't just kill the High Septon and his sparrows, she abolished the office of High Septon. At all events, that's what i took away from jaime's comment that there was no more HS. That's a very big deal. Even today, we would be outraged and shocked if someone blew up the Vatican and abolished the papacy. We'd be a bit taken aback if someone even abolished the Church of England and blew up the cathedral in Canterbury. I think some people are confusing anti-clericalism (a normal thing in mediaeval society) with complete indifference to religion. "No more High Septon? Like whatevs." 

2. The position of the nobility. Westeros isn't a modern totalitarian state, and Cersei isn't Stalin. She *might* be able to terrorise KL, but the rest of the country has no particular compulsion to follow her even if they don't elect to go with Dany. Nor do I see any particular reason why they should. 

Dorne: "Now that we have an ally with dragons, getting out the war seems the sporting thing to do."

Reach: "Quite so. Fair play for the homicidal incestuous psychopath, and all that."

I had a vague thought for a more plausible scenario, where Dany apparently wins KL, but ... what are these mysterious murders that keep taking place? Could someone EVIL be lurking somewhere in the Red Keep, weaving an insidious web of murder and torture? What's that screaming in the dungeon?

Or:

Dany: "Surrender or I'll burn the Red Keep."

Cersei: (brings out random "little bird"): "Fine, then you'll also have to burn this innocent child!"

Dany: "Oh noes!"

Neither of those scenarios is the most brilliant thing in the universe; but at least they don't rely on Cersei suddenly being considered "respectable" by Westerosi Public Opinion.

[darmody]

11 hours ago, falcotron said:

This is really the same argument creationists use when they say evolution is stupid because we don't know how australopithecus evolved from chimpanzees, and therefore it can't have happened. Well, it's true that we don't know whether ardipithecus, orrorin, both, or neither are on the line from chimpanzees to australopithecus, but that doesn't mean anything—the fact that we seem to have evolved from chimpanzees, and there are multiple plausible paths for how it could have happened, is enough to show that the argument is nonsense.

Likewise, we don't know exactly what the details are for why Dorne it out of the war. But the fact that we know that Dorne is out of the war, and there are multiple plausible ways that could happen, is enough to show that the argument is nonsense.

There may or may not be a deity creating species in reality, as opposed to them springing up on their own through natural selection. But we happen to know there are godlike creators overlooking Universos, named D&D, creating and destroying characters and at will. If they leave a link missing we can just assume it's there--hidden from view--or not. Maybe they left it out for good reason, maybe they forgot, or maybe they said "Ah, screw it, we want Dorne out of the war, so it just is. Deal with it."

 

I find the Missing Link argument for story elements entertaining. Evolution is the best explanation we have for the appearance of new species without considering metaphysical intervention. Humans, for instance, are here, and therefore must have evolved from something. The something we evolved from must have evolved from something else, and so on. Doesn't really matter how, we know it happened because there's no other way. 

What does that have to do with storytelling, exactly? Stories could easily be written billions of other ways. It's all up to the storyteller. Of course, they never show you every single discrete step of cause and effect. Something or other will be skipped over. But your way, they could skip over entire acts and say to those frustrated by the omissions, "Look, we got to this part *somehow*. Trust us, it made sense. Now shut up and enjoy."

[Beardy the Wildling]

17 minutes ago, darmody said:

There may or may not be a deity creating species in reality, as opposed to them springing up on their own through natural selection. But we happen to know there are godlike creators overlooking Universos, named D&D, creating and destroying characters and at will. If they leave a link missing we can just assume it's there--hidden from view--or not. Maybe they left it out for good reason, maybe they forgot, or maybe they said "Ah, screw it, we want Dorne out of the war, so it just is. Deal with it."

 

I find the Missing Link argument for story elements entertaining. Evolution is the best explanation we have for the appearance of new species without considering metaphysical intervention. Humans, for instance, are here, and therefore must have evolved from something. The something we evolved from must have evolved from something else, and so on. Doesn't really matter how, we know it happened because there's no other way. 

What does that have to do with storytelling, exactly? Stories could easily be written billions of other ways. It's all up to the storyteller. Of course, they never show you every single discrete step of cause and effect. Something or other will be skipped over. But your way, they could skip over entire acts and say to those frustrated by the omissions, "Look, we got to this part *somehow*. Trust us, it made sense. Now shut up and enjoy."

This.

While lots of unintuitive stuff has been proven to be correct, the thing about evolution is 1: There's fuck tons of evidence for common descent with chimps, and 2: Even if it's got missing details between it and chimps, and it and humanity, there's still plenty of evidence, like skull structure, aDNA, etc, etc, which indicates that yes, this is the case. It isn't the conjecture the likes of Megorova claims is fact, it isn't a violation of Occam's Razor, it is, in fact, the most parsimonious solution, which is just the same logic one uses for stories.

Even then... creators have an even harder job than evolution, because almost everything has to make sense, everything has to add up. To quote 'How NOT to Write a Novel':

"Thus, God can work with the most mindbending coincidences, far-fetched plot devices, and perverse dramatic ironies, never giving a moment's thought to whether or not his audience will buy it. You [the novelist] do not have that luxury."

Stories are stories. Reality is reality. There needs to be arcs in a story, shit needs to be consistent, believable, there's an actual fucking critical audience out there being sceptical, it's not like there's the same for our universe (at least, that we know of :P).

Edit: Another nice quote by Mark Twain:

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't."

[darmody]

6 hours ago, jcmontea said:

The Dorne thing is obvious only a smart person could find a way to complicate it. 

Elaria controlled Dorne. Elaria is dead. No one controls Dorne. No one controlling Dorne means leadership struggle which means Dorne is not going to be projecting power anytime soon.

That is really all there is to it. It was clear just from watching the show this year. 

Then i read the outlines that were leaked and they even had dialogue around this that was cut, probably because it was so obvious. 

No other details are provided nor really matter to the story. 

It's clear, in the basic, barebones sense that the audience gets the message that Dorne is out of the war because Elaria was captured, yes. I don't think people complaining about it are walking around with their hands in the air saying, "What happened? I don't get it." 

[jcmontea]

45 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

This.

While lots of unintuitive stuff has been proven to be correct, the thing about evolution is 1: There's fuck tons of evidence for common descent with chimps, and 2: Even if it's got missing details between it and chimps, and it and humanity, there's still plenty of evidence, like skull structure, aDNA, etc, etc, which indicates that yes, this is the case. It isn't the conjecture the likes of Megorova claims is fact, it isn't a violation of Occam's Razor, it is, in fact, the most parsimonious solution, which is just the same logic one uses for stories.

Even then... creators have an even harder job than evolution, because almost everything has to make sense, everything has to add up. To quote 'How NOT to Write a Novel':

"Thus, God can work with the most mindbending coincidences, far-fetched plot devices, and perverse dramatic ironies, never giving a moment's thought to whether or not his audience will buy it. You [the novelist] do not have that luxury."

Stories are stories. Reality is reality. There needs to be arcs in a story, shit needs to be consistent, believable, there's an actual fucking critical audience out there being sceptical, it's not like there's the same for our universe (at least, that we know of :P).

Edit: Another nice quote by Mark Twain:

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't."

Lol. Great quote. Reality is crazy. 

[darmody]

4 hours ago, Count Balerion said:

The position of the nobility. Westeros isn't a modern totalitarian state, and Cersei isn't Stalin. She *might* be able to terrorise KL, but the rest of the country has no particular compulsion to follow her even if they don't elect to go with Dany. Nor do I see any particular reason why they should. 

That's exactly the situation Cersei was shown facing at the beginning of the season:

The North declared itself independent.

The Vale is aligned with them. 

Dorne and the Reach were in open rebellion (if you can call it rebellion when Cersei has no real claim on the throne).

Leaving at most 3 of the 7 kingdoms on her side. Plus Riverrun, if it still exists. We don't actually know about the Stormlands. Euron only brought along the Iron Islands because Yara got to Dany first. 

I was expecting scenes where Cersei had people come to the throne room to "bend the knee," and maybe where she makes some mooks Lord Paramount of this-and-that, in place of all the people who refused to come. But I suppose that would've been too pathetic for the Borg Queen. 

[falcotron]

45 minutes ago, darmody said:

What does that have to do with storytelling, exactly? Stories could easily be written billions of other ways. It's all up to the storyteller. Of course, they never show you every single discrete step of cause and effect. Something or other will be skipped over. But your way, they could skip over entire acts and say to those frustrated by the omissions, "Look, we got to this part *somehow*. Trust us, it made sense. Now shut up and enjoy."

Of course you can skip over entire acts. Stories do that all the time. It's not qualitatively any different than skipping over scenes. As long as it's plausible that you could have gotten here from there, and what you skipped over isn't important to the rest of the story, and the rest of the story is interesting, nobody cares.

Look at Foundation—it jumps over 50 years, then 30, then 55, then 20. If you couldn't possibly imagine how things got from the end of The Traders to The Merchant Princes, then it might be a plot hole. But in fact, although we don't really know how things got from the end of The Traders to The Merchant Princes, there are perfectly plausible possibilities that work just fine There's no storytelling flaw there.

You're allowed to say "trust us, it made sense" when most people can imagine how it made sense. It doesn't matter if a few people refuse to imagine it; that's not your problem, it's theirs. And anyone who's refusing to participate as an engaged reader/viewer for some other reason isn't going to be won over no matter what you do. Only an idiot would write for hate-watchers as their target audience.

And that's why it's the same as creationism. If a few people refuse to imagine that humanity and chimpanzees could be related, that's a problem with those people. While they may pretend to be asking a logical question when they ask "Where's the missing link between Pan and Australopithecus", they're not actually asking whether Orrorin or Ardipithecus do or don't fit within that gap, nor are they asking for evidence that convinces us that Pan and Australopithecus are related even if we never find any more missing links, they're insisting that they're going to refuse to believe anything you offer.

[Beardy the Wildling]

3 minutes ago, falcotron said:

And that's why it's the same as creationism. If a few people refuse to imagine that humanity and chimpanzees could be related, that's a problem with those people. While they may pretend to be asking a logical question when they ask "Where's the missing link between Pan and Australopithecus", they're not actually asking whether Orrorin or Ardipithecus do or don't fit within that gap, nor are they asking for evidence that convinces us that Pan and Australopithecus are related even if we never find any more missing links, they're insisting that they're going to refuse to believe anything you offer.

Not quite. Once again, evolution can plausibly explain its gaps without resorting to mistruth. 'It just works' has never been the answer with evolution; it's always been either 'there's a method here which predicts the most likely outcome' or 'we haven't got enough information yet; who knows what's happened? Let's work to find the relevant info.'

Because that's how science works. It doesn't work by blind acceptance as you seem to think.

[falcotron]

3 minutes ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

Not quite. Once again, evolution can plausibly explain its gaps without resorting to mistruth. 'It just works' has never been the answer with evolution; it's always been either 'there's a method here which predicts the most likely outcome' or 'we haven't got enough information yet; who knows what's happened? Let's work to find the relevant info.'

Because that's how science works. It doesn't work by blind acceptance as you seem to think.

You're misrepresenting what I said. Nobody needs to "resort to mistruth" to explain the gaps in Foundation, or in any of the thousands and thousands of other stories that skip over bits, and nobody needs to "resort to mistruth" here, either.

[darmody]

On 9/26/2017 at 9:46 AM, MinscS2 said:

I think this is a very good point and something which is very likely to happen. 
Dany need the people of Westeros behind her if she's to be a successful queen. Simply storming in, killing Cersei and then place herself on the throne is not enough to rally the people behind her, if anything it would have the reverse effect and she'd be seen as a invading conqueror.

By saving the North and by extension the entire realm, Dany get's the goodwill she needs, and if she conquers Kings Landing and depose Cersei after doing this she will not be seen as a invading conqueror, but as a savior.

I've not come to conquer the North. I'm coming to save the North.
In season 8 she'd be able to replace "North" with "Realm".

But she *is* a conqueror, isn't she? Or have I been watching a different show? Ever since her brother died and she coaxed her Dothraki husband to invade Westeros on behalf of their unborn son that's the way I saw her, and my opinion hasn't changed. The show didn't use to hide it,either, though they gave her supposedly noble causes. 

If her goal was to win the people over, she should have been building up diplomatic relations between herself and the lords of Westeros over the seasons. Instead, the show had her trying to be Queen of Easteros, abolishing slavery and whatnot. Even open war in the West, with kings widely recognized as being illegitimate, wasn't enough to bring her over. 

Varys did his one and only service to Dany when he hooked her up with Dorne and the Reach, who in tandem with Yara and her share of the Ironborn meant a goodly share of Westerosi Grrl Power was coming for Cersei. Dany had two kingdoms on her side, and may or may not have known the North and the Vale split off from the crown. Sitting on the throne was a woman with no claim and so far as we know at that point only controlled the Crownlands and the Westerlands. Which is as good a time as any to come over. 

Would've been nice to have a few Selmys on her side, instead of her motley crew of a court. Not as bad as Cersei's Monster Squad, but she had a bunch of foreigners and a monkey imp kinslayer. It also may not send the best message to bring over foreign armies, including one known for raping and pillaging. But it's better in her mind, even if she plans to conquer Westeros with Westerosi armies, to have them at hand just in case. 

Once she's over here, I don't understand the argument in favor of not attacking Cersei directly. Or at least not squeezing off King's Landing. You have what should be the most unpopular monarch in history, and the weakest since the 7 Kingdoms were brought together. And you're there to conquer.

Not cutting off the head first is the perfect example of how standing in the middle of the road can get you run over. She can't be half-in, half-out. Conquer or get off the pot. 

 

 

As for saving the realm, that would help her PR. And she needs PR help, being the daughter of the Mad King, having a reputation for burning and crucifying people, having known nothing but the East and being surrounded by foreigners, etc. But Dany doesn't know about the Army of the Dead until after Jon informs her, after she's over here. Would've been nice to talk to him back in Mereen, but she's already made the decision to come over, allied as she is with 2 of the 7 kingdoms, and Cersei being about as weak as a queen can be. 

In the absence of the Cersei factor I would've said wait for more allies or just be an out-and-out conqueror. But the thing is Dany doesn't need to be a savior to conquer Westeros. In any sort of realistic show Cersei would easily have worse PR than her. 

[Beardy the Wildling]

35 minutes ago, falcotron said:

You're misrepresenting what I said. Nobody needs to "resort to mistruth" to explain the gaps in Foundation, or in any of the thousands and thousands of other stories that skip over bits, and nobody needs to "resort to mistruth" here, either.

All right, I'll grant stories can skip minutia, but trying to use the evolution vs creationism dichotomy to represent the point is not an apt analogy, especially given it's the creationists that come up with the least parsimonious explanation to fill the gaps by making up the explanation of 'God made it via speaking it into existence in this order and that and there was a man, a woman, a snake and some fruit etc etc rest of the bible etc etc so you should believe in Jesus Christ and reject science'.

Science operates on Occam's Razor (the simplest solution is usually the correct one) most of the time. In other words, the fewer assumptions, the better, meaning the fewer gaps filled by imagination (and more filled by evidence), the better.

[Jabul]

6 hours ago, jcmontea said:

My logic never depended on just four people in Dorne wanting to go to war. The show quite clearly showed us that is not true since at the very least the palace guards supported Elaria's coup. 

My only point is what I laid out is the simplest explanation. It just so happened to be the one they intended due to episode outlines. 

And frankly, I seriously doubt they thought about it more than five minutes so why should we think about it more than them. 

Dorne was just a plot device to kill off one of Cersei's kids and to allow Cersei to get revenge for that and notch some victory over Dany. Trying to analyze it and treat it as something more than just a simple plot device pays it more respect than D&D ever did and thus is probably not likely to lead to any sort of satisfactory answer. 

 

Okay, sorry. I was misled by the fact that your post was a reply to my argument against falcotron. I really can't expect you to defend someone else's opinions. I think your opinion on the lack of importance of Dorne is well founded. 

My main problem, and that of other posters, concerning this matter is with Tyrion and the other Targaryen advisers. These people used to be smart. Suddenly, unaccountably, implausibly, they are incredibly dumb. Their failure to communicate further with Dorne is just one example of the larger problem with Season 7. I can get by with leaving this one example out. 

[Beardy the Wildling]

1 minute ago, Jabul said:

Okay, sorry. I was misled by the fact that your post was a reply to my argument against falcotron. I really can't expect you to defend someone else's opinions. I think your opinion on the lack of importance of Dorne is well founded. 

My main problem, and that of other posters, concerning this matter is with Tyrion and the other Targaryen advisers. These people used to be smart. Suddenly, unaccountably, implausibly, they are incredibly dumb. Their failure to communicate further with Dorne is just one example of the larger problem with Season 7. I can get by with leaving this one example out. 

I honestly think GoT would have been better off not including Dorne for all the good it did. I know, it'd have required the foresight of Jesus and probably a thousand small tweaks going back to Season 1 for that to fully work, but bad pussy really stank

[darmody]

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

And that's why it's the same as creationism. If a few people refuse to imagine that humanity and chimpanzees could be related, that's a problem with those people. While they may pretend to be asking a logical question when they ask "Where's the missing link between Pan and Australopithecus", they're not actually asking whether Orrorin or Ardipithecus do or don't fit within that gap, nor are they asking for evidence that convinces us that Pan and Australopithecus are related even if we never find any more missing links, they're insisting that they're going to refuse to believe anything you offer.

Not every skeptic of evolution is arguing in bad faith. But even if I accept that all those properly labeled creationists are, it still bears no relation to the matter at hand. I didn't criticize the Dornish storyline in bad faith. I probably wouldn't accept the true explanation, but that's because I believe it's a stupid and/or half-assed story. Not because I wouldn't accept any explanation. If there's one that would make it a good story, I'd prefer D&D to have told it to me. 

Anyway, audience appreciation of tv storytelling is not a matter of finding the best explanation of the evidence, as with evolution. Your preferred method of treating the show like scientific fact, then finding ways to explain it as such, is beside the point of most criticism of the Dornish plot from last season. Which, yes, is partly, "What happened?" and "How did it happen that way?" But it's also moral, as in "It was bad that it happened that way." The moral aspect is absent from evolutionary science.

It hardly matters for evolutionists whether the story of mankind makes sense, comes off, or "works" in the sense of pleasing a discerning audience. Natural selection is not good or bad to them, it just is. Not so storytelling. I and basically every other consumer of Game of Thrones, including I assume you, feel no burden to find an explanation for everything that happens on the show simply because it happens. That may be so in the natural world, where the principle of sufficient reason reigns. But we know Game of Thrones is a product of the minds of D&D (and, indirectly, George Martin and HBO executives), not the laws of nature.

 

 

Your assertion, if I can put it on my own words, about having to accept plausible explanations for what happens on screen (either the most plausible explanation, or any number of plausible alternatives, or maybe all possible alternatives at once) because "it happened, deal with it" I find a highly unusual way to watch tv. I get it for minor story elements, like "Why is Royce still in the North?" Because it doesn't affect the larger story much, I can come up with any number of explanations. So long as they don't contradict the story as shown, I'm fine with it. The showrunners are kinda innocent until proved guilty in some cases. 

But other story elements, like say Jaime stabbing Cersei in the back, we're going to need an explicit explanation. It can happen out of nowhere to shock us, but then afterwards the show must give us some indication of Official Opinion on the matter. He couldn't take all the evil anymore, whatever. 

We may disagree on which story elements fit which category, and of course there's plenty of middle ground. Showing why Dorne isn't in the war anymore isn't absolutely necessary. But Dany starting to lose the war prior to Field of Fire II was a major storyline last season, and a major part of that story was an entire kingdom suddenly not being on her side anymore. To have it basically just disappear is an insult to the audience. 

Having us hear the full story probably would've been worse, however. Because I assume in D&D's heads Dorne went to war solely because Oberon's mistress told them to. Which is stupid.