Samwell Tarly stole the spotlight.

[Rose of Red Lake]

The longer this goes it just sounds like a forum poster's own personal views. House Tyrell and House Lannister spent like five seasons breaking oaths to each other so where did the treason start? She executed - excuse me, murdered since D&D are using this word now - prisoners for not kneeling to her. That's the only reason the show gives. Any random soldier could have stood up and she'd do the same to him.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, D-Shiznit said:

You're applying my morality to the world that I don't live in. In Westeros the punishment for oath breaking is death. Just ask Janos Slint.

So if Dany executed Olenna for killing Joffrey, you would approve that action?

[D-Shiznit]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So if Dany executed Olenna for killing Joffrey, you would approve that action?

I don't approve of anything in GOT, doesn't change the fact that the Tarlys did break their oath, and if you fault Dany for executing them, then you should fault others who have executed oath breakers as well.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, D-Shiznit said:

I don't approve of anything in GOT, doesn't change the fact that the Tarlys did break their oath, and if you fault Dany for executing them, then you should fault others who have executed oath breakers as well.

Why not find fault with others who have executed oath breakers? The fact of the matter is that there is no simple answer to whether oath breakers, as a general rule, should be executed. It depends on a lot of facts and circumstances. 

And again, the idea that Dany executed the Tarlys' for treason is a complete fiction here. If she intended to execute them for treason, then it would seem at the very least she would allow them to give an explanation or trial by combat before passing judgement. No such thing occurred.

[D-Shiznit]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Why not find fault with others who have executed oath breakers? The fact of the matter is that there is no simple answer to whether oath breakers, as a general rule, should be executed. It depends on a lot of facts and circumstances. 

And again, the idea that Dany executed the Tarlys' for treason is a complete fiction here. If she intended to execute them for treason, then it would seem at the very least she would allow them to give an explanation or trial by combat before passing judgement. No such thing occurred.

Jon didn't give Janos Slint a trial for breaking his oath, and all he did was refuse an assignment, he even showed remorse and agreed to go, but Jon still executed him. If you're gonna fault an execution for oath breaking start with that one, as it doesn't even compare to the Tarly's sacking Highgarden massacring countless people in it, pillaging it, and causing the extinction of their liege house.

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Jon didn't give Janos Slint a trial for breaking his oath, and all he did was refuse an assignment, he even showed remorse and agreed to go, but Jon still executed him. If you're gonna fault an execution for oath breaking start with that one, as it doesn't even compare to the Tarly's sacking Highgarden massacring countless people in it, pillaging it, and causing the extinction of their liege house.

The point here is that there was no indication that Dany intended to execute them for treason. That was something entirely made up by you. A complete fiction.

We do know that the Janos Slynt situation did have something to do with treason, or disobeying an order, whatever your take on Jon's resolution of that situation. No need to make shit up about what that was about.

[D-Shiznit]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

The point here is that there was no indication that Dany intended to execute them for treason. That was something entirely made up by you. A complete fiction.

We do know that the Janos Slynt situation did have something to do with treason, whatever your take on Jon's resolution of that situation. No need to make shit up about what that was about.

So you believe refusing an assignment is treason, but sacking your liege lord castle, and causing their extinction isn't? Dany was recognized by the Tyrell's as their Queen and protector of their realm, she had every right to execute the Tarlys. If you're gonna fault her, make sure to fault Jon exponentially more as he bedhead a guy for insubordination, who agreed to make amends and apologized.

[Corvinus85]

I don't see Dany doing anything worse than Aegon the Conqueror. Aegon killed anyone who opposed him, most in battle sure, but pretty much everyone who survived the battles against him weren't stupid enough not to bend the knee afterwards.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Executions at the Night's Watch are different because they are the last stop for prisoners, you have nowhere else to send them and everyone in Westeros knows this. Dany still had that option to send them to the Night's Watch in chains, but she had to be bReaKer oF cHaiNs instead. Ironically she just ended up reinforcing the perception of "Mad King's daughter". Jon also didn't execute Slynt (or anyone for that matter) in pursuit of his birthright or his quest for the throne.

[OldGimletEye]

12 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

So you believe refusing an assignment is treason, but sacking your liege lord castle, and causing their extinction isn't? Dany was recognized by the Tyrell's as their Queen and protector of their realm, she had every right to execute the Tarlys. If you're gonna fault her, make sure to fault Jon exponentially more as he bedhead a guy for insubordination, who agreed to make amends and apologized.

First and foremost, I don't believe in arguing over fake facts. At no point, was there a shred of evidence, that Dany executed them for treason. She could have cared less about what happened to the Tyrell's, whose own conduct wasn't one of complete clean hands I might add. And, again, I don't think killing Dickon was a good thing to do, even if it were justified for Randyll.

With regard to Slynt situation, I'll put this way, if one of Dany's army commanders were to refuse a direct order, that didn't implicate the laws of war, and repeatedly refused to carry out that order, I would be more sympathetic to an execution. The reason is that I understand in a military organization, carrying out orders quickly and efficiently is vital to said organization's survival and mission accomplishment. And in that situation there is a pretty clear chain of command and not all these conflicting loyalties and oaths that are found in many of these feudal arrangements.

[D-Shiznit]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

First and foremost, I don't believe in arguing over fake facts. At no point, was their a shred of evidence, that Dany executed them for treason. She could have cared less about what happened to the Tyrell's, whose own conduct was one of complete hands I might add. And, again, I don't think killing Dickon was a good thing to do, even if it were to be justified for Randyll.

With regard to Slynt situation, I'll put this way, if one of Dany's army commanders were to refuse a direct order, that didn't implicate the laws of war, and repeatedly refused to carry out that order, I would be more sympathetic to an execution. The reason is that I understand in a military organization, carrying out orders quickly and efficiently is vital to said organization's survival and mission accomplishment. And in that situation there is a pretty clear chain of command and not all these conflicting loyalties and oaths that are found in many of these feudal arrangements.

Dany is the lawful Queen of the Reach because the liege lord of that kingdom recognized her authority over that realm, that's not a fake fact, neither is the fact that by refusing to recognize that the Tarly's were committing treason. Executing them was her right as Queen of the Reach, and protector of that realm, just like Jon executing Slint was his.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Dany is the lawful Queen of the Reach because the liege lord of that kingdom recognized here authority over that realm, that's not a fake fact, neither is the fact that by refusing to recognize that the Tarly's were commuting treason. Executing them was her right as Queen of the Reach, and protector of that realm, just like Jon executing Slint was his.

Tell us apart the part where Dany tried them for treason? Or at least tell us about the part where it was patently clear that they were being executed for treason? Say what you want about the Slynt situation, at least one doesn't have to make shit up in order to understand what that was about, whether one agrees or disagrees with Jon's actions.

[D-Shiznit]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Tell us apart the part where Dany tried them for treason? Or at least tell us about the part where it was patently clear that they were being executed for treason? Say what you want about how the Slynt situation, at least one doesn't have to make shit up in order to understand what that was about.

Her authority over the Reach is lawful as decreed by the Warden of that kingdom, by recognizing a different crown the Tarly's committed treason. Same as Jon's lordship over the Nights Watch, and Slint's refusal to obey his command. Either both punishments were lawful, or they both weren't.

[darmody]

2 hours ago, King Jon Snow Stark said:

Jon would be a traitor if he did because he swore to her. 

Jon swore allegiance under the pretence that she is the rightful heir of the Mad King. If it turns out he's ahead of her in line, I don't think his oath would preclude him from claiming the crown. 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, D-Shiznit said:

That's how POWs work in GOT, Stannis made the same offer to the Mance Raider.

Robb didn't do that in GOT. Jaime doesn't in RR.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

Her authority over the Reach is lawful as decreed by the Warden of that kingdom, by recognizing a different crown the Tarly's committed treason. 

By all means, do the ol' Texas Two Step around my question.

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

 Either both punishments were lawful, or they both weren't.

Lawful doesn't always mean wise or best. Anyway, the legalities is something you are trying to throw in there evidently at the last minute. I don't recall this ever being a dispute about Dany's lawful jurisdiction over treason cases.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Her authority over the Reach is lawful as decreed by the Warden of that kingdom, by recognizing a different crown the Tarly's committed treason. Same as Jon's lordship over the Nights Watch, and Slint's refusal to obey his command. Either both punishments were lawful, or they both weren't.

LMAO.  Dany doesn't have any authority over the Reach, because House Tyrell lost to the Lannisters, this is nonsense.  Not only are there no more Tyrells, but the Lannisters are now in control of Highgarden, so by your definition, that would make Dany the one committing treason against the Lannister and the Queen's bannermen, the Tarlys.  Or, you could just admit that she killed them because they wouldn't bend the knee.  

[divica]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

Robb didn't do that in GOT. Jaime doesn't in RR.

Do people really want to use the stannis exemple?

He burned mance and the wildlings hated him for it… IT was a bad pr move...

[darmody]

43 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Jon didn't give Janos Slint a trial for breaking his oath, and all he did was refuse an assignment, he even showed remorse and agreed to go, but Jon still executed him. If you're gonna fault an execution for oath breaking start with that one, as it doesn't even compare to the Tarly's sacking Highgarden massacring countless people in it, pillaging it, and causing the extinction of their liege house.

Janos Slint was not killed for oath-breaking. He disobeyed a direct order from his commander in what could be considered an ongoing time of war. Mutiny, basically. 

[divica]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

LMAO.  Dany doesn't have any authority over the Reach, because House Tyrell lost to the Lannisters, this is nonsense.  Not only are there no more Tyrells, but the Lannisters are now in control of Highgarden, so by your definition, that would make Dany the one committing treason against the Lannister and the Queen's bannermen, the Tarlys.  Or, you could just admit that she killed them because they wouldn't bend the knee.  

Does danny ever say "you betrayed the tyrells so you deserve to die"?

Because she was happy to forgive any treason as long as they bent the knee… I would actually think it would be much bettter if she burned radyll because of his treason than not bending the knee.