Samwell Tarly stole the spotlight.

[Krishtotter]

40 minutes ago, DisneyDoc2425 said:

One of my main concerns regarding Daenerys' “executions” is not so much that she killed people (though I do feel some of them were inappropriate) but rather the seeming sense of sadistic satisfaction/gratification she appeared to derive from the “killing” behaviors, coupled with the lack of remorse afterwards. These include the following:

Refusing to look away and actually relishing watching Drogo kill her brother with the molten gold.

Standing on the balcony listening to the screams of the Masters she was crucifying in Meereen.

Caressing the back one of the Family Heads in Meereen while she is watching in an seemingly gratified manner as her dragons burns alive and then eats another Family Head.

The smiling and gratified look she had on her face while listening to their screams when she trapped and burned the Khals.

The lack of any empathy when telling Sam about her murdering (as per D&D) of his father/brother (indicating a lack of remorse in this case).

Again the above incidents have nothing to do with whether you perceive the “killing” behaviors as being justified or not, but rather what she personally derived emotionally from engaging in the behaviors. The sadistic satisfaction/gratification she derived from the behaviors would be consistent with a sociopathic component to her personality and is reinforced by her lack of remorse for the behaviors (at least I do not recall seeing any in my recent watching of the whole series).

GRRM is famous for imparting “gray” components (both good and bad character traits) to many characters in his writings. It is all relative of course but at some point the gray can evolve to darkness (as well as in the other direction for characters like Theon and Jamie). If the comments made by John Bradley are genuine then things don't look too good for Daenerys' fate. Perhaps they are red herrings and Daenerys will also move away from the dark side of her personality. I would prefer this. We shall see.

 

This! 

I would add one small and more seemingly peripheral but telling 'indicative behaviour': when she departs from Meereen and breaks up her relationship with Daario, she remarks: "I said farewell to a man who loves me. A man I thought I cared for. And I felt nothing. Just impatient to get on with it".

Just as with Sam grieving over his slaughtered relatives, Daenerys 'feels nothing' for a person she has had a sexual and romantic relationship with for years and who has risked his life to save her from the Dothraki, and faithfully served her in numerous other ways. She used Daario for her own pleasure until he no longer served any useful purpose to her. 

This was a small detail pointing towards her lack of emotional connection with others, when they do not 'fit in' with her hunger for gaining the Iron Throne, that overriding ambition that defines her. 

She literally 'feels nothing' for people who she deems to stand between herself and that vision. 

I wonder, does she "think she cares" for other people too that, when it comes down to it, she really feels 'nothing' for? 

Consider the cold, emotionless manner in which she reflects on her having "thought" she cared for him. You don't "think" you care for people, if your a normal non-sociopathic individual, you just do care instinctively because you empathise with others. 

It's not simply the case that she's fallen out of love with him or realises that their romance was nothing more than a casual affair in the first place but that she literally, seriously, "felt nothing" emotionally whatsoever in relation to him. She thought she 'cared' for him but really doesn't. 

Might I suggest that she 'thinks' she cares for the people of Westeros but may not if they don't laud her as their queen? 

[D-Shiznit]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Not sure that is applicable. In this particular case, Umber had already broken his oath to the crown. Supposing the case was he had a choice of keeping his oath to the crown while breaking his oath to the liege or vice versa, the controlling case would be what again? Opinions in Westeros may differ on what he should do, but it's not clear what the rule is supposed to be.

 

And if Randall had broken is oath to Cersei he'd be an oathbreaker to.

In order to pledge his oath to Cersei he had to first break his oath to House Tyrell, making him an oath breaker. He opened himself to be punished accordingly when he did that. Just like the Frey's and Boltons who broke their oaths to their lieges, or Great Jon umber who was threatening to break his oath.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

In order to pledge his oath to Cersei he had to first break his oath to House Tyrell, making him an oath breaker. 

Uh wait, but didn't he make the pledge after House Tyrell did?

[D-Shiznit]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Uh wait, but didn't he make the pledge after House Tyrell did?

House Tarly pledged to Dany is Season 6 Finale, he agreed to back House Lannister in Season 7 premier. Making him binded to House Tyrel's pledge by oath, as they are his liege.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

House Tarly pledged to Dany is Season 6 Finale, he agreed to back House Lannister in Season 7 premier. Making him binded to House Tyrel pledge by oath.

Okay, maybe that is true, but why isn't Olenna a traitor for murdering Joffrey?

[D-Shiznit]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, maybe that is true, but why isn't Olenna a traitor for murdering Joffrey?

She's a murderer and if caught would be executed, but House Tarly's oath to House Tyrell would still stand. As the oath is house to house.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

She's a murderer and if caught would be executed, but House Tarly's oath to House Tyrell would still stand. As the oath is house to house.

So do you think Olenna's murder of Joffrey was jusfitied? Given the circumstances, would you be comfortable just labeling her a traitor?

In a hypothetical scenario, should Dany kill Olenna for treason?

And please don't just repeat to me what you think traitor means in GOT.

[D-Shiznit]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

So do you think Olenna's murder of Joffrey was jusfitied? Given the circumstances, would you be comfortable just labeling her a traitor?

And please don't just repeat to me what you think traitor means in GOT.

Never said it was justified, she committed murder and would be executed for it if caught. And afterwards, House Tarly's oath would still stand. As it is house to house.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, D-Shiznit said:

Never said it was justified, she committed murder and would be executed for it if caught. And afterwards, House Tarly's oath would still stand. As it is house to house.

Supposing Dany found out about Olenna's treason. Her judgement should be what? 

[D-Shiznit]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Supposing Dany found out about Olenna's treason. Her judgement should be what? 

It's up to her, she can pardon her or execute her for murder, she has the authority as she is recognized by Olenna as Warden of the South, and her house as the Queen of the Reach.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, D-Shiznit said:

It's up to her, she can pardon her or execute her for murder, she has the authority as she is recognized by Olenna and her house as the Queen of the Reach.

I'm asking you what should be done in a case like this, not Dany.

[D-Shiznit]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm asking you what should be done in a case like this, not Dany.

Either can be done, for example Jon choose to not execute Melissandra for murder, but Robb did chose to execute Lord Karstark for the same.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, D-Shiznit said:

Either can be done, for example Jon choose to not execute Melissandra for murder, but Robb did choose to execute Lord Karstark for the same.

Again, I'm not asking Jon nor Dany, how they would resolve these matters. I'm asking you.

[D-Shiznit]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Again, I'm not asking Jon nor Dany, how they would resolve these matters. I'm asking you.

I wouldn't execute an old lady, she's too old to kill. House arrest probably.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

I wouldn't execute an old lady, she's too old to kill. House arrest probably.

So in other words, the fact that somebody might be guilty of treason doesn't dispose of the case for you. In other words, being a traitor, real or alleged, doesn't to your mind mean an automatic death sentence.

[D-Shiznit]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So in other words, the fact that somebody might be guilty of treason doesn't dispose of the case for you. In other words, being a traitor, real or alleged, doesn't to your mind mean an automatic death sentence.

For my 21st century morality, I would punish an old frail lady with more leniency, but I would understand if someone choose to exercise the full punishment under law as often happens in our modern society. However, I would execute the Tarlys for breaking their oath, as I would Karsatrk for committing murder.

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Robb made it black and White with Great Jon Umber, he said he would hang him if he didn't obey his command and uphold his oath.

It is therefore a case by case issue, where it depends whether the liege is actually in a position to enforce it or whether the crown can enforce it. It does show why the Northerners were advocates to call Stark their KitN: resolved their issue on whether they were traitors to the crown or their liege. Both had become one to them. Both House Tully and House Stark know they cannot enforce this on Walder Frey though. If you need to look for traitors to House Stark, then House Bolton is. Roose had recognized Robb as his king and Robb had not broken any agreement with Roose.

Why do I mention the ability to enforce it? Because the contract between a liege and his vassal is never one-sided. It depends on whether the liege is able to provide protection for his vassal's lands. Lieges are called "protector of..." for a reason. If a liege is unable to do so, then there is wriggle room for the vassal to get out of the oath. Hence, that's why when Robb loses the North to the Ironborn and Roose's forces become the main body of the army Roose sees his chance to betray him publically. Still, Roose is a traitor, because he sabotaged Robb's forces and most likely left his son with orders to do away with House Stark in the North, even before his levies became the main body of Robb's army. His betrayal predates the moment that Robb lost the North. 

This grey area is applicable on the liege-vassal relation that Tarly has with the Tyrells. House Tyrell was almost completely extinct. Solely Olenna Tyrell was left, who actually is a Redwyne. She is too old to have children and has no heirs whatsoever. Once she dies, the Reach is left without a liege. She is not a military leader and much of her forces have been depleted at the Blackwater and the demise of the Sept. Meanwhile House Tarly has been pretty much one of the greater forces within the Tyrell army. Olenna is not in a position to guarantee the safety of House Tarly if she puts them in a situation between oath to liege and oath to crown, when Cersei still has (unexplicably) a large Lannister army. And apparently, without ever consulting with her military leaders and lords of her vassal houses, Olenna breaks the crown's peace and acknowledges another claimant who occupies nothing of Westeros, except for Dragonstone. Doing that, she put her vassals in jeopardy and broke her part of her oath to them. Olenna is a bad liege towards her vassals. And like you can't blame House Frey for choosing the side that they think ensures their protection the most, you can't blame House Tarly for that either. On top of that we lack any evidence so far that Tarly was plotting to do away with House Tyrell, before Olenna put him in that situation.

So, no it is not straightforward black & white treason by Tarly to choose the Crown he swore an oath to over the oath towards his liege.

In comes Dany with her Dothraki and dragons, proving that Cersei cannot protect the 7 kingdoms against Dany's personal army. However, Dany cannot provide any security to whomever she asks to bend the knee either, when Cersei has all the gold and Euron's 1000 ships. Her Unsullied are at the Westerlands, and all she has left are Dothraki "savages" and dragons. Dragons can't be everywhere all the time, and Dothraki are as far as Tarly knows slavers. Why would he bend the knee and allow slavers on his lands? If he does so, he breaks his contract with his farmers and villagers he's supposed to keep safe.

Nothing of this is black & white. Dany and some readers or viewers are trying to argue it is this back & white, but in doing so reveal they do not understand the actual nature of a feudal society. It shows you see it as a subject owing loyalty towards the superior as long as that superior is someone they have sympathy for, and not as that superior having to earn that loyalty perpetually in order to demand the same loyalty back in perpetuity. And that is what Greatjon was testing when Robb told them he intended to go South. He tested whether Robb had the personality to rule and lead, though he knew he would have the forces to do so at the time.

It should be clear that Randyl was foremostly ensuring a political position that would be to the benefit of his family, his lands and the people living on it, people he's supposed to protect (that is his responsibility as lord), in once again a civil war where the outcome was not yet ensured. By not bending the knee as head of the family, his son and wife and daughter would be protected against the wrath of Cersei (and her fleet) if she managed to get an army from the loan of the IB. And either Dickon could bend the knee to Dany or be her prisoner and later bend the knee when Dany's victory of the war was more assured. This was Randyl's underlying intent, made clear when he shakes no at his son, not to volunteer to be killed alongside his father. Tyrion grasped this political nuancy. Dany did not. And while Tyrion can be regarded as having personal ambigue reasons for it, Varys cannot. Varys too is a one-time foreigner, but he has lived so long in Westeros annd he grasped the nuancy too as well as the potential disaster that could come of Dany's action.

 

 

[Kajjo]

49 minutes ago, Krishtotter said:

relationship with Daario, she remarks: "I said farewell to a man who loves me. A man I thought I cared for. And I felt nothing. Just impatient to get on with it

Yes, the show runners included this intentionally to demonstrate us that Daenerys has an emotional problem. All the scenes in which she relishes violence are shown intentionally, too.

We all (I guess so) love about GoT that it is not black-white, but finely nuanced, with depth and complexity -- and so is Daenerys. She certainly has her good sides, her intentions might be good pretty often, but then again, she exhibits dark sides, reminding us of the mad king. And even Tyrion had to mention the mad king more than once to draw her attention.

-- and please, everyone, stop this crazy discussion about oaths and traitors.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, D-Shiznit said:

For my 21st century morality, I would punish an old frail lady with more leniency, but I would understand if someone choose to exercise the full punishment under law. However, I would execute the Tarlys for breaking their oath, as I would Karsatrk for committing murder.

1. The idea that Dany killed the Tarly's for treason is really a farce. We all know that, but I have been playing along with it, to get at this issue about treason.

2. If Dany killed Olenna for her treason, then you wouldn't have any problem with it, evidently, even if Olenna's treason had to do with eliminating a monstrous murder. Because allegedly 21st century morality isn't in play here, then Dany shouldn't be required to take the facts and circumstances of the case into account, it would appear.

3. There is a difference between understanding what somebody did and saying you agree with it. The charge of treason in this matter would seem to have been made more for showing complete agreement with Dany's actions than a mere understanding of them.

 

[D-Shiznit]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

1. The idea that Dany killed the Tarly's for treason is really a farce. We all know that, but I have been playing along with it, to get at this issue about treason.

2. If Dany killed Olenna for her treason, then you wouldn't have any problem with it, evidently, even if Olenna's treason had to do with eliminating a monstrous murder. Because allegedly 21st century morality isn't in play here, then Dany shouldn't be required to take the facts and circumstances of the case into account, it would appear.

3. There is a difference between understanding what somebody did and saying you agree with it. The charge of treason in this matter would seem to have been made more for showing complete agreement with Dany's actions than a mere understanding of them.

 

The idea that Randall Tarly wasn't a traitor is the farce here, when every other example of oath breaking we have seen is called out as such. Frey's Boltons, even Great Jon Umber, if you break an oath to your liege, you open yourself for punishment, which has been established is death. House Tyrell recognized Dany as the Queen of the Reach, by rebelling against House Tyrell and helping another house murder them, the Tarlys committed treason against their liege house, and were punished by the Queen that house had bent the knee to.