I thought Greyworm was justified

[Leonardo]

He saw the Westerosi as savages, no better than the slavers, led by Cersei's example. He was in character for me, I never doubted his motivation, but people seem to feel he wasn't in character. What are people's stance on his choices?

[TimeKills]

He deliberately killed a defenceless man as soon as it became apparent that his Queen was ignoring the surrender. If He hadn't taken that action perhaps in that few seconds Jon could have taken some control, maybe of his own men at least and helped evacuate the city rather than be helpless  as they go on to rape and murder civilians.

[Damon_Tor]

4 hours ago, TimeKills said:

He deliberately killed a defenceless man as soon as it became apparent that his Queen was ignoring the surrender. If He hadn't taken that action perhaps in that few seconds Jon could have taken some control, maybe of his own men at least and helped evacuate the city rather than be helpless  as they go on to rape and murder civilians.

The unsullied were raised to be killing machines. No guilt, no remorse, just to kill and die at the command of their master. Emotional response to Misandei or not, nobody should be surprised when they're on board with Fire and Blood.

[weirwoodface]

4 hours ago, TimeKills said:

He deliberately killed a defenceless man as soon as it became apparent that his Queen was ignoring the surrender.

He was following her unspoken order.

4 hours ago, TimeKills said:

If He hadn't taken that action perhaps in that few seconds Jon could have taken some control, maybe of his own men at least and helped evacuate the city rather than be helpless  as they go on to rape and murder civilians.

It's on Jon to keep his own men in hand, but Grey Worm doesn't answer to Jon.

[JagLover]

The unsullied are tools of Dany's will, as long as she fights for good they do as well, and the reverse.

The only humanising element for any of them was Grey worm's romance and that was just abruptly taken away and so yes I can quite understand Grey Worm's actions. I don't think we saw him kill civilians, only Lannister soldiers who had helped kill his beloved. Both his orders and personal motivation made his actions entirely understandable.

 

 

[Higgins86]

Bigger question is why was Greyworm fighting alongside the Northern men? Where was his unsullied? 

[Table8]

12 hours ago, Leonardo said:

He saw the Westerosi as savages, no better than the slavers, led by Cersei's example. He was in character for me, I never doubted his motivation, but people seem to feel he wasn't in character. What are people's stance on his choices?

I might sound dumb because I read the books long ago and don’t remember. Do Unsullied have that characteristic? Vengeance? And if you say grey worm is different, why?

if we are going by show, no he was not in character.

[TimeKills]

So the argument is that a person raised to be a killing machine and following orders, plus just having experienced death of a loved one is not resposible.

 If that makes him guiltless, it is as if he no longer carries normal human responsibility for his actions.

It therefore also would pardon many other real war and terrorist atrociies.

However, it does explain his actions pretty thoroughly, I agree. I would also say it reduces his guilt. But does it put hi m beyond judgement. And I personally would do him the honour of considering that he is not outside the bounds of normal human justice.

his actions Also had immediate consequences that led to the death of many other loved ones. Not directly on him, but if I were him I might look to my conscience at the least.I

Like many other characters that I very much admired and respected, he has demonstrated a failure to rise above a terrible situation.

 

 

 

[Red Dragon10]

I thought it was in character, but that doesn't mean it isn't a hideous action.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

The problem was giving him some character at all, when in the books the Unsullied don’t have personalities. They are just numbers.

The Grey Worm- Missandei elevation in the Show was deliberate pandering to an obvious pressure group, and just a needless diversion from the main story. So whatever his character did, doesn’t fit.

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, TimeKills said:

So the argument is that a person raised to be a killing machine and following orders, plus just having experienced death of a loved one is not resposible.

 If that makes him guiltless, it is as if he no longer carries normal human responsibility for his actions.

It therefore also would pardon many other real war and terrorist atrociies.

However, it does explain his actions pretty thoroughly, I agree. I would also say it reduces his guilt. But does it put hi m beyond judgement. And I personally would do him the honour of considering that he is not outside the bounds of normal human justice.

his actions Also had immediate consequences that led to the death of many other loved ones. Not directly on him, but if I were him I might look to my conscience at the least.I

Like many other characters that I very much admired and respected, he has demonstrated a failure to rise above a terrible situation.

 

 

 

I would say that he acted as most soldiers would have acted in real life, in his situation,  prior to about the eighteenth century.

Sparing people whose leader had murdered his lover, in response to a surrender demand, would have seemed very strange, reprehensible even.

 

[Daemos]

He was. What a man <3

[Apoplexy]

I really liked the greyworm missandei storyline. It was done to make people realize that the unsullied were human. Just because they lacked a few appendages, it did not make them incapable of feeling/craving affection and love.

Which is why I feel it was out of character for him to start killing unarmed people. He has indeed always followed dany's orders without question, but I would think it would be a harder decision for him this time.

[JagLover]

3 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I really liked the greyworm missandei storyline. It was done to make people realize that the unsullied were human. Just because they lacked a few appendages, it did not make them incapable of feeling/craving affection and love.

Which is why I feel it was out of character for him to start killing unarmed people. He has indeed always followed dany's orders without question, but I would think it would be a harder decision for him this time.

He was killing unarmed soldiers, soldiers in an army that was responsible for killing the woman he loved, so I would have thought it would have been an easier decision this time, not harder. 

[Apoplexy]

Just now, JagLover said:

He was killing unarmed soldiers, soldiers in an army that was responsible for killing the woman he loved, so I would have thought it would have been an easier decision this time, not harder. 

They were unarmed and had surrendered. We saw greyworm as a fairly nuanced character throughout the show, so saying he would blindly follow orders seems inaccurate to me.

Agreed, missandei's death must have really affected him, but he must've known that attacking the soldiers that had surrendered would translate to mass civilian deaths in seconds. That was the choice he made, which I would think should've been harder for him.

[Winter prince]

Greyworm did as he was commanded.

It may have been vengeance but it was only to follow his queens orders

[Platypus Rex]

14 hours ago, Leonardo said:

He saw the Westerosi as savages, no better than the slavers, led by Cersei's example. He was in character for me, I never doubted his motivation, but people seem to feel he wasn't in character. What are people's stance on his choices?

His turn to villainy was credible.  It was reasonably well-established storywise, in terms of the buildup to it.

But why do you say it is justified?  A plausible motive does not justify a crime.

[Platypus Rex]

3 hours ago, TimeKills said:

So the argument is that a person raised to be a killing machine and following orders, plus just having experienced death of a loved one is not responsible.

Even if that were true, you would call that an "excuse" not a "justification".  

If the poor guy really just could not help himself, then maybe he is excused.

But "justified" means he COULD help himself, and he did the right thing.

[Platypus Rex]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I would say that he acted as most soldiers would have acted in real life, in his situation,  prior to about the eighteenth century.

Sparing people whose leader had murdered his lover, in response to a surrender demand, would have seemed very strange, reprehensible even.

What thinker from the 18th century do you credit with the invention of the concept of mercy to enemies?  I'd say you're off by at least 1800 years.

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

What thinker from the 18th century do you credit with the invention of the concept of mercy to enemies?  I'd say you're off by at least 1800 years.

I would not point to one thinker in particular, but would suggest that as a result of the Enlightenment in general, practices that had been considered reasonable, like treating civilians as being guilty for the decisions of their rulers, ceased to be considered reasonable.