Show partiality [possible spoilers]

[Annara Snow]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is enough for me that this concept is a thing in-universe. I don't have an issue with the notion that a child or other close relation of a dead dragonrider should have first claim to their dragons if they were riderless (and had royal permission to mount a dragon).

No, of course, not, I just included the '(trueborn)' there because Aenys and Rhaenyra's three elder sons did claim dragons while technically, perhaps, not being 'trueborn'.

The point was that there is really no indication that a Targaryen with a dragonriding parent was ever rejected by a dragon he or she was trying to mount. Hence no reason to assume people would ever think they could not mount the gigantic dragons of their parents or grandparents.

So there was absolutely no reason for Rhaena not to claim Vermithor or Silverwing in the years between Aemond claming Vhagar and the Dance. Why hasn't she done it?

Quote

So Aegon the Uncrowned never claimed his father's dragon Quicksilver?

Sorry, two people.

But were there any other potential dragonriders at the time who were not Aenys' direct descendants and had no dragons and might have wanted to claim Quicksilver? Who else was there that could have potentially said "I want to claim this dragon" but they said "no, you can't. because Aenys is not your father"?

What indication is there that dragons are passed as heirloom from parent to child and that others are not allowed to claim them?

On the other hand, we definitely have evidence that this is not the case: Rhaenys claiming Maelys, Daemon claiming Caraxes, Laena claiming Vhagar.

 

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

You're actually trying to argue that we're supposed to see torture - even exceptionally cruel that leaves the victim blind, mutilated and castrated - as OK, just because it happens on a regular basis?!

What else are we supposed to see as OK? Marital rape? (which they wouldn't even consider rape) Buying very young girls' virginity in brothels? Harrassing and raping servants? War crimes? All extremely common in the setting.

Do you actually think we're supposed to look at this society and go "oh yes, this is a perfectly fine society and nothing is wrong with it. As long as everyone does common things that aren't too unusual, they're OK".

No, I think that torture that's part of 'the system' isn't bad on principle. Rhaenyra using it is her not being a big innovator or person wanting to overturn the legal status quo. She would be bad if she were enjoying doing/watching it like Maegor ... but as far as we know she didn't. The system is such that the torturers would decide what to do with Tyland, not the queen.

11 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

 The plot we're discussing is Rhaenyra lying about the legitimacy and parentage of her three eldest sons and trying to steal the Driftmark inheritance for her son from all of the people who would be its legal heirs (Baela and Rhaena, followed by Vaemond and his children) based on the claim that he is Laenor's  biological son, when everyone knows he is not. It's a scam based on an obvious lie. Corlys probably being in on the scam doesn't mean it's not one.

Sorry, but it is neither a scam nor theft if the person who 'the evil people' try to steal from is in on it. There is no victim there.

And, no, in the book it is not 'an obvious lie' that the children aren't Laenor's. Obviously Baela and Rhaena would also not be victims there since they are betrothed to their cousins at that point.

11 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

And while she has the right to the Iron Throne, her heir Jace does not unless the lie about his parentage keeps being perpetuated. Or if she had admitted Harwin was his father and had Viserys legitimize him as Jacaerys Strong, and his brothers as Lucerys Strong and Joffrey Strong. (Which would also mean no Driftmark for any of them.)

The matter is settled by King Viserys I Targaryen. He decrees that the children are trueborn sons of Laenor Velaryon and Rhaenyra Targaryen.

11 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

No, whether you're born in or out of wedlock has no importance in the grand scheme of things, but the Westerosi rules are clear that bastards don't inherit. The same rules of inheritance in e jereditary feudal monarchy that both the Blacks and the Greens base their claims on.

The problem is that a bastard is usually only a person born out of wedlock, i.e. the child of an unmarried woman. A child born in wedlock is de iure always the child of the husband of the woman ... unless he doesn't recognize the child as his seed. But Laenor Velaryon did recognize all his children, and the king agreed with him.

This matter is settled. There are no bastards when nobody legally declares them such. Cersei's children might not be Robert's seed, but they are not bastards, either, because they were born in wedlock and acknowledged by their royal father.

Cersei betrays Robert - he is unaware that his children weren't fathered by him. Rhaenyra never betrays Laenor (most likely both in book and show) and he is a willing participant in his charade, in the book possibly the guy who instigated all of this (because he had no intention to share the bed with the woman whose spurned lover just murdered his lover).

The only argument you could put forth why Rhaenyra is in the wrong there is that women should not sleep around and/or should have no children at all (never mind their dynastic duty) if the husband their father chose for them was an effeminate homosexual who had no interest in sharing her bed (which is what Laenor seems to be in the book). But people really don't seem to mind the parentage of Rhaenyra's sons. Only die-hard Green madmen like Criston Cole care about that - nobody else ever brings this up. This is especially interesting since the Blacks actually do send out Jacaerys Velaryon to recruit supporters - Jeyne Arryn, Desmond Manderly and Cregan Stark didn't care about his parentage or the sexual conduct of his mother.

This certainly could have been a point why people didn't support Rhaenyra, why they turned against her, why they ended up supporting the Greens. But we actually see no such people.

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

So there was absolutely no reason for Rhaena not to claim Vermithor or Silverwing in the years between Aemond claming Vhagar and the Dance. Why hasn't she done it?

That is an interesting question. In fact, in context it quite odd that Rhaena doesn't claim one of the riderless in the book. But as I said before somewhere - the final episode implies that she will try in the show, and perhaps be successful. She is far too old not to try there. When Daemon discusses the riderless dragons the camera focuses on Rhaena. The show would in fact not to have change much there, plot-wise, since they could easily make Rhaena the rider of the Grey Ghost. His death is pretty much pointless in the show, and folks could realize that Sunfyre is on the island some other way.

They could also still have Morning in the end by way of having the Grey Ghost die in some battle during the war, but Rhaena eventually succeeding in hatching an egg.

13 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

But were there any other potential dragonriders at the time who were not Aenys' direct descendants and had no dragons and might have wanted to claim Quicksilver? Who else was there that could have potentially said "I want to claim this dragon" but they said "no, you can't. because Aenys is not your father"?

I'd say that it wouldn't be that rigid. We talk family branches here, and family branches that are very much at odds with each other already. Vhagar is a Velaryon dragon by ways of Laena mounting her. I'm sure if all her children were dragonless all of them would feel they have the right to try to mount her. That they don't want to see Aemond mount her doesn't really need explanation.

In the book Joffrey Velaryon also wants Aemond to stay away from Vhagar.

13 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

What indication is there that dragons are passed as heirloom from parent to child and that others are not allowed to claim them?

That dragons are not up the for grabs is very much established. Jaehaerys treated them pretty much as property of the Crown, i.e. his own property. Sure enough, the claimed dragons belonged to their riders, weren't under his direct control, but all the others he put in the Dragonpit and on Dragonstone under guard so that not even his own children could get close to them without royal permission.

13 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

On the other hand, we definitely have evidence that this is not the case: Rhaenys claiming Maelys, Daemon claiming Caraxes, Laena claiming Vhagar.

All of that seems to have happened with royal permission. At least in the book.

I mean, despite the fact that Viserys I seems to have thrown dragon eggs at pretty much everyone ... that is not the case. He didn't allow dragon eggs to bastards. So you need royal permission to get a dragon or a dragon egg. Aemond kind of got permission afterwards, of course, especially since the king couldn't dissolve the bond between dragon and rider, anyway.

[SeanF]

WRT war crimes.

Most societies have had an idea that some actions are beyond the pale, even in war.  Westeros is no exception.  The Red Wedding is widely considered a disgrace.

But, what is seen as a war crime in this world is very different to what is seen as a war crime in the 21st century.  Pretty well every military leader in this world, however sympathetic, is a war criminal by 21st century standards (the same is true of virtually any historic military figure in the real world).

But, IMHO, it would be unreasonable to expect any character to adhere to standards that just don’t apply in this setting.

The actions of Blood and Cheese are considered vile, even in this setting.  The torture of Tyland Lannister is normative.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

WRT war crimes.

I'd argue that folks in Westeros don't know the concept of 'war crime'. But they do have concepts of unforgivable crimes - breaking of guest right (especially for the First Men), kinslaying, oath-breaking (especially very hallow vows like taking the black, becoming a Kingsguard), etc.

But those are not so much tied to war or peace but are viewed as taboo in general - which is why Ned is so pissed that Jaime murdered Aerys II, his enemy.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Most societies have had an idea that some actions are beyond the pale, even in war.  Westeros is no exception.  The Red Wedding is widely considered a disgrace.

Yes, because it was a monstrous breach of guest right.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

But, IMHO, it would be unreasonable to expect any character to adhere to standards that just don’t apply in this setting.

Well, to be sure, while we pretend to have different standards, warfare in our world still uses the same tactics to brutalize civilians, etc. as the Westerosi do - only on a much larger scale. Only weaker nations or such who end up losing a war end up being sanctioned for war crimes.

But if we use modern standards of war crimes, etc. it is pretty glaring that the Blacks commit effectively no war crimes at all (if you don't could Dalton Greyjoy as a Black, that is) while the Greens commit them left and right. Not only do they start the bloodshed and executions, they also are the ones who target civilians, sack towns, etc. No Black army (again, the Ironborn excluded) sack towns while the Hightower army sacks multiple towns in the Reach. Aemond uses his dragon to attack as many innocent Riverlanders as he possible can. The Triarchy fighting on Aegon II's behalf sacks the towns of Driftmark (although we could reckon them 'Green' the same way the Ironborn were 'Black').

By comparison, the Blacks always seem to take caution to spare the lives of civilians - Rhaenyra takes the city with a minimum of fighting, she sends out Daemon and Nettles to deal with Aemond so the Riverlands are safe again, even her decision to send Hugh and Ulf to Tumbleton can be read as her having concern for the safety of her people there. Earlier she sent out Rhaenys to protect her allies at Rook's Rest. When the Blacks spill a lot of blood - like during the Fishfeed or the Butcher's Ball - the victims are always combatants, not civilians. There is also no equivalent to Rhaenyra's forces sacking or punishing towns and castles and garrisons for the crime of supporting the other pretender (like Criston Cole does in his early Crownlands campaigns).

Aegon II is a cruel tyrant after his restoration, first when he turns hundreds of Kingslanders into living torches and then when he refuses to offer terms to Rhaenyra's supporters.

And on an individual level you cannot help but notice that the Greens rely very much on turncloaks and thugs, especially as the war drags on. Aegon II can only prevail through betrayal and treason and the support of despicable people. Both at Tumbleton and on Dragonstone we see people pretend they are on the Black side with the deliberate intention to turn their cloaks during the battle ... and the betrayal of Broom and his lackeys on Dragonstone is also quite clearly done for very low and petty reasons.

George really wants to send the message there that while Rhaenyra wasn't perfect, she didn't fail because she was a woman or a bad ruler, but because some thugs betrayed her for their own petty reasons.

That is both the message the Broom betrayal sends ... as well as the later meta-analysis that Rhaenyra effectively lost the war because Tyland was able to steal and hide the money.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

The actions of Blood and Cheese are considered vile, even in this setting.  The torture of Tyland Lannister is normative.

I'd say the problem with Blood and Cheese is that innocent royal women and children are targeted. That's what makes this heinous, not so much it was part of a war scenario. As such it falls in the same category as the rape and murder of Elia and her children.

I guess it would make sense if Rhaenyra not distancing herself from the deed or punish Mysaria (or even Daemon) for it cost her some sympathy ... but if we turn to the book then this is simply not mentioned. Nobody turns away from her because of Blood and Cheese nor does later anyone demand she punish Mysaria for her role in the affair. What is said that people later remembered it and the death of Maelor when they heard about the alleged murder of Helaena and started to riot. So it had an effect there, in the long(er) run, but it apparently didn't turn any Black-leaning lords away from Rhaenyra.

I expect that the thing will have more severe repercussions in the show - being a complete PR blunder there. For instance, we have Grover Tully as a friend of Viserys I in the show, somebody who the Blacks suspect will side with them, so it would not surprise me if the earlier Tully neutrality during the war will be their reaction to Blood and Cheese. They could also show Lady Tyrell deciding that this (and Aemond murdering Luke) is one of the reasons why Highgarden will declare for no one.

It will also cause the Greens to start really believe all the bad tales they have been telling each other about Daemon and Rhaenyra for the last decades. But since both Rhaenyra and Daemon are not stupid there is little chance they will actually tell Mysaria (or anyone) to target Helaena and the children of all people. Even if they would sink as low as to think that they are viable targets (which Rhaenyra most likely won't, but Daemon could) then they still must know that this is not going to help their cause.

In regards to the book, I think the telltale sign that the assassins basically decided the details of their mission on their own is them insisting they have to kill 'a son'. That's something that might make sense in their own view of things, but considering that Helaena Targaryen was the sister, wife, and queen of Aegon II - as well as the rider of the second largest Green dragon - it just makes no sense that Rhaenyra or Daemon (and even Mysaria, in the book) would prefer to murder an innocent child to taking out a potentially very dangerous enemy combatant. And as I keep saying - in context of the 'a son for a son' quote it just makes more sense to assume Daemon meant a son of Alicent's there rather than a son of Aegon's.

But in the show Mysaria already has her very own motivation to avenge herself on the Greens - and Alicent and Otto specifically. She might have her very own reasons why targeting Helaena and the children might give her the most satisfaction, the sweetest payback. After all, as I keep saying - chances are pretty good that we will learn that many innocent children burned alive when Alicent had Larys burn down Mysaria's manse.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd argue that folks in Westeros don't know the concept of 'war crime'. But they do have concepts of unforgivable crimes - breaking of guest right (especially for the First Men), kinslaying, oath-breaking (especially very hallow vows like taking the black, becoming a Kingsguard), etc.

But those are not so much tied to war or peace but are viewed as taboo in general - which is why Ned is so pissed that Jaime murdered Aerys II, his enemy.

Yes, because it was a monstrous breach of guest right.

Well, to be sure, while we pretend to have different standards, warfare in our world still uses the same tactics to brutalize civilians, etc. as the Westerosi do - only on a much larger scale. Only weaker nations or such who end up losing a war end up being sanctioned for war crimes.

But if we use modern standards of war crimes, etc. it is pretty glaring that the Blacks commit effectively no war crimes at all (if you don't could Dalton Greyjoy as a Black, that is) while the Greens commit them left and right. Not only do they start the bloodshed and executions, they also are the ones who target civilians, sack towns, etc. No Black army (again, the Ironborn excluded) sack towns while the Hightower army sacks multiple towns in the Reach. Aemond uses his dragon to attack as many innocent Riverlanders as he possible can. The Triarchy fighting on Aegon II's behalf sacks the towns of Driftmark (although we could reckon them 'Green' the same way the Ironborn were 'Black').

By comparison, the Blacks always seem to take caution to spare the lives of civilians - Rhaenyra takes the city with a minimum of fighting, she sends out Daemon and Nettles to deal with Aemond so the Riverlands are safe again, even her decision to send Hugh and Ulf to Tumbleton can be read as her having concern for the safety of her people there. Earlier she sent out Rhaenys to protect her allies at Rook's Rest. When the Blacks spill a lot of blood - like during the Fishfeed or the Butcher's Ball - the victims are always combatants, not civilians. There is also no equivalent to Rhaenyra's forces sacking or punishing towns and castles and garrisons for the crime of supporting the other pretender (like Criston Cole does in his early Crownlands campaigns).

Aegon II is a cruel tyrant after his restoration, first when he turns hundreds of Kingslanders into living torches and then when he refuses to offer terms to Rhaenyra's supporters.

And on an individual level you cannot help but notice that the Greens rely very much on turncloaks and thugs, especially as the war drags on. Aegon II can only prevail through betrayal and treason and the support of despicable people. Both at Tumbleton and on Dragonstone we see people pretend they are on the Black side with the deliberate intention to turn their cloaks during the battle ... and the betrayal of Broom and his lackeys on Dragonstone is also quite clearly done for very low and petty reasons.

George really wants to send the message there that while Rhaenyra wasn't perfect, she didn't fail because she was a woman or a bad ruler, but because some thugs betrayed her for their own petty reasons.

That is both the message the Broom betrayal sends ... as well as the later meta-analysis that Rhaenyra effectively lost the war because Tyland was able to steal and hide the money.

I'd say the problem with Blood and Cheese is that innocent royal women and children are targeted. That's what makes this heinous, not so much it was part of a war scenario. As such it falls in the same category as the rape and murder of Elia and her children.

I guess it would make sense if Rhaenyra not distancing herself from the deed or punish Mysaria (or even Daemon) for it cost her some sympathy ... but if we turn to the book then this is simply not mentioned. Nobody turns away from her because of Blood and Cheese nor does later anyone demand she punish Mysaria for her role in the affair. What is said that people later remembered it and the death of Maelor when they heard about the alleged murder of Helaena and started to riot. So it had an effect there, in the long(er) run, but it apparently didn't turn any Black-leaning lords away from Rhaenyra.

I expect that the thing will have more severe repercussions in the show - being a complete PR blunder there. For instance, we have Grover Tully as a friend of Viserys I in the show, somebody who the Blacks suspect will side with them, so it would not surprise me if the earlier Tully neutrality during the war will be their reaction to Blood and Cheese. They could also show Lady Tyrell deciding that this (and Aemond murdering Luke) is one of the reasons why Highgarden will declare for no one.

It will also cause the Greens to start really believe all the bad tales they have been telling each other about Daemon and Rhaenyra for the last decades. But since both Rhaenyra and Daemon are not stupid there is little chance they will actually tell Mysaria (or anyone) to target Helaena and the children of all people. Even if they would sink as low as to think that they are viable targets (which Rhaenyra most likely won't, but Daemon could) then they still must know that this is not going to help their cause.

In regards to the book, I think the telltale sign that the assassins basically decided the details of their mission on their own is them insisting they have to kill 'a son'. That's something that might make sense in their own view of things, but considering that Helaena Targaryen was the sister, wife, and queen of Aegon II - as well as the rider of the second largest Green dragon - it just makes no sense that Rhaenyra or Daemon (and even Mysaria, in the book) would prefer to murder an innocent child to taking out a potentially very dangerous enemy combatant. And as I keep saying - in context of the 'a son for a son' quote it just makes more sense to assume Daemon meant a son of Alicent's there rather than a son of Aegon's.

But in the show Mysaria already has her very own motivation to avenge herself on the Greens - and Alicent and Otto specifically. She might have her very own reasons why targeting Helaena and the children might give her the most satisfaction, the sweetest payback. After all, as I keep saying - chances are pretty good that we will learn that many innocent children burned alive when Alicent had Larys burn down Mysaria's manse.

The Greens are nastier, by any measure.  They’re the weaker side, so they make up for it with cruelty.

[Red_star99]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jeyne Arryn, Desmond Manderly and Cregan Stark didn't care about his parentage or the sexual conduct of his mother.

two of those people support her for royal marriges and the third because she is women and it wpuld put her claim in question

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But if we use modern standards of war crimes, etc. it is pretty glaring that the Blacks commit effectively no war crimes at all (if you don't could Dalton Greyjoy as a Black, that is) while the Greens commit them left and right. Not only do they start the bloodshed and executions, they also are the ones who target civilians, sack towns, etc. No Black army (again, the Ironborn excluded) sack towns while the Hightower army sacks multiple towns in the Reach. Aemond uses his dragon to attack as many innocent Riverlanders as he possible can. The Triarchy fighting on Aegon II's behalf sacks the towns of Driftmark (although we could reckon them 'Green' the same way the Ironborn were 'Black').

By comparison, the Blacks always seem to take caution to spare the lives of civilians - Rhaenyra takes the city with a minimum of fighting, she sends out Daemon and Nettles to deal with Aemond so the Riverlands are safe again, even her decision to send Hugh and Ulf to Tumbleton can be read as her having concern for the safety of her people there. Earlier she sent out Rhaenys to protect her allies at Rook's Rest. When the Blacks spill a lot of blood - like during the Fishfeed or the Butcher's Ball - the victims are always combatants, not civilians. There is also no equivalent to Rhaenyra's forces sacking or punishing towns and castles and garrisons for the crime of supporting the other pretender (like Criston Cole does in his early Crownlands campaigns).

 

rheanyra dident send dragons to fight the greens becuse she was wanted to protcet the people  she send them to kill her enimes you just need to just  look at how she run the city during her reign 

[dsjj251]

On 1/14/2023 at 6:09 PM, Annara Snow said:

 

LOL why? Not that I'm arguing "pro Green" when I'm pointing out that the Blacks did awful things (that's arguing anti-Black, I guerss, which isn't necessarily pro-Green), but let's say I am... Why would someone arguing "pro Green" be a problem, exactly? Clearly it's a problem for you, but you think that's somehow objectively a problem?

Your argument is of justification and nullification, when the greens were indeed the aggressors in every case.  You mention what claim are black atrocities without ever once including context which usually involves a green doing something worse before hand. 

 

On 1/14/2023 at 6:09 PM, Annara Snow said:

This is obviously not true. Neither 'the first' nor 'worse' (what would that even be?). The Greens didn't go and murder Aegon III or Viserys or force Rhaenyra to choose between her sons, nor did they threaten to rape Rhaenyra and/or one of her children.

They murdered Lucerys and countless black supporters before Rhaenyra even made a move. 

[dsjj251]

On 1/14/2023 at 6:18 PM, Annara Snow said:

The whole "change of House" thing is something that was never mentioned anywhere and has absolutely no relevance to claiming dragons. Dragons don't care about last names.

But humans do. And in Both show and book, dragons belong to the house, regardless of if the dragon cares(LOL, not even sure why you typed that.

On 1/14/2023 at 6:18 PM, Annara Snow said:

What are you talking about? You were arguing that it's only a crime if someone hurts the heir to the throne, and I was pointing that was not true.

No, you were claiming it isnt true. you were wrong.  People of royal blood fighting can and does cancel itself out. This isnt complicated, we arent talking about a hypothetical, it actually happened, Luce didnt lose an eye as retaliation, case closed. 

 

On 1/14/2023 at 6:18 PM, Annara Snow said:

?? They were all inflicting the physical violence, but they were attacking and Aemond was defending himself from 4 kids who jumped him and started the fight. He was stronger than each individually but not when they attacked all at once. And how was he "winning" when they punched him to the ground and all 4 were punching and kicking him at the same time? 

You are being obtuse, the fight didnt end when he was on the ground. You know this. 

 

On 1/14/2023 at 6:18 PM, Annara Snow said:

I don't even know what you mean here.

Your original argument changed to be more detailed as you realized the original broader claim could easily be refuted. 

[Lord Varys]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:50 PM, Red_star99 said:

two of those people support her for royal marriges and the third because she is women and it wpuld put her claim in question

If any of them had cared about her conduct and her alleged bastards they might have decided not to support her - especially since sent Jace as an envoy to them. Yet we don't even hear that anyone but die-hard Greens even bring up this whole issue, much less believe it to be true.

On 1/15/2023 at 10:50 PM, Red_star99 said:

rheanyra dident send dragons to fight the greens becuse she was wanted to protcet the people  she send them to kill her enimes you just need to just  look at how she run the city during her reign 

That's not true. She only sends Daemon and Nettles because the Riverlanders petition her. Sure enough, she also wanted to destroy the remaining enemies in the family ... but the crucial point here is that destroying Aemond would also stop him from murdering innocent smallfolk. And using their dragons to brutalize the people is something none of Rhaenyra's family ever did.

12 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

They murdered Lucerys and countless black supporters before Rhaenyra even made a move. 

Insofar as the book is concerned, the part about countless Black supporters there is wrong. They may have killed Beesbury and they imprisoned a lot of Black supporters and sympathizers (or people they thought belonged to those categories) before Rhaenyra made a move, but aside from Beesbury (most likely) and Luke nobody was dead at the time she made her first move.

It is true, though that Rhaenyra's other actions all come as reactions to atrocities first committed by the Greens. They first imprison people, they first execute people, they first sack castles and butcher people, and they first spill royal blood. The Blackwoods first attacking the Brackens is one of the few exceptions ... but there we can view these two traditional enemies taking opposing sides as a pretext to attack each other. Rhaenyra didn't command the Blackwoods to do this, although Daemon then came to their aid and helped defeat the Brackens.

We should note, though, that the plan that Daemon is to take Harrenhal is actually made prior to the Luke incident - however, Luke's death should still take place before Jace got to the Vale or Daemon to Harrenhal simply because of the different distances. Storm's End is closest to Dragonstone, so Arrax should be the dragon reaching his destination first.

But we also have to keep in mind that both the Velaryon blockade of KL and Blackwater Bay as well as Daemon taking Harrenhal were decidedly bloodless affairs. Daemon just landed there, and the Strongs yielded the castle to him, after all.

What is also quite noteworthy and interesting in context is that even the Black Reach lords are not the ones banding to together to attack Oldtown, say, but in the FaB account we learn that Lord Ormund is commanded by Aegon II's government to assemble an army to defeat 'the rebels' in the Reach. So even they actually only take up arms to defend themselves against Green aggression.

[Annara Snow]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:03 PM, dsjj251 said:

But humans do. And in Both show and book, dragons belong to the house, regardless of if the dragon cares(LOL, not even sure why you typed that.

No, you were claiming it isnt true. you were wrong.  People of royal blood fighting can and does cancel itself out. This isnt complicated, we arent talking about a hypothetical, it actually happened, Luce didnt lose an eye as retaliation, case closed. 

 

You are being obtuse, the fight didnt end when he was on the ground. You know this. 

 

Your original argument changed to be more detailed as you realized the original broader claim could easily be refuted. 

I have no idea what you even meant by any of these and what you thought you were doing here, and at this point I don't even care to try to figure out 

What is your mention of last names supposed to do? You are arguing that Aemond's last name bring Targaryen means he had no right to claim Vhagar? That's obviously nonsense, but by that logic, neither did Rhaena, since her last name is also Targaryen.

"The fight didn't end with him on the ground" - No one said it did?! What are you trying to say? The fight was started by the other 4 kids, they started all the physical attacks, every move Aemond made was in self defense, and he is not the one who did serious physical damage. He only threatened that verbally but never even actually tried to hurt any of them with that famous stone, only hitting Jace when he was attacking him with a knife and that didn't seriously hurt Jace either. While Jace actually attacked Aemond with a knife, and Luke actually cut out his eye, even though he had already incapacitated him by throwing sand into his eyes. What are you trying to argue here?

And what "broader claim" did I supposedly make that could be refuted?

[Annara Snow]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:49 PM, dsjj251 said:

Your argument is of justification and nullification, when the greens were indeed the aggressors in every case.  You mention what claim are black atrocities without ever once including context which usually involves a green doing something worse before hand. 

 

They murdered Lucerys and countless black supporters before Rhaenyra even made a move. 

A 13/14 year old dragonrider being killed is worse than a murder of a 6 year old in front of his mother and siblings after threatening the mother and 6 year old girl with rape and mentally torturing the mother by forcing her to choose which of her sons gets murdered? Be serious for a moment.

"Countless Black supporters"? Really?

[Annara Snow]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:10 PM, SeanF said:

The Greens are nastier, by any measure.  They’re the weaker side, so they make up for it with cruelty.

It's cool that you can just say things and not back them up at all.

[Annara Snow]

@Lord Varys"Using their dragons to brutalise the people" - the show just had Rhaenys doing exactly that.

They also had Caraxes unceremoniously stomping on a man on his/Daemon's own side who was hoping to get saved by him from the Crabfeeder... It's almost like they were trying to say something about Targaryens and royals and great lords in general not caring about the common people. (Oh and Daemon, presumably with Rhaenyra's blessing, murdered a servant on Drfitmark so they could get married and send Laenor off. They don't even need dragons to kill common people like they don't matter)

I guess the writers and showrunners didn't get the memo that the one side is supposed to be Good Guys who really care about the small gold... just like the people of KL who rose against Rhaenyra and tried to kill all the dragons and didn't care about sides... They also missed that memo.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

@Lord Varys"Using their dragons to brutalise the people" - the show just had Rhaenys doing exactly that.

They also had Caraxes unceremoniously stomping on a man on his/Daemon's own side who was hoping to get saved by him from the Crabfeeder... It's almost like they were trying to say something about Targaryens and royals and great lords in general not caring about the common people. (Oh and Daemon, presumably with Rhaenyra's blessing, murdered a servant on Drfitmark so they could get married and send Laenor off. They don't even need dragons to kill common people like they don't matter)

I guess the writers and showrunners didn't get the memo that the one side is supposed to be Good Guys who really care about the small gold... just like the people of KL who rose against Rhaenyra and tried to kill all the dragons and didn't care about sides... They also missed that memo.

Not sure what your point is there. Do you want to misunderstand me? In the book, Aemond used his dragon to randomly burn down and slaughter innocent people in the Riverlands. He deliberately targeted villages and farms and septries, etc. That is what I meant by the Greens using their dragons to brutalize the people.

Where on earth are Rhaenys and Daemon doing that in the show? Now, the silly depiction of Rhaenys breaking through the floor of the Dragonpit with her dragon, killing a number of people but refusing to move against the Greens on the podium is kind of bad writing - although even in that silly scene it is clear that Rhaenys' goal was to get the fuck out of KL with her dragon and not to kill or harm people. She only hurt and killed people who (unintentionally) blocked her escape.

Caraxes randomly trampling Daemon fanboys during a battle illustrates how dangerous the dragons in general are - it doesn't express how bad the Blacks are (back then there weren't even Blacks and Greens as parties).

This whole thing might be a way to slowly prepare the audience for the Storming of the Dragonpit - which is an anti-Targaryen, anti-dragons uprising, not an anti-Black or anti-Rhaenyra uprising.

My point simply is that Rhaenyra's side doesn't directly and deliberately target innocent peasants and smallfolk during the Dance proper (Ironborn aside, insofar as you want to count them as Blacks), whilst Prince Aemond bases an entire war stratagem on targeting peasants. The Greens are also the only ones who sack towns, etc.

[Annara Snow]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure what your point is there. Do you want to misunderstand me? In the book, Aemond used his dragon to randomly burn down and slaughter innocent people in the Riverlands. He deliberately targeted villages and farms and septries, etc. That is what I meant by the Greens using their dragons to brutalize the people.

Where on earth are Rhaenys and Daemon doing that in the show? Now, the silly depiction of Rhaenys breaking through the floor of the Dragonpit with her dragon, killing a number of people but refusing to move against the Greens on the podium is kind of bad writing - although even in that silly scene it is clear that Rhaenys' goal was to get the fuck out of KL with her dragon and not to kill or harm people. She only hurt and killed people who (unintentionally) blocked her escape.

Caraxes randomly trampling Daemon fanboys during a battle illustrates how dangerous the dragons in general are - it doesn't express how bad the Blacks are (back then there weren't even Blacks and Greens as parties).

This whole thing might be a way to slowly prepare the audience for the Storming of the Dragonpit - which is an anti-Targaryen, anti-dragons uprising, not an anti-Black or anti-Rhaenyra uprising.

My point simply is that Rhaenyra's side doesn't directly and deliberately target innocent peasants and smallfolk during the Dance proper (Ironborn aside, insofar as you want to count them as Blacks), whilst Prince Aemond bases an entire war stratagem on targeting peasants. The Greens are also the only ones who sack towns, etc.

"The show is portraying them as the Good Guys by showing them kill small folk not because they particularly want to, but as collateral damage because they just don't give a damn about their lives one way or another" isn't the argument you think it is.

[Lord Varys]

On 1/27/2023 at 3:21 PM, Annara Snow said:

"The show is portraying them as the Good Guys by showing them kill small folk not because they particularly want to, but as collateral damage because they just don't give a damn about their lives one way or another" isn't the argument you think it is.

Oh, but it is. Intention does matter. If I accidentally kill you because I'm breaking out of prison (Rhaenys) then I'm quite different from intentionally murdering you to send my half-sister a message (Aemond). Not to mention that a dragon landing on a battlefield in the night (Daemon) cannot expected to not cause collateral damage.

But the point here is that the book clearly makes the Blacks look better, not the show. The show adds a lot of depth and nuance to the Greens.

And, I mean, it is silly to so much as defend the Greens. They are shitheads, through and through. Aegon II celebrates the murder of his nephew by throwing a feast for the kinslayer Aemond, he has all the rat catchers of the city executed because a rat catcher was apparently involved in the murder of his son, he celebrates his own restoration by turning hundreds of people into living torches - people who actually kind of helped his cause unintentionally by driving Rhaenyra out of the city. The Greens sacked Bitterbridge and committed monstrous crimes at Tumbleton. They also sacked Duskendale and Rook's Rest. They corrupted a Kingsguard into attempting to murder his rightful queen and/or her sons.

Rhaenyra and the Blacks in general never did anything on that level.

On 1/27/2023 at 11:13 AM, Annara Snow said:

A 13/14 year old dragonrider being killed is worse than a murder of a 6 year old in front of his mother and siblings after threatening the mother and 6 year old girl with rape and mentally torturing the mother by forcing her to choose which of her sons gets murdered? Be serious for a moment.

Lucerys Velaryon is still not a man grown. He is not as young a child as Jaehaerys, Jaehaera, and Maelor ... but he is a child nonetheless. In early 129 AC he is only thirteen years old.

While Blood and Cheese clearly is a horrible thing to do, it is a horrible thing done to avenge the murder of another child. Which is something that people in this world are doing when there are blood feuds.

Also, of course, an uncle personally slaying his nephew is much worse than a queen/prince arranging the murder of a child through go-betweens and henchmen since they do not actually commit the deed personally and may have intended to kill somebody else.

As I said somewhere else - blaming Daemon/Rhaenyra for Blood and Cheese is similar to blaming Tywin for the scope of the Red Wedding. He certainly told Roose and Walder to murder Robb - but he didn't tell them to do it by means of a gigantic slaughter during a wedding where thousands of defenseless people are murdered while they are guests of the Freys.

I mean - it is silly to blame people for something when you don't even know if they wanted this thing, exactly. While ignoring or downplaying the fact that other people clearly wanted to murder somebody and where subsequently cheered and celebrated by the king.

[SeanF]

19 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

It's cool that you can just say things and not back them up at all.

The Blacks (in the books) came nowhere close to matching the atrocities that the Greens committed against the smallfolk, at Tumbleton, Bitterbridge, and in the Riverlands.  And, however unpopular Rhaenyra made herself with Kings Landing’s people, she never carried out anything like Aegon II’s mass burnings.

[dsjj251]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:13 AM, Annara Snow said:

A 13/14 year old dragonrider being killed is worse than a murder of a 6 year old in front of his mother and siblings after threatening the mother and 6 year old girl with rape and mentally torturing the mother by forcing her to choose which of her sons gets murdered? Be serious for a moment.

"Countless Black supporters"? Really?

I didnt say worse, I said tit for tat.  a death for a death. 

[dsjj251]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:09 AM, Annara Snow said:

 

And what "broader claim" did I supposedly make that could be refuted?

Your entire argument is that the Blacks are worse, it isnt true, all your claims against them are retaliation, not starting points. 

Its just weird bad logic. Like we all like the shows and books but this fandom sometimes argues like it has a personal stake in which side wins,LOL
 

Whats even worse about that is, you already know the blacks win,