Danny's hate for Starks...permanent?

[Faint]

Also I'm not sure why anyone thinks Tyrion will deliever the news about Aerys in a "cruel" way. Hasn't Tyrion's arc been about learning when to stop talking? Daenerys is a lot less predictable than any of the other characters he's interacted with before. He'll need to be cautious around her. I wouldn't be surprised if his first scene with her shows a completely different Tyrion.

If Tyrion starts shouting about Aerys being mad, he'll end up an enemy of Daenerys. And it would be ridiculous anyway; Tyrion was only a child during the rebellion and has absolutely no memories of Aerys.

I think we have to go with the prior evidence on this subject and that has always been that Tyrion finds it impossible to restrain himself in such situations. That does not mean he will spout off whenever he first meets her, that would only come when he actually realizes how ignorant she is about the history of her family.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Are you kidding me? Stannis would have killed them. Stannis would have had no qualms in killing Myrcella, Tommen and Joffrey, so why would he treat the Targaryens any differently?

Why are you so sure? He calls them "abominations born of incest", the same thing he says about Gilly's baby. Yet, he agreed that the baby must go, he didn't order his death. Stannis is a very lawful man and Myrcella and Tommen are not personally guilty of anything. He would have most probably proclaimed them bastards and that would be all.

When his bannermen wanted to burn and kill everyone in Claw Isle, Stannis refused as the Lord of the island should be the only one to pay for his treason, not the smallfolk.

No where in the text Stannis is portrayed as a believer of collective responsibility.

[eggs]

@Winters Knight: hiding until Aerys calmed down with no thought given to the innocent men that died. thats an awful course of action to take.

and your quote was useless. she has no clue as to how crazy Aerys was.

[Tall-Talker]

She's gonna realize she has no place in Westeros. A united North supported by the Riverlands, the Vale and the Old Gods spells trouble for her Fire and Blood plans of conquest.

[Djinn]

When she get to meet Stannis, and they start screaming at each other about rights, law, fire and blood, the Stark kids are gona look adorable by comparison.

[dtones520]

Why are you so sure? He calls them "abominations born of incest", the same thing he says about Gilly's baby. Yet, he agreed that the baby must go, he didn't order his death. Stannis is a very lawful man and Myrcella and Tommen are not personally guilty of anything. He would have most probably proclaimed them bastards and that would be all.

When his bannermen wanted to burn and kill everyone in Claw Isle, Stannis refused as the Lord of the island should be the only one to pay for his treason, not the smallfolk.

No where in the text Stannis is portrayed as a believer of collective responsibility.

While I agree with you, I wonder what he would have with Joffrey.

[The Fallen]

` Dany can hate the Starks to her heart's content. It doesn't change the fact that Rheagar and Aery's are responsible for the circumstances she found herself in.

[Fetch me a block]

Because Daenerys can't handle the truth. I mean, the Starks aren't exactly the Targ's best mates but the Targs did start it, after all. The Mad King not only killed the Lord of Stark and the heir of Stark, but then called for the head of the next Lord Stark and if he had succeeded would probably have moved onto Benjen Stark. Rhaegar kidnapped/stole (it doesn't matter which, she was still leaving Winterfell permanently without her father's consent) Lyanna Stark and locked her in a tower. The Iron Throne and the Targaryens in particular have done more damage to House Stark than any faction in recent Westerosi history, so they can only expect to be dealt damage back, and they were. The Targaryens got everything they deserved, and even then the Starks were merciful to them.

[Arland]

` Dany can hate the Starks to her heart's content. It doesn't change the fact that Rheagar and Aery's are responsible for the circumstances she found herself in.

That is not entirely correct. Rheagar and Aerys are responsible for Robert's rebellion. Murder of Elia and her children, attempt at Dany's life and her life in exile wasn't the necessary result of Robert's rebellion, but a result of Robert's and his "dogs" calculated decision.

Targs did start it, after all.

"They started it" is a good excuse for children's fight. It is not morally acceptable justification for a horrible action like rape, or murder of children.

Also... we don't really know too well who actually "started it". IIRC there were some clues that Rickard was making some moves. Aerys didn't like before whole Rhaegar business.

Exactly as I would stay that Rickards screaming for Rhaegar - "crowned prince", blood, while being problematic, didn't deserve Arys style treatment, Arys actions didn't warrant cruelty directed at his children.

[Toos]

but a result of Robert's and his "dogs" calculated decision.

How were Robert, Jon, Ned and Hoster responsible for Elia's and her children's murder?

[Daemon Dagoghlor]

UnCat condemns Ser Hyle Hunt to death because he used to be sworn to a lord (Randyll Tarly) whose over-lord (Mace Tyrell) is allied with the Lannisters. People's preconceptions can be hard to break. Compared to others in asoiaf Dany is fairly open-minded, she at least acknowledges that she isn't ready to hear the truth about her father and will speak with Ser Barristan when she is ready.

[Arland]

How were Robert, Jon, Ned and Hoster responsible for Elia's and her children's murder?

I don't know about Ned, Jon or Hoster but I am pretty sure that Tywin would not have tried such feat unless he knew pretty well that it would please Robert.

And the fact that no investigation into the matter was made and no responsible for such atrocity punished, speaks for itself.

We know what happened in Ned's head and know he didn't like it. Nobody else beside Robert knew about it - from their point of view, he was as happy about it as Robbert. (and he as far as we know was not making public demands to punish the guilty like Doran Martell for example).

[Toos]

We know what happened in Ned's head and know he didn't like it. Nobody else beside Robert knew about it - from their point of view, he was as happy about it as Robbert. (and he certainly was not making public demands to punish the guilty like Doran Martell for example).

I think it was common knowledge that Ned and Robert had huge fight about murders and that they reconciled after Lyanna's death. I failed see how Robert was responsible for Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon's death, he was pleased but it was mentioned he wouldn't during that time killed them himself or ordered their murder.

[Fetch me a block]

That is not entirely correct. Rheagar and Aerys are responsible for Robert's rebellion. Murder of Elia and her children, attempt at Dany's life and her life in exile wasn't the necessary result of Robert's rebellion, but a result of Robert's and his "dogs" calculated decision.

"They started it" is a good excuse for children's fight. It is not morally acceptable justification for a horrible action like rape, or murder of children.

Also... we don't really know too well who actually "started it". IIRC there were some clues that Rickard was making some moves. Aerys didn't like before whole Rhaegar business.

Exactly as I would stay that Rickards screaming for Rhaegar - "crowned prince", blood, while being problematic, didn't deserve Arys style treatment, Arys actions didn't warrant cruelty directed at his children.

It may be a common excuse for a children's fight, but it does still hold true in dynastic warfare and politics. If someone punches you, they can expect a punch back.

Sorry, there is no way that Rickard made any move that should have led to his death and his son's.

[The Fallen]

That is not entirely correct. Rheagar and Aerys are responsible for Robert's rebellion. Murder of Elia and her children, attempt at Dany's life and her life in exile wasn't the necessary result of Robert's rebellion, but a result of Robert's and his "dogs" calculated decision.

The rebel leaders weren't responsible for the deaths of Elia and the children, it was Tywin Lannister. Remember, Ned was headed to King's Landing to finish off the loyalist army, but Tywin beat him to it.

But I can tie it back to Aerys once more, because if the Lannisters never arrive at King's Landing then Jaime never slews Rossart or Aerys and once Ned arrives Aerys would have just blown up all of King's Landing. Depending on the timing, that might have included Viserys, his mother and Dany in her womb.

"They started it" is a good excuse for children's fight. It is not morally acceptable justification for a horrible action like rape, or murder of children.

Also... we don't really know too well who actually "started it". IIRC there were some clues that Rickard was making some moves. Aerys didn't like before whole Rhaegar business.

Exactly as I would stay that Rickards screaming for Rhaegar - "crowned prince", blood, while being problematic, didn't deserve Arys style treatment, Arys actions didn't warrant cruelty directed at his children.

As far as Rickard's southron ambitions, all we have is the word of a bitter widow that his Maester was trying to lead him in that direction. I don't believe there is anything to that story.

Edited for spelling.

[Arland]

It may be a common excuse for a children's fight, but it does still hold true in dynastic warfare and politics. If someone punches you, they can expect a punch back.

Sorry, there is no way that Rickard made any move that should have led to his death and his son's.

And then another punch back... and another one. If it is ok in "dynastic warfare and politics" that it is perfectly ok for Dany to do whatever she likes to restore he dynasty. But if on the other hand we try to jugde characters actions on moral grounds then "they started it" doesn't cut it and doesn't excuse murder of children.

The rebel leaders weren't responsible for the deaths of Elia and the children, it was Tywin Lannister. Remember, Ned was headed to King's Landing to finish off the loyalist army, but Tywin beat him to it

See my response above. Tywin knew what he was doing. And Robert not punishing him or anybody for that matter, speaks volumes. And there is no doubt that it was Robert who left Dany in exile and tried to kill her later.

[Nictarion]

I certainly hope at some point Dany realizes the Starks were justified in participating in the rebellion. And that especially Ned was a very honorable man who actually fought with the king to save her life. Also Ned was the only one who wanted to punish Gregor for what he did to her brothers family. I hope Dany realizes the truth about her father although I certainly understand her not wanting to, who would want to believe that about their father. But as Dany is my favorite character and I also love the Starks I want her to forgive them. Ned is dead anyway so she should anyway.

[Fetch me a block]

And then another punch back... and another one. If it is ok in "dynastic warfare and politics" that it is perfectly ok for Dany to do whatever she likes to restore he dynasty. But if on the other hand we try to jugde characters actions on moral grounds then "they started it" doesn't cut it and doesn't excuse murder of children.

See my response above. Tywin knew what he was doing. And Robert not punishing him or anybody for that matter, speaks volumes. And there is no doubt that it was Robert who left Dany in exile and tried to kill her later.

No it doesn't, because once the guy who punched first is punched back, things are even.

[eggs]

I don't know about Ned, Jon or Hoster but I am pretty sure that Tywin would not have tried such feat unless he knew pretty well that it would please Robert. And the fact that no investigation into the matter was made and no responsible for such atrocity punished, speaks for itself. We know what happened in Ned's head and know he didn't like it. Nobody else beside Robert knew about it - from their point of view, he was as happy about it as Robbert. (and he as far as we know was not making public demands to punish the guilty like Doran Martell for example).

what? Ned and Robert had a huge fight that Jon Arryn couldnt settle then Ned rode south in a rage with his armies. No way that was private. Ned isnt even listed as being responsible by Ellaria even though Robert is.

[Howling Mad]

The one thing we know from GRRM's writing is that nothing is permanent.