Game of Thrones begins....

[grumbler]

Dany's claim to be a "good guy" is her liberation of the slaves, but she doesn't have the patience for governance.  The show has made that clear with Tyrion coming in to try to fix things up with the kind of messy politics Dany sees herself as above.  Martin is about subversion of trope - the real "good guys" in his narratives are misfits and outsiders.  Dany may mean well in her own mind and even intend good (Jaime Lannister could and does say the same), but the reality is everything she achieved has been at the point of the sword or by literally burning up those who would oppose her.

I don't disagree with this, though I think that one of the elements of the show has been the transformation of Dany from a passive tool of her brother's ambition to a (not yet skilled) ruler in her own right.  Her path has been remarkably similar to Sansa's.  Whether or not she allows her new-found power to go to her head is the question.  The same question applies to Sansa.

[Josquius]

Who does dany have following her? Seems to be the entire city... but.... really? There's the supplies for that?

Dothraki are red shirts for sure. Would be fun to see them against a westeros army. Those little ceremonial knives against armoured knights and castles.... they won't win even with westeros weakened.

Wonder if we ever will see oldtown. And what will become of the reach-first on the Dornish invasions hit list?

[Berkut]

If Dany ever goes to Westeros it will be as a conqueror, not as a saviour. She wants to claim her birthright, "what is hers", not to save the people.

yeah, the people don't care much about who rules them.  Lion, Wolf or Dragon, it's pretty much the same to them.

They don't care because the people who rule them don't care about them - that has been the consistent theme in the books, and the contrast of that with those who presumably WOULD care is driving much of the narrative.

The difference between the Joffries (actively malevolent) and the Roberts (actively indifferent) and presumably the "good guys" (Ned, Rob, even Stannis or Renly, and presumably Dany) is a key message of the show.

In the first episode, we see Ned executing presumed deserters from the Wall.  No questions asked, they deserted, they die.  Doesn't matter what they've seen, why they went running from their post despite years of loyal service, they are dead.

So? That isn't evil, it is just harsh. In the context of their world, that is justice.

There is a huge difference between that and the Lannister soldiers, for example, simply stringing up suspected collaborators.

It is trivial, and lazy, the note that since not everyone is perfectly good, they are all equally evil. Also, any world like that would be really, really boring.

Rob Stark betrayed his word to Walder Frey and had one of his most loyal servant executed because he killed a Lannister prisoner of war, an ennemy.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

My point doesn't rely on the "good guys" being perfect, it just relies on them being relatively better than the bad guys.

I don't think there are any really good guys in this show, just less slightly worst.  A stable boy is a stable boy.  There is no social ascension.  Yes, Dany makes things differently on her side of the world.  She starts with nothing and she grows into something.  She builds an empire, but it's unclear how social relations work in there.  Obviously, there is nobility, but she rules one city, not one empire.  How could she convince anyone to join her by telling them "btw, once we're done, your castle, your priviledges, they all go away to the people you will now serve" ?


It's in the 2nd book, I think, when Arya meets the rebels who tells her that Wolf of Lion, it's all the same to them.  Presumably, for these folks, any lord is a lord and they are all treated unfairly.  It may not be how the nobles see themselves, but it's how the common folks see it.

Indeed. But that is my point - that there is in fact a difference. Once war starts, everyone suffers, and both sides have their monsters. Certainly the North has their Bolton's for example. War is a blunt tool, and even the best people are doing something horrific.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter who wins though. It does mean that the people in the area the war is being fought in are fucked either way.

If you are some kid in Hiroshima, the motives of the people dropping the nuke is largely irrelevant to *you*. That doesn't mean their motives aren't relevant in the broader scheme of things though.

The people in Westeros largely don't care who rules them because the options they have been presented are all terrible. Supposedly, it doesn't HAVE to be that way though.

The interesting part of the story is how martin makes it seem that being good doesn't matter, but rather that being good doesn't actually make you more likely to succeed. That the indifferent and evil tend to win out - that is what we've come to expect from our stories. That somehow justice will triumph.

[Berkut]

If Dany ever goes to Westeros it will be as a conqueror, not as a saviour. She wants to claim her birthright, "what is hers", not to save the people.

This may be so, but the books and show have indicated just the opposite, up until now.  She considers herself the rightful ruler, and wants to save the people from the usurpers and the wars they have caused.  She is more sympathetic to the plight of the commoners than any of her rivals.

No, not really.  In both books and shows, it's about her rule.  She is the legitimate heir, the others are usurpers.  She believes she is right for the people, just as Louis XVI thought France could not survive without him.

No, not really.  She is, as Jorah Mormont says, a unique claimant to the throne: ""You have a good claim: a title, a birthright. But you have something more than that: you may cover it up and deny it, but you have a gentle heart. You would be not only respected and feared, you would be loved. Someone who can rule and should rule."  She doesn't even desire to rule Westeros until she hears of King Robert's death and the war that has ensued.

And this theme recurs several times. It is the argument for Renly, for example. Yeah, his brother has the better claim, but nobody likes him and he would make a bad king, while everyone actually like Renly, and he seems like a pretty good guy. Who knows if he really would be, of course.

There is no doubt that there is a theme here, of "good" potential rulers as opposed to either terrible ones or indifferent ones. Competency is another measure entirely, where we have examples of good and incompetent (maybe Rob, Tommen, Daeny at times), good and competent (Daeny at other times, Rob when it comes to leadership and war, Ned?) and evil and competent (Tywin), evil and incompetent (Joffrey), indifferent and incompetent (Robert), etc., etc.

But the message is hardly that the good versus evil versus indifferent part doesn't exist. In fact, I would argue that the message is exactly the opposite. That despite their flaws and shades of grey, there is a difference between Joffrey and Daeny, between Tywin and Ned. They are not all the same at all.

[grumbler]

And this theme recurs several times. It is the argument for Renly, for example. Yeah, his brother has the better claim, but nobody likes him and he would make a bad king, while everyone actually like Renly, and he seems like a pretty good guy. Who knows if he really would be, of course.

There is no doubt that there is a theme here, of "good" potential rulers as opposed to either terrible ones or indifferent ones. Competency is another measure entirely, where we have examples of good and incompetent (maybe Rob, Tommen, Daeny at times), good and competent (Daeny at other times, Rob when it comes to leadership and war, Ned?) and evil and competent (Tywin), evil and incompetent (Joffrey), indifferent and incompetent (Robert), etc., etc.

But the message is hardly that the good versus evil versus indifferent part doesn't exist. In fact, I would argue that the message is exactly the opposite. That despite their flaws and shades of grey, there is a difference between Joffrey and Daeny, between Tywin and Ned. They are not all the same at all.

I quite agree.  The difference in Martin's world is, as you say, that being good doesn't present one with an advantage; quite the opposite, in fact.  The show is even worse than the books in this regard.

[viper37]

No, not really.  She is, as Jorah Mormont says, a unique claimant to the throne: ""You have a good claim: a title, a birthright. But you have something more than that: you may cover it up and deny it, but you have a gentle heart. You would be not only respected and feared, you would be loved. Someone who can rule and should rule."  She doesn't even desire to rule Westeros until she hears of King Robert's death and the war that has ensued.

Duh, it was her brother's place to rule.  Her role was to get married and secure an alliance for her brother.  Of course she did not want to rule.
King Robert's death appears about the time her brother is killed, give or take a few weeks for the news to reach her.

Having a gentle heart and having those close to you is one thing, getting loved for it is another.  I'm certain Marie-Antoinette had a gentle heart too.  But she wasn't loved for it.

Of course there will be a feudal system.  The entire basis of society in Westeros is feudal.  That doesn't mean that there cannot be more protections for the commoners.  Abolishing slavery shows that she does care about the commons.

slavery has been abolished in Westeros.  Nobody in Westeros is proposing re-establishement of the practice.  Therefore, should we assume they care about the commoners?  I'm not entirely convinced... 

[viper37]

Dothraki are red shirts for sure. Would be fun to see them against a westeros army. Those little ceremonial knives against armoured knights and castles.... they won't win even with westeros weakened.

Dothraki alone, likely not, though it really depends on their numbers.  Mongols had mounted archers and were very effective against armored armies, as the Romans discovered before their descendants.
I don't think the Dothrakis use archers, but I haven't really paid attention either.

either way, this isn't the Dothraki alone, she has an army of disciplined unsullied at her disposal.   This infantry, plus thousands of Dothraki, plus local support (presumably from Dorne in the books, that remains to be seen) could be enough to face a fractured Westeros.  Especially if the Lannisters and Tyrell are fractured and warring in the North.

[viper37]

There is a huge difference between that and the Lannister soldiers, for example, simply stringing up suspected collaborators.

It is hinted at that the Boltons, while still acting under Rob Stark's orders were kinda doing the same.

Also, any world like that would be really, really boring.

duh, of course, that's why Game of Thrones is so good and so popular

My point doesn't rely on the "good guys" being perfect, it just relies on them being relatively better than the bad guys.

From the point of view of a peasant, that does not change much, in times of peace.  How were Lannisters commoners treated differently in Castlerock than Winterfell?

If you are some kid in Hiroshima, the motives of the people dropping the nuke is largely irrelevant to *you*. That doesn't mean their motives aren't relevant in the broader scheme of things though.

and I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I thought we were discussing things from the commoners' point of view :confused:

The people in Westeros largely don't care who rules them because the options they have been presented are all terrible. Supposedly, it doesn't HAVE to be that way though.

But they don't really know if that new ruler (Dany) will be good to them.  All they know of the Targaryen is the mad king who used to burn everybody and wanted to destroy King's Landing rather than let it fall to Baratheon.

If you are a peasant, barely literate, caught between warring factions, will you welcome with open heart another ruler from a strange land who claims to be descended from a king obsessed with fire?

[grumbler]

Duh, it was her brother's place to rule.  Her role was to get married and secure an alliance for her brother.  Of course she did not want to rule.
King Robert's death appears about the time her brother is killed, give or take a few weeks for the news to reach her.

Okay, you've conceded that point.

Having a gentle heart and having those close to you is one thing, getting loved for it is another.  I'm certain Marie-Antoinette had a gentle heart too.  But she wasn't loved for it.

Non-sequitur. 

slavery has been abolished in Westeros.  Nobody in Westeros is proposing re-establishement of the practice.  Therefore, should we assume they care about the commoners?  I'm not entirely convinced... 

  Slavery is forbidden by the Faith.  The minsters of the Faith are often shown caring about the commoners, so, yeah, you might not be convinced, but the evidence is pretty convincing to anyone not determined to be contrary.

So, to sum up:  Dany didn't plan to exercise her right to the throne until the War of the Five Kings started, and abolition of slavery is an indication that she cares about the commoners.

[viper37]

So, to sum up:  Dany didn't plan to exercise her right to the throne until the War of the Five Kings started, and abolition of slavery is an indication that she cares about the commoners.

And the War of the Five Kings started about the time her brother died.  Yeah, one of those freak coincidence, I guess...

[grumbler]

And the War of the Five Kings started about the time her brother died.  Yeah, one of those freak coincidence, I guess...

I don't know what that has to do with anything. Dany doesn't find out about the war until she arrives in Qarth months after Viserys's death.  That's when she decides to return to Westeros.

[viper37]

Viserys is infuriated at how Daenerys has won the love of the Dothraki. Ser Jorah manages to stop Viserys as he tries to steal her dragon eggs to buy his own army. Viserys arrives drunk at the feast and draws his sword, demanding that Khal Drogo pay the agreed price for Dany by providing troops for the invasion of Westeros; he wants his crown or he will take Daenerys back. When he threatens Daenerys and her unborn child, Drogo has Viserys executed by pouring molten gold over his head. Daenerys notes that Viserys was not a true dragon, as fire cannot kill a dragon.[12]
Dany-jorah-market

Daenerys and Jorah at the market in Vaes Dothrak.
Dany-heart

Daenerys eats the heart of a stallion.

Daenerys tries to convince Drogo to invade so their son might claim the Iron Throne, but the Dothraki do not trust ships and water their horses cannot drink. Now that Viserys is dead, Drogo does not feel inclined to honor the bargain. A wineseller attempts to poison Daenerys to fulfill Robert's orders. She is rescued by Ser Jorah and Rakharo. Following the assassination attempt, Drogo reverses his decision and swears that he will lead his forces across the Narrow Sea and seize the Seven Kingdoms in blood and fire

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Daenerys_Targaryen

So, Dany did want to go to Westeros.  First, to support her brother, than for her and eventually her son to rule over it.
Withouth an army and navy however, it was impossible to cross the sea and challenge Robert.  When she learns of Robert's death, she thinks of entering into a marriage of convenience to get her ships, a pre-requisite to anything that involves entering Westeros.  Her mind on returning to Westeros has been pretty much done on the subject since day one.  She just thought it was the male's duty to rule and her to follow, until she found herself with no brother, no husband and no son.

[viper37]

Next episode is called "Broken man".  And it is said that Jaime confronts a hero.  I'm betting on the return of the Hound.

[grumbler]

So, Dany did want to go to Westeros.  First, to support her brother, than for her and eventually her son to rule over it.
Withouth an army and navy however, it was impossible to cross the sea and challenge Robert.  When she learns of Robert's death, she thinks of entering into a marriage of convenience to get her ships, a pre-requisite to anything that involves entering Westeros.  Her mind on returning to Westeros has been pretty much done on the subject since day one.  She just thought it was the male's duty to rule and her to follow, until she found herself with no brother, no husband and no son.

She wanted to go to Westeros, but not to rule it.  She abandons even the idea of returning to Westeros after her husband and baby die.  Until Qarth, when she learns about the war, and decides to throw her own hat in the ring.

[Berkut]

Next episode is called "Broken man".  And it is said that Jaime confronts a hero.  I'm betting on the return of the Hound.

The trailer shows him confronting the Blackfish. So not the Hound.