Game of Thrones Season 8 (spoiler tags)

[Otomodachi]

(3) With the suggestion that Daenerys basically buys off the North given that winter is coming, that would be interesting because you could bring back the concerns about taking big loans out, i.e. let the Iron Bank come back into the picture. On one hand you'd have Varys pointing out this is for the good of the realm and it's the simplest way to bring peace with the North, and on the other Tyrion could draw on his experiences as the Master of Coin and cautioning wariness with solving problems via massive injections of money: "Take it from me, my Queen. Spending a lot of gold at best makes you only temporary friendships, and when it comes to the Iron Bank, in the end they always take much more than they first give."

Davos has some experience with that too and it gives him something to do other than awkwardly talk about how he sucks at fighting.

[deuterio12]

(1) I'm not sure whether the unity of the realms (i.e. having the North as a vassal state) to begin with was so much about economic benefits as it was a sheer strategic sunk-cost for owning the whole continent. The North can be all but closed to foot traffic by closing Moat Cailin. It's only because of suspiciously-convenient historical/genetic dislike for boats that the North hasn't been beating the snot out of the Ironborn and/or the southern kingdoms with hundreds of miles of coastline open for naval superiority and unstoppable access to Essos across the Narrow Sea. It's suggested the population density of the North is low, and there isn't a hell of a lot economically that seems to come out of the joint, the Targaryens seem to hold it mainly because if they don't, someone else likely will as a forward base for campaigns against the south. The North has always struck me as a subsistence sort of nation at best; they've got barely enough to survive winters, but they haven't got enough spare capital or really arable land to provide a surplus and therefore prosperity.

The North may have a low population density, but still has an huge area, being as big as all the other kingdoms combined.

That would strongly suggest a lot of raw natural resources (wood, ores, etc) if nothing else. They don't seem to have any trouble fully gearing up their troops at least.

[Mechalich]

To provide the most obvious defence for the lack of depth, it's the Bran one: we don't have time for that, we've only got 5 episodes left. The writers have been hammering pretty hard the idea that it's questionable whether anyone's actually going to survive the war, and therefore asking otherwise entirely logical questions like "Um, how do we go forward from here with an entire compass point in more-or-less open rebellion against the Iron Throne" are thrown aside BECAUSE NIGHT KING!

They had enough time to spend almost this entire episode telling drinking stories. There was literally one short seen about the tactical deployment for the upcoming battle. More time was spent arguing about whether or not Jaime Lannister gets to through his life away in battle (it looks like he may take over the left flank after Brienne dies, but this is pretty minor) than the entire strategic framework. The show chose to spend a lot of time, probably the majority of this episode, on nice happy send offs of characters who are going to die in the Battle of Winterfell. That's a nice reward for those characters who've traveled through the course of the series, but it's absolutely a choice to make as most of those scenes aren't strictly necessary in any way (the Arya/Gendry sequence being perhaps the most obvious case) and they are coming at the expense of greater depth to the overall story. It's a deliberate choice to prefer characters over plot, and personally I feel they've taken it a bit too far.

In particular, I don't get, after Dany admits to Sansa to being in love with Jon, why Sansa doesn't raise the issue of a potential marriage. If the King in the North becomes the King of the Seven Kingdoms (even if he's not the reigning monarch) the issue of Northern independence is largely moot. Dany could at least extend an offer of betrothal to the North as an olive branch, that's a very low cost option considering the high risk of death on behalf on either of the principles but would also help Sansa retain Winterfell, which is (I think, it's not entirely clear) what she wants for herself.

[Saintheart]

They had enough time to spend almost this entire episode telling drinking stories. There was literally one short seen about the tactical deployment for the upcoming battle. More time was spent arguing about whether or not Jaime Lannister gets to through his life away in battle (it looks like he may take over the left flank after Brienne dies, but this is pretty minor) than the entire strategic framework. The show chose to spend a lot of time, probably the majority of this episode, on nice happy send offs of characters who are going to die in the Battle of Winterfell. That's a nice reward for those characters who've traveled through the course of the series, but it's absolutely a choice to make as most of those scenes aren't strictly necessary in any way (the Arya/Gendry sequence being perhaps the most obvious case) and they are coming at the expense of greater depth to the overall story. It's a deliberate choice to prefer characters over plot, and personally I feel they've taken it a bit too far.

I've come to anticipate this sort of indulgence from TV shows and sequels, really. They seem to be determined to give characters a proper send-off, which is a shame and narcissistic since reality works more like the ending to The Sopranos: death is cut to black, no final theme, the end, done.

That said, I also come from the school that sees character decisions as the plot. It's character decisions that drive the plot, that create how the plot goes, ergo, character is plot and plot is character - the division between them is specious. GRRM takes this way too far in one direction - letting the results play out "realistically" with the result that mathematically it seems all but impossible to finish this damn thing in 3,000 pages - and D&D seem to take it a bit too far in the other direction, in the sense they write backward from a known outcome and make the characters move to suit that known outcome.

Against that line of thought, I'll say this, if the Arya/Gendry sequence was going to result in Arya winding up pregnant and giving birth to someone who has a claim on Winterfell if not the Iron Throne, that'd be an interesting variation on one theme throughout the series - that stuff we do without thinking about it, on impulse, comes back to bite us on the butt, and often does so hard. It would be an echo of the fact that in large measure the war of five kings started because of bastards.

But yeah, I get what you're saying. In the early seasons they knew how to weave character development in with world building, or at least with verisimilitude. Not so now. Notwithstanding what Bran's said about the Night King I don't think we're anywhere closer to knowing why the hell he'd be stupid enough to go out and get hold of Bran personally. If he has limitless forces at his command he has zero need to expose himself full stop, he can literally just kite Winterfell and go in to find Bran when the fighting's done. Bran can't get away, the Night King knows where he is at all times, and it is still hugely unclear how or why the Night King is going to be able to bring on endless night. It's like there has to be a battle at Winterfell because the show needs a battle at Winterfell. Maybe that's because GRRM isn't willing to tell them what the whole story is with the White Walkers and thus they've had to make it up as best they can from what they have.

In particular, I don't get, after Dany admits to Sansa to being in love with Jon, why Sansa doesn't raise the issue of a potential marriage. If the King in the North becomes the King of the Seven Kingdoms (even if he's not the reigning monarch) the issue of Northern independence is largely moot. Dany could at least extend an offer of betrothal to the North as an olive branch, that's a very low cost option considering the high risk of death on behalf on either of the principles but would also help Sansa retain Winterfell, which is (I think, it's not entirely clear) what she wants for herself.

On that one I'd say there is at least a basis in the show to say a marriage is moot. House Glover wouldn't come in because Jon bent the knee, and if that's reflective of the general attitude across the North, in the event of a marriage I'd guess they'd stick like glue to the literality of The North Remembers:

"We
(1) Know no king but
(a) the King in the North
(b) whose name is Stark."

i.e. King In the North =/= King of the Seven Kingdoms, and in any event and i.e.e., Stark =/= Targaryen, per Rhaegar's fully legitimate marriage to Lyanna Stark.

On top of that - there's also the question of whether Daenerys would want a marriage of convenience. She had that to start with, and it didn't end terribly well even if she loved Drogo: when he died, all her power went with him. She's avoided similar strategic marriages ever since. No, I think she's been built up to want power, outright, unopposed, unquestioned. If she and Jon both survive the battle I think there will be a very dark reckoning on the subject.

[Malifice]

They had enough time to spend almost this entire episode telling drinking stories. There was literally one short seen about the tactical deployment for the upcoming battle. More time was spent arguing about whether or not Jaime Lannister gets to through his life away in battle (it looks like he may take over the left flank after Brienne dies, but this is pretty minor) than the entire strategic framework.

It's a drama show about people, not a documentary on warfare.

People are watching it to see how characters interact with other characters, along certain arcs, not to watch people discuss strategy.

And there were kind of two scenes. One where they discussed the strategy (Bran in the Godswood) and we also saw the troop depolyment, and another involving Brienne confirming she was commanding the left flank.

We also saw pits ringing Winterfell full of branches (likely to be set on fire), dragonglass embedded in obstructions and barriers and the keep itself.

Big issue for mine was there was next to zero discussion of using the dragons. Im a little surprised they havent flown them over the undead already and began torching everything.

I suppose the NK has his own dragon now, so it's not exactly that simple.

[Mato]

Man it's weird you guys are saying that because I walked away from the episode

Check your date & time stamps Oto. You're replying to a post made about 12 hours before episode 2 about a topic that had been going on since last week.

Spoiler

Show

Also Dany is not doing better, she's being ignored.

* At Jamie's trial she was set to kill him until Brienne spoke for him to Sansa. Sansa then doesn't defer to Danys for anything, she simply makes her ruling known. Danys, not really having many options, then turns to Jon for help dealing with the situation and he favored Sansa.
* Skipping along, Dany tries to mend things with Sansa. It's subtle but Yohn waits for Sansa's permission to leave. The scene closes with Dany withdrawing her hand, and connection, when presenting with how the north will not bow to her. No one in the north respects Danys and they probably never will unless something changes.
* In the same scene Dany is also speechless about what comes next. She has no plan after taking the crown, she is short sighted and has been naive.
* Ser Jorah even questions her decisions. He comes to plead for Tyrion and that she is being far to harsh with him. She also gets a harsh reminder of things. She can't be mad at Tyrion for trusting Cersei when she was dumb enough to as well.
* When then get a retirement plan of a character that'll probably die next episode. But Grey Worm and Missandei's exchange suggest several Unsullied plan to leave Danys once she has the throne (or maybe even sooner). She doesn't know about this, but the audience does.
* Theon shows up and lets Dany know the ironborn have taken to attacking Cersei and he pledges him self to her. But shipping aside, it's clear Theon is there for Sansa and not Dany. And later he pledges to protect Bran irregardless of Dany's input.
* During the planning it's Jon who leads the room and Jon who dismisses everyone.
* Then there is the tomb scene and I'm sure everyone is rewatching clips of it somewhere for hints (Jon mentioning Sam's source was in the citadel is nice, it implies several maesters know the real truth). The arcing point there is the events are finally hitting her.

Viserys and others have lied to her. There is no one left in the seven kingdoms that wants to support her, she has no "divine right" to the throne, and she's botched just about everything she could. She lost her husband to fate, her son to blood magic, she learned she cannot protect her people in a city full of people that resent her, and lost one of the things that made her special from over confidence and underestimation. The gods have never smiled on her. But Jon is the true king, his "sister" is a key to ruling most of the seven kingdom's military might, his "brother" is the memory of the world, his "lover" brought him an army, the only person Dany met that claimed they were a priest (Melisandre) said Jon was important, and Jon isn't worrying about trivial things like who sits on what chair but whether or not mankind will prevail against an ancient evil king of undeath. Even her dragons, the one thing she counts on, have accepted Jon and this Night King has proven he can take them for his own.

How she responds to this is still up in the air. Will she follow through or subvert expectations? I expect a mix of both, but before the series ends on it's promised bittersweet ending I bet Danys will meet Arya. Whether that's after Ser Jorah puts a needle through her throat before Arya removes her mask or in some other means I'm not sure.

Also, Jon had a dream about the kings in the crypt raising them selves up to attack.

[Malifice]

I think she's been built up to want power, outright, unopposed, unquestioned. If she and Jon both survive the battle I think there will be a very dark reckoning on the subject.

For sure.

I'll go one step further and say I think that without any of her goodly advisors there to hold her back, she's probably going to try and nip this new claimant in the bud during the battle itself.

The show certainly took pains to build up that three way tension pre battle.

Spoiler: Worrying signs

Show

I'm particulary concerned that she now nows Sam and Bran are the only other people who know about Jons superior claim to the Throne aside from her and Jon. This likely wont bode well for at least one of those two next week I fear

[Warlawk]

nice song too, very reminescent of return of the king - which is probably another death flag for a lot of characters.

Now we know what Podrick did to those women. He sang to them. I was quite impressed with that actor's singing voice.

Also, the fact that it's a nod to a song from the books is a plus. The fact that it's thought to be a song written by Rhaegar Targaryen doesn't hurt either.

EDIT: I would be a very happy person if they would give us a full length studio quality version of Pod singing it instead of that Florence and the Machine piece... it's not terrible but cannot compare to Pod.

[Saintheart]

Spoiler

Show

Also Dany is not doing better, she's being ignored.

...

Viserys and others have lied to her. There is no one left in the seven kingdoms that wants to support her, she has no "divine right" to the throne, and she's botched just about everything she could. She lost her husband to fate, her son to blood magic, she learned she cannot protect her people in a city full of people that resent her, and lost one of the things that made her special from over confidence and underestimation. The gods have never smiled on her. But Jon is the true king, his "sister" is a key to ruling most of the seven kingdom's military might, his "brother" is the memory of the world, his "lover" brought him an army, the only person Dany met that claimed they were a priest (Melisandre) said Jon was important, and Jon isn't worrying about trivial things like who sits on what chair but whether or not mankind will prevail against an ancient evil king of undeath. Even her dragons, the one thing she counts on, have accepted Jon and this Night King has proven he can take them for his own.

How she responds to this is still up in the air. Will she follow through or subvert expectations? I expect a mix of both, but before the series ends on it's promised bittersweet ending I bet Danys will meet Arya. Whether that's after Ser Jorah puts a needle through her throat before Arya removes her mask or in some other means I'm not sure.

Also, Jon had a dream about the kings in the crypt raising them selves up to attack.

Spoiler

Show

How D&D move this along will be interesting, because if they are thinking Daenerys has these responses to events as they've unfolded, then she is in for one big mother of a narcissistic injury.

Narcissism - which everyone has in greater or smaller amounts, trending greater in the West nowadays - is in essence thinking that you're the main character of your own movie, that other people don't quite have fully formed lives like yours, they're just ... extras. This also brings with it a crippling inability to meaningfully connect with other people, because how can you connect with someone who just isn't as fully real as you are?

Recall Viserys Targaryen. What was his driving need? To be acknowledged as a king. He even calls himself a dragon. It is about playing a role, his whole life. Does anyone really think Daenerys came away unscathed from that life? Does anyone really think that just by virtue of the fact she had lady parts rather than that of a man that she was impervious to that same danger?

How do you prevent a child growing up a narcissist? By showing him -- or her -- a lot of mirrors. You are stronger than John, but not stronger than James. You are prettier than Sansa Stark, but not as pretty as Margaery Tyrell. You are better than him at this, but not better than him at that.

What does Daenerys believe in?

Per her own words to Jon Snow: herself.

What mirrors has she been surrounded with her whole life? To start with, Viserys, certainly; but throughout the entire series, no matter what befell her, there remained the mirror showing her that she was the rightful queen of Westeros. Every bit of murder or killing done along the way was done in support of that mirror image.

What is a narcissistic injury? In essence, it is the revelation to you that the world doesn't actually revolve around you, that people have their own lives just as real, valid, and meaningful as your own. More specifically: it is the realisation that you are indeed an extra in someone else's movie. It is the denial from the world that you are anything special. And that's exactly what Jon has served up the Daenerys in her mind: that she's not the rightful queen of Westeros. Her entire identity is, in fact, false. It's not that she doesn't exist, it's just that she's not, well, important. This conclusion holds even though she is the scion of a dynasty at least three hundred years old and is unmistakeably proven by the fact a dragon will bear her. It doesn't matter: Daenerys is not a Targaryen, she's a queen.

Narcissistic injuries are always followed by one of two reactions: denial, or rage. And it doesn't look like Daenerys is going through denial right now, which only leaves...

[Kyberwulf]

Lol.. the best.. for her people? What people.. the people she uprooted from there home to make them fight for her crown? The people she freed from slavery to go die for something that doesn't benefit them? Or bringing war to a kingdom that in all likely good didn't want her?

She does nothing but bring death to the people stupid enough to follow her.

[deuterio12]

Lol.. the best.. for her people? What people.. the people she uprooted from there home to make them fight for her crown? The people she freed from slavery to go die for something that doesn't benefit them? Or bringing war to a kingdom that in all likely good didn't want her?

She does nothing but bring death to the people stupid enough to follow her.

Dany's people are the people of Westeros.

Like Jon who would've got himself killed again if she didn't come to rescue his ass. Tyrion and Jormah would be shackled slaves or dead too.

And Dany brought two armies along her dragons to help fight the Night King. If Westeros survives this Winter, it wll be in great part thanks to her.

If not for Dany's actions, then not only rightful king Jon would be dead but also Cersei would be wrecking (more) havok out of her mad paranoia in the south while the Night King was marching from the north pretty much unopposed and unsullied like Worm's Tongue would be dead or a mindless drone instead of somebody that actually found love and sees a light at the end of the tunnel instead of a senseless life.

[Mechalich]

Dany's people are the people of Westeros.

Yep. It's also worth noting that the leaders of both the Reach (Olenna Tyrell) and Dorne (Ellaria Sand) specifically asked for Dany to come to Westeros and pledged their allegiance to her. So did one faction of the Ironborn though Euron is technically their legitimate king. Jon then subsequently bent the knee and offered his support, giving her the North. That's 3 out of 7, which isn't bad considering that the Stormlands current have no leadership (and haven't for years apparently, in large part because the show dropped the Young Griff plot) and The Vale hasn't officially declared for anyone and is run by a mentally unsound child. Cersei holds the allegiance of the Crownlands, the Westerlands, and part of the Riverlands (which technically don't count as one of the Seven Kingdoms but have a large population and strategic importance) via the Freys. After Arya murdered the Freys, Edmure Tully remained the rightful heir to that region's holdings and he'd probably declare for Dany in a millisecond if given the chance.

Dany can easily claim just as much popular support as any other claimant to the Iron Throne, especially as by the time she actually got around to launching her invasion the only other claimant was Cersei, who'd just committed a sacrilegious atrocity unequaled since before the start of the Targaryen dynasty (even Maegor the Cruel didn't actually get around to burning the Starry Sept). Dany's ethical position is actually stronger in the show than it hypothetically would be in the books (in an alternate universe in which Winds of Winter actually gets published) because the Young Griff plot was dropped.

Yes the Northerners would like to be independent and Dany's made some angry noises about this, and not without reason. After all, assuming they win in the next episode the North not only has to deal with a massive population crisis, as there is no scenario in which victory is achieved without massive casualties, especially among the poorly armed and poorly trained northern levies, and the sudden acquisition of far more land. After all, if the Night King falls, it becomes possible to settle north of the wall, a region that at one point supported upwards of one hundred thousand inhabitants if Mance Rayder is to be believed. However, she's yet to do anything beyond make angry noises and given that the political situation could shift massively depending on who dies and who lives in the coming battle, it's kind of absurd t predict what she'll do next.

Likewise she made some angry noises about Jon's heritage when he dropped the bombshell on her, which is pretty well justified, but honestly, Jon's not the type to press his claim very hard on his own initiative and the evidence supporting it is pretty weak. Sam may be able to prove that Lynna and Rheagar were married, perhaps even that she was with child, but the only one who can connect that child to Jon is Bran, and Bran's only got his word - a point Dany very reasonably makes to Jon and he doesn't have any good counter against (okay, technically there's the part about Jon successfully riding a dragon, which in the books would prove he at least has some Targaryen blood, but the show hasn't specifically raised this point). If Bran dies, Jon's claim becomes so much smoke unless Dany specifically chooses to honor it against her own self interest.

Assuming both Dany and Jon survive the next episode, which is a bet I wouldn't make, then she has a choice to make regarding what to do about his claim to the Iron Throne. Only the most extreme option, having Jon killed (again), would be 'evil.' There's a whole bunch of in-between options, some of which are even specific to Jon personally. After all, you could make the argument that a man resurrected by a foreign deity - worship of R'hollor being heresy in Westeros - forfeited all claim to the Throne when that happened. Actually, going back further, the argument could be raised that Jon forfeited all claims to the throne when he joined the Night's Watch: the oath the brothers take specifically says "I shall wear no Crowns." (the fact that the various lord's of the North proclaimed Jon to be King in the North knowing this, and not knowing about his death as a fig leaf for the whole oath-breaking and desertion bit, remains a seriously problematic point).

[hamishspence]

Dany can easily claim just as much popular support as any other claimant to the Iron Throne, especially as by the time she actually got around to launching her invasion the only other claimant was Cersei, who'd just committed a sacrilegious atrocity unequaled since before the start of the Targaryen dynasty (even Maegor the Cruel didn't actually get around to burning the Starry Sept). Dany's ethical position is actually stronger in the show than it hypothetically would be in the books (in an alternate universe in which Winds of Winter actually gets published) because the Young Griff plot was dropped.

Cersei didn't burn the Starry Sept either - she burned the Sept of Baelor - a fairly new one by comparison to the Starry Sept.

Maegor's equivalent was burning the Sept of Remembrance, which had also been fairly newly built at the time.

[Lacuna Caster]

To provide the most obvious defence for the lack of depth, it's the Bran one: we don't have time for that, we've only got 5 episodes left. The writers have been hammering pretty hard the idea that it's questionable whether anyone's actually going to survive the war, and therefore asking otherwise entirely logical questions like "Um, how do we go forward from here with an entire compass point in more-or-less open rebellion against the Iron Throne" are thrown aside BECAUSE NIGHT KING!

All of the points you're putting forward at the moment are questions you'd expect if the show was still the same one we saw in Season 1 or 2. Season 8 is low-budget Lord of the Rings, it's time to dispense with character moments or nuance or tension between individual pride and group survival, i.e. do I be a stubborn Northman, or do I swear allegiance so my stubborn people survive. The last embers of that tension flickered out when Jon bent the knee (and a lot of other things) in Daenerys's cabin, despite Sophie Turner making a heroic effort to suggest across these past two episodes the question is still an open one.

They had enough time to spend almost this entire episode telling drinking stories. There was literally one short seen about the tactical deployment for the upcoming battle. More time was spent arguing about whether or not Jaime Lannister gets to through his life away in battle (it looks like he may take over the left flank after Brienne dies, but this is pretty minor) than the entire strategic framework. The show chose to spend a lot of time, probably the majority of this episode, on nice happy send offs of characters who are going to die in the Battle of Winterfell. That's a nice reward for those characters who've traveled through the course of the series, but it's absolutely a choice to make as most of those scenes aren't strictly necessary in any way (the Arya/Gendry sequence being perhaps the most obvious case) and they are coming at the expense of greater depth to the overall story. It's a deliberate choice to prefer characters over plot, and personally I feel they've taken it a bit too far.

In particular, I don't get, after Dany admits to Sansa to being in love with Jon, why Sansa doesn't raise the issue of a potential marriage. If the King in the North becomes the King of the Seven Kingdoms (even if he's not the reigning monarch) the issue of Northern independence is largely moot. Dany could at least extend an offer of betrothal to the North as an olive branch, that's a very low cost option considering the high risk of death on behalf on either of the principles but would also help Sansa retain Winterfell, which is (I think, it's not entirely clear) what she wants for herself.

I don't have much to add here, because all these arguments are so gosh-danged reasonable.

On a simpler note, I did come away from this episode a little disappointed that we've barely seen any action from the Ice Zombies thus far. I understand that CGI is expensive, but... the producers kinda have to splurge at this point, and maybe they'd be better off cutting out these episodes entirely than undermining the tension with what feels a bit like filler material. I mean, budget-wise, can they afford to stretch the Battle of Winterfell out over the next five episodes, or what's going to happen?

[Jan Mattys]

I have a theory:

Spoiler

Show

The Night King flies past Winterfell and attacks King's Landing.
The battle for Winterfell against the dead is a decoy and not a decisive engagement.
They living are going to win at Winterfell, only to be even fewer in numbers, and see that the South is now overrun.

I think this fits the central theme of the story: while humans fight and bicker, the dead are coming. At the moment there are two major "villains" left: one is the Night King, and the other is Cersei.
It seems unlikely that the show kills of the undead first, then resolves the Cersei problem... it would be very anticlimatic after seven seasons where the "The Night King is coming to end all life" is the central point.
So, my reasoning is that Cersei must go BEFORE (and not after) the demise of the Night King. And the only way I can imagine for that to happen is a situation where the living win at Winterfell only to discover that the undead wave has marched south past them and has turned everything else.

This also opens more possibilities: Cersei can be overrun like the fool she is. Cersei can be killed by the undead she doesn't believe exist. Or even Cersei can be turned into a White Walker and become a sort of a Night Queen, prompting the final showdown between whoever wins in the North, and the Icy Court in the South.

I am throwing ideas in the wind here, of course. But one thing I am reasonably certain about is that the battle at Winterfell will not be the end of the undead menace. I can't really imagine the Cersei problem to be dealt with AFTER the Night King problem... narratively, it doesn't make a lick of sense and would make the serie end on a low note.

ps: while writing, I thought about the ending of the Lord of the Rings: Sauron gets vanquished, and then there's the battle of the Shire, against a much weaker opponent, to reclaim true peace and serenity... but I don't think GoT will end like that.

[deuterio12]

I have a theory:

Spoiler

Show

The Night King flies past Winterfell and attacks King's Landing.
The battle for Winterfell against the dead is a decoy and not a decisive engagement.
They living are going to win at Winterfell, only to be even fewer in numbers, and see that the South is now overrun.

I think this fits the central theme of the story: while humans fight and bicker, the dead are coming. At the moment there are two major "villains" left: one is the Night King, and the other is Cersei.
It seems unlikely that the show kills of the undead first, then resolves the Cersei problem... it would be very anticlimatic after seven seasons where the "The Night King is coming to end all life" is the central point.
So, my reasoning is that Cersei must go BEFORE (and not after) the demise of the Night King. And the only way I can imagine for that to happen is a situation where the living win at Winterfell only to discover that the undead wave has marched south past them and has turned everything else.

This also opens more possibilities: Cersei can be overrun like the fool she is. Cersei can be killed by the undead she doesn't believe exist. Or even Cersei can be turned into a White Walker and become a sort of a Night Queen, prompting the final showdown between whoever wins in the North, and the Icy Court in the South.

I am throwing ideas in the wind here, of course. But one thing I am reasonably certain about is that the battle at Winterfell will not be the end of the undead menace. I can't really imagine the Cersei problem to be dealt with AFTER the Night King problem... narratively, it doesn't make a lick of sense and would make the serie end on a low note.

ps: while writing, I thought about the ending of the Lord of the Rings: Sauron gets vanquished, and then there's the battle of the Shire, against a much weaker opponent, to reclaim true peace and serenity... but I don't think GoT will end like that.

Interesting.

Spoiler

Show

Undead Cersei would be pretty nifty as the true final boss.

However Jammie did comment that the Golden Company would be more than a match against the living alliance after they get grinded by the Night King's horde, which I would take as they being presented as quite the worthy opponent on their own. Even got those big pictures of them standing in formation. From a narrative point of view wouldn't make much sense to go through all that trouble if they're just gonna be wiped off screen.

In the other hand it would just be hilarious to see Cersei screaming in terror as the Night King himself comes for her first.

Plus we still have the not-frost zombie Mountain that needs to fight the Hound. Could he just be further zombified?

Either way there's the important question of where exactly is the Blue Eyes Wight dragon. If it has darkvision, then the living army is even more screwed.

[Dr.Samurai]

Man I leave for a few days and wow this place blows up.

It’s interesting for me to see so many sides of this debate going on that basically streamline her story to fit Dany into a specific archetype of the Good King and the Bad King when it seems pretty obvious that she is a complicated heavily flawed human.

Is Dany often stupidly ruthless in the pursuit of her power? Yes.
Does Dany truly desire the betterment of her people? Yes.

These are not mutually exclusive, and it’s odd seeing people arguing that they are.

Well... I'm arguing that she has been very ruthless but also benevolent. I don't see the obvious descent into madness that others are saying has been hiding in plain sight. There's a question of whether Dany murdering Sansa/Sam/Bran would be "in-character", which some people are asserting is the case. I think something like this would be out of left field. That's not to say that these events might not ruin alliances and relationships now and come between current allies. But I'd be surprised if Dany just straight up killed Starks to preempt anything, and I wouldn't consider it clever or good storytelling.

It's a drama show about people, not a documentary on warfare.

People are watching it to see how characters interact with other characters, along certain arcs, not to watch people discuss strategy.

And there were kind of two scenes. One where they discussed the strategy (Bran in the Godswood) and we also saw the troop depolyment, and another involving Brienne confirming she was commanding the left flank.

We also saw pits ringing Winterfell full of branches (likely to be set on fire), dragonglass embedded in obstructions and barriers and the keep itself.

Big issue for mine was there was next to zero discussion of using the dragons. Im a little surprised they havent flown them over the undead already and began torching everything.

I suppose the NK has his own dragon now, so it's not exactly that simple.

Well... the dragons are another issue I had with the last episode. A large part of what makes Dany a valuable ally is, as Davos astutely noticed, she has dragons and dragons breathe fire which destroys wights.

But in the last episode, I forget who (maybe Davos again) says the dragons will be useful in keeping the undead from swarming Winterfell. But Jon says "no, we need the dragons close to the Bran in the garden to protect him, but the Night King can't know so they can't be obvious". So instead of using the dragons to wreck wights, the dragons will be lurking around I guess. Granted, ice javelins are a major concern but if the Night King is on his own dragon, he's not throwing javelins. We don't know if the other white walkers are olympic javelin throwers as well. But it sounds like, for the sake of plot, the dragons will be somewhat sidelined.

Spoiler: @Mato

Show

Also Dany is not doing better, she's being ignored.

* At Jamie's trial she was set to kill him until Brienne spoke for him to Sansa. Sansa then doesn't defer to Danys for anything, she simply makes her ruling known. Danys, not really having many options, then turns to Jon for help dealing with the situation and he favored Sansa.

Sansa makes her own determination but it's not suggested that her choice in the matter is decisive. Rather, it appears that Dany's final say is what matters. She doesn't turn to Jon "for help". She turns to him for his opinion.

In the end, the choice still belonged solely to Dany. And she accepted the counsel of Sansa and Jon. This is not a mad queen or someone being ignored.

* Skipping along, Dany tries to mend things with Sansa. It's subtle but Yohn waits for Sansa's permission to leave. The scene closes with Dany withdrawing her hand, and connection, when presenting with how the north will not bow to her. No one in the north respects Danys and they probably never will unless something changes.

The North *has already* bowed to her. This was a stupid conversation. What Sansa is saying is "we are playing along for now because we need you, but after you've helped us defeat the Night King and Cersei, we will not bow to you".

This is not diplomacy and it's not wise or intelligent. It's actually a terrible move on Sansa's part, especially right before the fight, and it is absolutely understandable why Dany would be taken aback and be both angry and speechless.

* In the same scene Dany is also speechless about what comes next. She has no plan after taking the crown, she is short sighted and has been naive.

Not at all. If Dany helps the North destroy the greatest threat they have known for a thousand years, and she defeats Cersei, who tried to destroy House Stark, the North has every reason to change their mind on Dany.

Seriously, Dany put her campaign on hold, went to save the North from the Night King, then defeats their greatest enemy in the South. If the North then decides to break faith with her and rebel, that's totally insane.

* Ser Jorah even questions her decisions. He comes to plead for Tyrion and that she is being far to harsh with him. She also gets a harsh reminder of things. She can't be mad at Tyrion for trusting Cersei when she was dumb enough to as well.

Tyrion got exactly what he deserved. He is no longer clever. He needs to be rebuked. His ideas have been very bad so far, costing Dany her allies in the South, her fleet, one of her dragons, etc.

* When then get a retirement plan of a character that'll probably die next episode. But Grey Worm and Missandei's exchange suggest several Unsullied plan to leave Danys once she has the throne (or maybe even sooner). She doesn't know about this, but the audience does.

A choice they are free to make because, you might remember, Dany made them free men to do as they please. Not a mad queen.

* Theon shows up and lets Dany know the ironborn have taken to attacking Cersei and he pledges him self to her. But shipping aside, it's clear Theon is there for Sansa and not Dany. And later he pledges to protect Bran irregardless of Dany's input.

That's okay. The Ironborn are still prepping the Iron Isles for Dany as a redoubt. That Theon is there to fight for the Starks is fine. Dany didn't seem put off by it.

* During the planning it's Jon who leads the room and Jon who dismisses everyone.

Yes, he knows the North, Winterfell, and war. We know that Jon is specifically avoiding her because he has some pretty heavy news to tell her.

Viserys and others have lied to her. There is no one left in the seven kingdoms that wants to support her, she has no "divine right" to the throne, and she's botched just about everything she could. She lost her husband to fate, her son to blood magic, she learned she cannot protect her people in a city full of people that resent her, and lost one of the things that made her special from over confidence and underestimation. The gods have never smiled on her. But Jon is the true king, his "sister" is a key to ruling most of the seven kingdom's military might, his "brother" is the memory of the world, his "lover" brought him an army, the only person Dany met that claimed they were a priest (Melisandre) said Jon was important, and Jon isn't worrying about trivial things like who sits on what chair but whether or not mankind will prevail against an ancient evil king of undeath. Even her dragons, the one thing she counts on, have accepted Jon and this Night King has proven he can take them for his own.

This is one... interesting way... to look at it.

First of all... *EVERYONE* is worrying about "trivial things" like who sits on the Iron Throne, because it impacts everyone. To that point... Dany doesn't bring it up when she's talking to Sansa, Sansa is the one who needs to talk about it and make her position clear. Further, the only reason Sam goes to speak to Jon is to tell him that he is the true heir to the throne. Jon decides to tell Dany before the battle begins.

So it's a strange interpretation to say that the person that literally suspended her campaign for the Iron Throne to go fight the White Walkers is worried about trivial things like the Iron Throne when literally the other major characters in Winterfell are talking about it behind her back and the Northerners are chafing under her rulership and leaving Winterfell.

[Psyren]

I think we can safely rule out "fly past Winterfell":

Spoiler

Show

Bran is pretty much Word of God as far as the NK's motives, because if he's wrong we end up with a massive plot hole (i.e. why would the de facto Lich King ever need to risk himself when his army has perfect discipline and is self-replenishing.) So luring him to the Godswood will work, but something else will likely go wrong and force a BDH moment from Theon.

[Otomodachi]

I think we can safely rule out "fly past Winterfell":

Spoiler

Show

Bran is pretty much Word of God as far as the NK's motives, because if he's wrong we end up with a massive plot hole (i.e. why would the de facto Lich King ever need to risk himself when his army has perfect discipline and is self-replenishing.) So luring him to the Godswood will work, but something else will likely go wrong and force a BDH moment from Theon.

Spoiler

Show

It would also completely obliterate the feel of the Night King and his army being this creeping, pervasive, WINTERY force that just blows down from the north and steamrolls everything unprepared that is in it's way. Winter doesn't just "go around" a place. The Walkers will always, ALWAYS be a personification of deathly cold to me, and I actually liked how Bran brings up the point about the Night King wanting to obliterate the memory of the world- all the "must kill Bran" stuff seemed stupid to me up until then, cuz like... winter doesn't care. Winter'll get ya in the end anyhow.

[Malifice]

There's a question of whether Dany murdering Sansa/Sam/Bran would be "in-character", which some people are asserting is the case. I think something like this would be out of left field.

Dany murdered Sams Father and Brother for failing to acknowledge her as the Queen.

Why on earth would it be out of left field for her to murder Sam seeing as he stands in her path to the Throne?

Ditto Sansa. She's refusing to submit to her rule. We know what that gets you, and it's death by fire.

[Liquor Box]

Dany murdered Sams Father and Brother for failing to acknowledge her as the Queen.

Why on earth would it be out of left field for her to murder Sam seeing as he stands in her path to the Throne?

Ditto Sansa. She's refusing to submit to her rule. We know what that gets you, and it's death by fire.

While burning the Tarlys was more brutal than was necessary (and perhaps moreso than what many Westerosi commanders would have done), they were defeated enemy combatants. It would be several orders of magnitude worse for Dany to murder Sam (or to a lessor degree Sansa) in the present situation because they are currently allies, none have outright refused to bend the knee and certainly not after being defeated, and none are enemy combatants (although Sansa could fit in this as an enemy ruler if the two genuinely become enemies at some point).

[deuterio12]

While burning the Tarlys was more brutal than was necessary (and perhaps moreso than what many Westerosi commanders would have done), they were defeated enemy combatants. It would be several orders of magnitude worse for Dany to murder Sam (or to a lessor degree Sansa) in the present situation because they are currently allies, none have outright refused to bend the knee and certainly not after being defeated, and none are enemy combatants (although Sansa could fit in this as an enemy ruler if the two genuinely become enemies at some point).

Yeah, there's somewhat of a difference between executing somebody that was trying their hardest to kill you 5 minutes ago and is covered in the blood of your allies they just pillaged and executing somebody that's been mostly neutral/allied.

And even the Tarlys got off easy since somebody like Cersei would never offer the chance to bend the knee and instead torture you for as long as she could before finally finishing you off and somebody like Stannis would slowly roast you over a slow fire even if you're his direct family and never wronged him.

[Malifice]

While burning the Tarlys was more brutal than was necessary (and perhaps moreso than what many Westerosi commanders would have done), they were defeated enemy combatants.

So?

Westerossi convention is you dont murder POWs.

The only other people that have done so have been the Mountain, Cersei and Ramsay Bolton. And is there any doubt that those people are evil?

Jon Snow pardoned the house's that rebelled against the Starks. Rob Stark treated the Lannister men well, providing them with medical attention after the battle and forbidding any harm to Lannisters (even Jaime). Eddard and Robert treated POWs defeated in combat with dignity and didn't kill them out of hand (Barristan Selmy was held captive till the war was over, and Theon was held as a captive to prevent the Greyjoys from further rebellion).

Danaerys achieved nothing by having Sam's brother and father burnt to death other than ensuring house Tarly is forever opposed to her rule, just like Aerys achieved nothing by burning to death Eddards brother and father aside from making a permanent enemy of House Stark.

It's no coincidence the show depicts these two events either
The rhyming here is intentional.

What we condemn from Aerys were prepared to justify in Danaerys case.

Shes been the Mad King all along. It's only her advisors stopping her from absolute brutality and violence.

With Tyrion in the Crypt and no one to counsel her against burning people to death this time, dont be surprised when her true (vengeful and power hungry) self comes out.

Why wouldnt she kill Sam? He (along with Brandon and Jon) are the biggest threat to her getting the Iron Throne. What they know is a secret that completely undermines her entire goal of sitting on the Throne. It's a direct challenge to her authority. With them gone, she is the legitimate ruler of the SK.

[gomipile]

So?

Westerossi convention is you dont murder POWs.

The only other people that have done so have been the Mountain, Cersei and Ramsay Bolton. And is there any doubt that those people are evil?

I don't see how you can skip over the Karstarks in your list. Their killing of Lannister POWs was one of the biggest plot points on the path to Robb Stark's downfall.

And the Karstarks came off as a bit worse than morally gray, but not evil by comparison with Gregor, Cersei, and Ramsay.

[hamishspence]

If we're using Evil in the D&D sense, it's a pretty large box - you don't have to be as evil as Gregor, to qualify as Evil.

[Mechalich]

Westerossi convention is you dont murder POWs.

Westerosi convention is that you should not murder POWs because they are valuable hostages - a term that is specifically used several times in regards to those captured in battle. You can kill them if you want, there were several people who argued that Robb Stark should kill Jaime Lannister after he was captured at the Whispering Wood, but it's a bad idea because you both lose leverage and you induce your enemies to act without mercy should that capture you or your allies in turn. However, because it is a hostage-taking based system the threat of killing the captives is always present, with the understanding that if one side reneges on the bargain the hostage gets the axe.

It's also worth noting that imprisonment for those captured in battle is often very inhumane and may result in the death of those prisoners entirely on its own, to the point that certain persons captured may actually seek death rather than be confined. The Night's Watch, for example, imprisons captives in 'Ice Cells' which are literally cells hewn directly out of the ice of The Wall were a prisoner has a decent chance of dying of hypothermia is confined for more than a few days. The Eyrie confines it's prisoners in Sky Cells which are open at the back to a several thousand foot drop with the deliberate intention of driving captives to suicide and/or madness. In the books, Tyrion deliberately bribes his way out of the Sky Cells and risks his gambit of trial by combat because he knows that he wouldn't endure a confinement long enough for Tywin to bargain for his release.

In the case of the Tarlys is it entirely consistent with Randyll's character that he deliberately but his head in the block in the hope of ending it quickly and wiping away the stain of his betrayal from his house for the next generation. His death would offer Dickon the excuse to bend the knee and join the winning side, such that House Tarly's lands would be preserved when the war was over. Dickon, because he was an idiot trying to prove something, ruined the whole maneuver for everyone. Heck, even Sam, when confronted with the issue, assumes that the former case it what would happen - his father's dead so his brother's the lord now.

Dickon's death is part and parcel of Season 7's writing mistakes, because the whole incident makes little sense. The idea that he would refuse his father's final order to sit back down is poorly consistent with his overall character at best. It smacks of the show deliberately eliminating an unimportant character (and perhaps looking to reward Sam down the line, which is dumb because Sam doesn't have any claim on Horn Hill because he joined the Night's Watch). It's a badly constructed outcome and if that's the best evidence you can muster for Dany's descent into madness it's pretty weak sauce.

Why wouldnt she kill Sam? He (along with Brandon and Jon) are the biggest threat to her getting the Iron Throne. What they know is a secret that completely undermines her entire goal of sitting on the Throne. It's a direct challenge to her authority. With them gone, she is the legitimate ruler of the SK.

Jon's claim to the Iron Throne is only a challenge to her authority if he asserts it, and if he asserts it on his own. They're supposed to be deeply in love, even though their onscreen romance hasn't exactly been very effective (Kit Harrington's ability to channel romance on screen, when not directed toward the woman he would actually marry IRL, is somewhat dubious). It's also only a challenge if you buy the 'death freed you from your Night's Watch oath' argument, because technically Jon foreswore his claim to the Iron Throne without even knowing about it way back in the first season. The precedent in that case is quite strong, other Targaryens went to the Wall in the past.

And, of course, Dany can always argue that her claim supersedes Jon's. She's the Mad King's daughter, Jon's his grandson. The inheritance dynamic between the two of them is exactly the same one as launched the Dance of Dragons two hundred years earlier, with the not-so-insignificant exception that Jon already bowed to her and called her his queen.


Ultimately, Jon's position to press a claim on the Iron Throne is super weak on its own. It only really matters if Dany choses to acknowledge it. Rather it has utility in case certain things happen. For instance, if Dany really can't have any children she could choose to make Jon her heir in order to continue the Targaryen lineage (this would be very convenient should she suffer a mortal wound at some point in the next few episodes), though it's not actually clear if either of them has any fertility left to work with, given Jon's status as formerly deceased.

[Malifice]

Westerosi convention is that you should not murder POWs because they are valuable

And the head (and heir) of House Tarly are exempt from this why exactly? Danaerys broke with convention (and conventions are the law of the land).

For Gods sake, he only fought against her because he believed she was a violent and brutal tyrant who is merciless and cruel to her enemies, with no sense of honor, and who had led an army of violent and brutal barbarians to the shores of Westeros.

She then proved him right.

Seriously man, a Knight in the Middle Ages that went around murdering captured Nobles and Gentry who were their prisoner would get a reputation as a mad dog.

Also there is the issue that murdering the heads of Houses is a bad idea. It leads to that House openly rebelling against you (see the Starks, twice). This has been depicted to be the case over and over again.

[Saintheart]

Jon's claim to the Iron Throne is only a challenge to her authority if he asserts it, and if he asserts it on his own. They're supposed to be deeply in love, even though their onscreen romance hasn't exactly been very effective (Kit Harrington's ability to channel romance on screen, when not directed toward the woman he would actually marry IRL, is somewhat dubious). It's also only a challenge if you buy the 'death freed you from your Night's Watch oath' argument, because technically Jon foreswore his claim to the Iron Throne without even knowing about it way back in the first season. The precedent in that case is quite strong, other Targaryens went to the Wall in the past.

And, of course, Dany can always argue that her claim supersedes Jon's. She's the Mad King's daughter, Jon's his grandson. The inheritance dynamic between the two of them is exactly the same one as launched the Dance of Dragons two hundred years earlier, with the not-so-insignificant exception that Jon already bowed to her and called her his queen.

Ultimately, Jon's position to press a claim on the Iron Throne is super weak on its own. It only really matters if Dany choses to acknowledge it. Rather it has utility in case certain things happen. For instance, if Dany really can't have any children she could choose to make Jon her heir in order to continue the Targaryen lineage (this would be very convenient should she suffer a mortal wound at some point in the next few episodes), though it's not actually clear if either of them has any fertility left to work with, given Jon's status as formerly deceased.

You are correct that other Targaryens went to the Wall: Maester Aemon himself refused the throne, so title passed to his brother Aegon V, who then had Aerys. But it is worth noting that Aemon was a maester - and similarly banned from holding lands or title - by the time his elder brother Aerion died and the question of the succession came up. The throne apparently was offered to Aemon notwithstanding he "couldn't" be king, but Aemon still refused it -- thus putting his younger brother Aegon on the throne. And even then Aemon decided the right course was to then join the Watch so as not to be set up as a rival to his brother. If Jon wanted to push the issue, his death while on the Watch would probably be fig-leafed to give him a similar excuse to take the throne if the right houses supported him.

The inheritance dynamic between Jon and Danerys is the same as the one that launched the Dance of Dragons, the latter civil war being precisely the reason that once the war was over, Westerosi/Targaryen law changed to prefer female inheritance only when all other male inheritors had been extinguished. Robert Baratheon had a claim to the throne via his Targaryen grandmother, but he was known as the Usurper rather than the rightful king simply because Viserys and Danerys (and now, Jon) had a claim on the throne down the male line. Rhaegar was Aerys' eldest son; the line of inheritance proceeds down that path unless it's completely extinguished, and the fact of his legitimacy is proven in writing by no less than the High Septon of Westeros. This is exactly why Danerys reacts with mixed anger and despair: because even she recognises his claim has primacy.

And lastly, there's something that seems implicit from the books and possibly implicit from the show: you're not a Targaryen if you can't ride a dragon. This Jon has proven in the sight of the entirety of Winterfell, and specifically Tyrion, Varys, and Davos (and yes, they all saw him).

[Mechalich]

You are correct that other Targaryens went to the Wall: Maester Aemon himself refused the throne, so title passed to his brother Aegon V, who then had Aerys. But it is worth noting that Aemon was a maester - and similarly banned from holding lands or title - by the time his elder brother Aerion died and the question of the succession came up. The throne apparently was offered to Aemon notwithstanding he "couldn't" be king, but Aemon still refused it -- thus putting his younger brother Aegon on the throne. And even then Aemon decided the right course was to then join the Watch so as not to be set up as a rival to his brother. If Jon wanted to push the issue, his death while on the Watch would probably be fig-leafed to give him a similar excuse to take the throne if the right houses supported him.

Its a fig leaf Jon could use, sure, but it's also a point that could be raised against him. Also, for whatever reason, the show has played awfully coy with Jon's death. Right now, as far as most people know he's a deserter who's technically living under a death sentence.

The inheritance dynamic between Jon and Danerys is the same as the one that launched the Dance of Dragons, the latter civil war being precisely the reason that once the war was over, Westerosi/Targaryen law changed to prefer female inheritance only when all other male inheritors had been extinguished. Robert Baratheon had a claim to the throne via his Targaryen grandmother, but he was known as the Usurper rather than the rightful king simply because Viserys and Danerys (and now, Jon) had a claim on the throne down the male line. Rhaegar was Aerys' eldest son; the line of inheritance proceeds down that path unless it's completely extinguished, and the fact of his legitimacy is proven in writing by no less than the High Septon of Westeros. This is exactly why Danerys reacts with mixed anger and despair: because even she recognises his claim has primacy.

Yes it has primacy, but it's weak enough that it could be challenged, and was challenged before, especially given the current chaotic state of affairs. The entire course of the story has continually emphasizes how laws and traditions tend to be swept away by raw power, and the power disparity between Dany and Jon is quite vast.

And lastly, there's something that seems implicit from the books and possibly implicit from the show: you're not a Targaryen if you can't ride a dragon. This Jon has proven in the sight of the entirety of Winterfell, and specifically Tyrion, Varys, and Davos (and yes, they all saw him).

The show has not made this point, but riding a dragon only means you have some quantity of Targaryen blood somewhere in your lineage, as happened when a bunch of dubious personages ended up as dragonriders during the Dance of Dragons, including a peasant girl named Nettles.


Honestly, thinking about it now, I think the show it stuck in a bit of a trap. Jon's parentage is supposed to be important to the overall plot, but they cut out the portion of the plot that serves to make it relevant. Young Griff - the character who may or may not be Aemon Targaryen, Rhaegar's son by Elia Martell - isn't in the show. In the books he arrives in Westeros before Dany and it certainly looks like that he was intended to have developed a considerable power base and possibly even taken King's Landing himself (because book Cersei is a complete lunatic and fails at everything and Varys killed all her sane advisers) before she gets there. As such, Jon's heritage would be an extremely important factor in the clash between Dany and Young Griff that was intended to emerge. For instance, Dany could dramatically strengthen her claim in that situation by marrying Jon. In the massively simplified narrative of the show Jon's role as an additional Targaryen is much reduced, I mean, the dragon's supposed to have three heads, but the Night King kind of overwrote that part with an ice spear.

Ultimately Jon's heritage seems to have become one of the many plot threads, like Greyscale and Ayra's Faceless Man training, and everything involving Dorne that just kind of lost importance over time and in the current circumstance doesn't really have a good reason to matter that much, only unlike the others the showrunners feel it's really important to make something of it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Dany murdered Sams Father and Brother for failing to acknowledge her as the Queen.

Dany murdered perfect strangers she didn't know and enemy combatants to cow the dozens of other enemy combatants into submitting to her rule.

Why on earth would it be out of left field for her to murder Sam seeing as he stands in her path to the Throne?

Ditto Sansa. She's refusing to submit to her rule. We know what that gets you, and it's death by fire.

Because it's not a battle, she has ties with these people, and there is already an alliance and she is already ruling the North. You think it's EEEEEVIIIIILLLL that she killed the Tarlys, so now you feel like she's capable of anything at any moment and context doesn't matter. But it does matter.

So?

Westerossi convention is you dont murder POWs.

The only other people that have done so have been the Mountain, Cersei and Ramsay Bolton. And is there any doubt that those people are evil?

Don't forget the Karstarks! You know... those people that Jon Snow pardoned. Looks like they can redeem themselves too huh.

Danaerys achieved nothing by having Sam's brother and father burnt to death other than ensuring house Tarly is forever opposed to her rule, just like Aerys achieved nothing by burning to death Eddards brother and father aside from making a permanent enemy of House Stark.
It's no coincidence the show depicts these two events either
The rhyming here is intentional.

Why do you think these two events are the same?

I haven't read the books, but my understanding is the Starks went there to demand Rhaegar return Lyanna, and Aerys killed them. Can someone that has read the books fill me in on the details? I'm not sure how this equates to what Dany did with the Tarlys.

What we condemn from Aerys were prepared to justify in Danaerys case.

Yeah... maybe they are different situations...

Shes been the Mad King all along. It's only her advisors stopping her from absolute brutality and violence.

All along? How can you say that? Again I ask you, who advised her to push back on the Dothraki raiding and looting? Who advised her to eradicate slavery in Slaver's Bay? Who advised her to tell the Ironborn to stop reaving?

But she burns two enemies and now she's losing her mind. Malifice, I honestly get the impression that there was no way for Dany to conquer Westeros without you accusing her of evil.

Why wouldnt she kill Sam? He (along with Brandon and Jon) are the biggest threat to her getting the Iron Throne. What they know is a secret that completely undermines her entire goal of sitting on the Throne. It's a direct challenge to her authority. With them gone, she is the legitimate ruler of the SK.

What threat? Since when has Jon gone after power?

Jon...

1. Never presumed himself to be a Stark.
2. Didn't want to be a steward groomed by the Lord Commander.
3. Didn't volunteer himself to be Lord Commander when the vote happened.
4. Didn't accept Stannis' offer to legitimize him and make him Lord of Winterfell/Warden of the North.
5. Didn't make himself Lord of Winterfell after the Battle of the Bastards, instead allowing Sansa to be Lady of Winterfell.
6. Didn't want to be King of the North even though they crowned him as such.

Jon has *NEVER* sought these positions of leadership. So both Jon and Dany will just flip the switch, and the former will suddenly try to seize power, and the latter will just start incinerating people preemptively?

Ultimately Jon's heritage seems to have become one of the many plot threads, like Greyscale and Ayra's Faceless Man training, and everything involving Dorne that just kind of lost importance over time and in the current circumstance doesn't really have a good reason to matter that much, only unlike the others the showrunners feel it's really important to make something of it.

Yeah, Jon's true identity doesn't really matter unless either Dany dies, or Dany goes full on berserk. Otherwise, the guy doesn't want to sit on any throne. So it will only matter if Dany can't be Queen. We already have one mad queen in King's Landing. I hope that Dany doesn't just lose her mind all of a sudden like others are predicting and become a second mad queen. That would be weird and disappointing.

That said, she knows Bran will be in the garden and her dragons will be lurking around waiting for the Night King. They may just "accidentally" incinerate the Three-Eyed Raven at the same time they kill the Night King, if theories about Mad Queens are to be believed.