The brutal killing of the innocent non-combatants happens all the time in modern warfare, and so since GoT parallel's our world it shows that grim ugly truth in no uncertain terms.
Well firstly, the show has already made that point pretty bloody thoroughly by now, wouldn't you say? And as I said before, there’s a world of difference between collateral damage and deliberate slaughter. This was the latter, which is why it was so wildly out of character, despite what anyone says.
I never saw her as a benevolent force nor someone who was inherently good. I suspect that aspect has really shocked people, who assumed things would be more black and white (and have somehow forgotten all the shit she’s already done).
To me, the whole retroactive ’Dany was always crazy’ slogan that’s doing the rounds is bunkum, and I think it’s a mistake to judge the actions of characters by modern moral standards when they are operating in a quasi-medieval feudal society. Dany has wielded political violence (as anyone in her position needs to, given the circumstances), and she’s made mistakes for sure, but she has also (mostly) been acting as a force for good in the world and is by and large a protector of the oppressed. I’m curious whether you apply the same moral judgement to Jon, or Ned, or Robb, all three of whom have executed people for breaking oaths, or simply for refusing to obey their orders… What makes their authority or dispensing of justice more legitimate than Dany’s?
I’ve also never seen Dany through the lens of ‘black/white or good/evil’. Many characters in the series do terrible things for noble reasons and vice/versa. If anything, my issue is with the show is precisely
for having a rather binary mindset, as evidenced by flipping Dany’s ‘evil’ setting to ‘on’ in an incredibly jarring way. Do I think Dany's relentless pursuit of power will ultimately result in disaster in the books? Yes. Do I think she will suddenly flip to being a psychopathic mass murderer because she gets a bit upset? No. Never.
A key part of Game of Thrones appeal to me is that it feels like a real world. Heroes die ignobly. Villains carry out atrocities but then gain our sympathy. We follow power hungry egomaniacs and feel betrayed when we realize what they are. Innocents die. It's not a neat Hero's Quest.
Agreed, however the TV show has a nihilistic streak to it that the books do not have, and that nihilism has now completely overtaken the narrative. I, like millions of others, love these characters., and I want more from an ending to their respective stories than just speculating on which of them will kill the other. And that’s pretty much all the show has been reduced to now… My worry is without the romanticism and idealism of the books, you’re left with nothing to balance out the bleakness and cynicism, and if so, what was actually the point of it all?
If anyone’s interested, this video, a few years old now, perfectly nails the fundamental difference between the philosophy of the show and the books:
https://youtu.be/ek2O6bVAIQQ