Maximum Taco

I mean just look at the executions other noble lords carry out. Most of them are beheadings or hangings. The Starks do not feed their enemies to Direwolves. Dany's methods of execution are in line with the more villainous people like Cersei or Ramsay Bolton. Other than Sansa's killing of Ramsay can you name me one instance of a character who is seen as more good than villainous carrying out an execution with the same amount of pain as Dany? He was "probably guilty" based on what? I mean we got no information on him, he doesn't even have a name. Sending a message with summary executions are what evil people do. Very, very true. Show Dany is SO much more ruthless and cruel then Book Dany. I'd say Book Dany is actually a good ruler in Meereen and frankly a better person, she makes concessions to keep the peace, she doesn't execute people for no reason, she puts the needs of the city ahead of her own personal needs, she forms a city watch to help keep the Queen's Peace, she has Barristan start training freed slaves in martial arts. She doesn't demand allegiance for nothing when Quentyn Martell comes to see her. There's a great essay someone wrote where he posits that she is on a pathway to peace in Meereen before the poisoning at the fighting pits, and I very much buy that theory. I like Book Dany a lot more than Show Dany.

This depends on what you mean by innocents. I don't think Dany has ever killed someone who was truly innocent. However I have issues with almost every death she is a part of, where she isn't being actively threatened. IMO the one's in bold are wrong, cruel and at least border on something an evil or mad person would do. Viserys - Yeah, this guy deserved to die, he was a jerk, who threatened to cut her unborn child out of her womb, and that's ignoring the years of abuse he heaped on her. And his death was freaking epic, I loved watching it (but that just means it was good TV, I loved watching the Mountain crush Oberyn too.) But molten gold has got to be the very definition of cruel and unusual. She gets a pass on this one from me, cause she wasn't actually the one who did it, and he had just threatened to do vile things to her. But it's still concerning that she let Drogo do it without any word and acted very impassively towards it. Mirri Maz Duur - Again, this death is deserved, although I would argue that Mirri also deserved to get her vengeance against Drogo and the Khalasar and Dany is a part of that Khalasar as Khaleesi. But, she eschews a clean death for burning someone alive. Pyat Pree - Full pass. Was actively being threatened and chained, and dragons were the weapon at hand. Doreah and Xaro - Again, deserved deaths, but letting someone slowly suffocate or starve to death in a windowless vault is maybe the cruelest death in the entire series beyond Cersei making Ellaria watch Tyene die. Kraznys and Greizhan (Astapor masters) - Full pass. It's a shady deal to trade your Dragon knowing a dragon cannot be traded, but it's not overly cruel. Meereen Masters - This was a cruel death. Yes, it's eye-for-an-eye justice, but that doesn't make it right. Also it doesn't seem like she does her due diligence here. She kills 163 masters for the 163 crucified children, but she doesn't bother to find the ringleaders of the plot. If Hizdar can be believed, his father spoke against the massacre, but he was still in turn massacred by Dany. This was morally grey at least, and black at worst. Zalla - The one death that is an innocent, and the only one Dany expresses any regret over. She gets a pass here though, she didn't order this death so it wasn't cruel. At worst it's negligent to let her dragons roam free, but not evil. Mossador - Full Pass. She gave him a trial, he was definitely guilty, and she gave him a clean death. Nice job Dany! Master - Selected AT RANDOM to be devoured by Viserion and Rhaegal. Dany even says "Maybe you are guilty and maybe not" and still goes through with this. This is evil. Sorry you cannot convince me differently. Bunch of Khals - Pass. Life and death scenario, fire was her only real weapon here. Sons of the Harpy - Pass. This was a battle. Randyll and Dickon Tarly - Again I don't have an issue with their deaths. She gave them a choice and needed to ensure loyalty. She could've easily set them in a cell for a while, but that's her prerogative. But death by burning is IMO unnecessarily cruel. This did seem to go quickly, so maybe dragon fire kills faster then regular fire, but I still think it must have been much more painful then a quick beheading or knife to the heart.

But that's the thing, whenever they put their foot down, Sansa does back down.

The Vale. Bloodlessly... well I guess Littlefinger's blood. Almost bloodlessly.

The Greatjon threatened to take his bannermen and go back to Last Hearth. That IS oathbreaking. Sansa surrendered her seat, she called her banners, and she obeyed their commands. She expressed her own misgivings about those commands but she still obeyed them, and never gave any indication that she would do otherwise. Where exactly is Sansa's oathbreaking? Is it against her oath to disagree with their course of action? Is snarking now an offense punishable by hanging? Even Joff just had Ser Meryn crack her in the face.

Cherry picking some elements of Dany from the Books and some from the Show is pointedly unfair. Book Dany is not Show Dany. Book Sansa is not Show Sansa. Not since Season 4. In the show, and only the show, I believe that Sansa has done a much better job ruling then Daenerys. Sansa has cultivated a lasting relationship between the North and the Vale, when at the beginning of the series Lysa will not even lift a finger to help Cat. She was the driving force behind finally retaking Winterfell (it should be mentioned that Jon didn't want to at first, and would have failed if not for the Knights of the Vale), she has made sure that the people that she is sworn to protect had the food to last the winter. Is she a great warrior? No. But that doesn't mean she's not a good ruler. Dany on the other hand conquered city after city, but never did anything to maintain them. She freed slaves and punished injustice, most definitely. But she didn't bother to occupy her thoughts with what happens after. The slaves are freed, but what do they do now? A lot of them have no marketable skills, the wealthy have been cast down, so there's no one to drive economy. The Dothraki regularly raid these cities and take slaves of their own, how will the slaves protect themselves when Dany has killed the slaves who would fight and taken the rest for her own army? How long do you expect the Second Sons to hang around without payment? They aren't her subjects, they are her employees. What is keeping "The Bay of Dragons" from going back to their slaving ways, or imploding on itself like a dying star, or falling to a horde of Dothraki? Daario? You cannot seriously believe that Daario is gonna be a good steward for Dany, when has he shown any proclivity towards that? He is actually supposed to represent Dany's baser urges, his entire arc is about doing whatever you want and fucking the consequences. Is she a good conqueror? Most fucking definitely. Is she a good ruler? She hasn't shown any elements of being one.

By what metric does Dany succeed in Meereen? Is the city prosperous? Did she rebuild trade? Did she create schools for the slaves to learn and not just feast off the wealth already there? Did she repair the damage done by the war? Did she rebuild the fleet? Did she set a garrison she can trust to protect the city? Or did she put in charge a sellsword of dubious loyalty and repute, take all the men of fighting age, burn down the entire fleet and leave? I love how when the Northern houses offer their allegiance it's to Jon, but when they refuse his call because he bent the knee to a foreign Queen who they only know as the daughter of the man who burnt their liege lord alive it's somehow Sansa's fault. I'll point out that none of the Vale lords left. Because Sansa knows how to keep their loyalty.

Those are semantics. When Tywin Lannister was Hand of the King for Aerys, who truly ruled the realm?

That is ruling a Kingdom. Making sure the small folk make it to Wintertown before the snows grow deep. Making sure that there is enough food when they do get there. Placating your subject lords that yes, you need their grain, but you will return it if it's not used, and you will offer the protection of your castle and your other bannermen as recompense. Making sure that your allies feel like you respect them, and don't just view them as disposable. Keeping your allies together when your own King heads south against everyone's wishes. Holding the ones you can together when he summarily bends the knee to a Queen no one has even seen. It's not as glamorous as putting down rebellion, and freeing slaves. But it's the necessary work of ruling. Dany has never really successfully ruled anything, she failed at ruling Meereen and then burned everything down. Did she learn lessons? I certainly hope so, but there's no proof so far she has. Conversely, Sansa left the Eyrie having pretty much sworn them entirely to her allegiance. Not through force or fear, but through negotiation and diplomacy. If Dany sends word across the Narrow Sea will Meereen be there to welcome and obey her? I'm unsure.

Agreed, Dany took lessons from Meereen (or at least she should have, we'll see if she ever puts those into practice) I was just saying that it's horribly misleading to say "Yo, she took an entire continent and ruled it. I think she knows what she's doing" cause she didn't. She took a city and ruled a city. And she ruled it poorly. By that same argument, Sansa was head of household in the Eyrie after Lysa Arryn passed (while Littlefinger was Lord Regent, it usually falls to the wife, or eldest daughter to run the actual castle,) and she's been holding the North for Jon and preparing for winter ever since he went south. Isn't it fair to think she may have learned a thing or two?

Slavers Bay/The Bay of Dragons is not "All of Essos" it is a VERY VERY small part of it. Also Dany conquered Astapor and Yunkai and then immediately abandoned them. She never conquered and held more than a city at a time.

Again, I think she's always been mad. Sane people don't react to things the way Dany does. Sane people don't make the choices she does. The way she impassively watches Drogo "crown" Viserys. I'm not saying she has to be sad he's dead, he was a dick who abused her, and threatened to cut her child from her womb. But to just watch someone (anyone) die via molten gold and react impassively with a saying that crazy old Aerion Targaryen probably used? That is not a sane reaction. The way she sentences people to horrific punishments, Doreah and Xaro to starve to death in the pitch blackness of a vault, 163 random masters disemboweled and garishly displayed in eye-for-an-eye style of justice, another one fed to dragons. These are not the actions of a sane woman. Other people are ruthless with their enemies. I mean Jon sentences a child to hang, that's pretty fucking cold. But he doesn't slowly stab Olly to death because Olly stabbed him to death. And moreso he feels guilty for even hanging him. Dany does far more horrific things and never blinks, never thinks twice about them. She's crazy. The only comparable act that another sympathetic character commits is Sansa feeding Ramsay to his hounds. But it should be noted that Sansa doesn't do this to everyone. She doesn't order Arya to kill Littlefinger slowly and painfully, he gets a nice clean death. Dany rarely seems to give anyone a painless death. It's all burning them alive, or letting them starve to death and possibly eat other or disembowling them premortem. SHE CRAZY.

Every time a new Targaryen is born the gods toss a coin in the air...

She is unfit to rule, she's always been unfit to rule. What does Dany do in Meereen? She creates a welfare state by freeing all of the slaves, but not creating any jobs. She destroyed the cities primary source of income, and I'm not saying she shouldn't, slave trading is obviously wrong, but she doesn't bother to replace that trade with anything. So that in the end the slaves beg to go back to slavery or to be allowed to murder each other in the fighting pits that she outlawed with her western sensibilities. She puts her militia to work as police in the streets. The Unsullied are not suited to such a task, and they understandably get butchered by the Sons of the Harpy and their guerrilla tactics. Again this is something Dany could have fixed, Ser Barristan knows that King's Landing has a City Watch to keep the King's Peace, and he could have begun training those very same pit fighters as agents to do the same, and be more effective then the Unsullied. She executes people summarily without trial. How can anyone live "without fear and cruelty under their rightful Queen" when the Queen's first instinct every single time is Fire and Blood? And then what does she do when she leaves? She renames it "The Bay of Dragons" and then leaves Daario in charge. Daario. I think we all know how well that's gonna go. Dany ticks all the tyrant boxes. Inflated sense of self, strong proclivity towards violence, and inability to admit that anything she's doing is wrong.

Renly was the best of them. In a normal war, he'd have taken the capital and conquered most of his enemies by now. But he was defeated only by dark shadow magic that any reasonable person at the time would think was just ridiculous.

My complaint is that Cersei didn't retake the island entirely. I mean, Dany has sailed North with all her strength, at the very least Cersei should have had the Iron Fleet sail to Dragonstone and sacked the castle and put everyone to the sword. It's in her literal fucking backyard. Why would anyone leave their enemy with a foothold? They should've arrived at Dragonstone to find the castle in ruins and everyone who didn't sail with them dead (or I guess turned into Saltwives, cause Cersei don't care what Euron does with those guys) At most I think Cersei should've pushed the envelope and set a garrison at Dragonstone with Dragon murdering ballistas all around the island. But that might not have been feasible if they wanted to use all their resources to better protect King's Landing. But sacking the castle and killing everyone there is a minimal commitment.

The Faceless Men charge a price that increases based on who you want dead, and how much you can afford to pay. Also this is not necessarily a set price in gold. The Faceless Men could ask for a favor done, or all the money you will ever make for the rest of your life, or even a life in exchange (your own or someone else's.) In the books Littlefinger remarks that the price the Faceless Men charge (in gold) to kill a common merchant is enough to hire two armies of sellswords. This is why Robert doesn't send a Faceless Man after Dany in season 1, the price to kill a princess would likely bankrupt the kingdom, or worse. If a Queen asked for a Queen to be assassinated, the price would likely be unfathomable. What if the Faceless Men asked for the Kingdom's treasury? What if they asked for Drogon? Sure, a Dragon is not a slave, but what if they asked her to kill Drogon, in exchange? She could send Arya, but AFAIK no one knows Arya has the skills of a Faceless Man. And I doubt Arya is eager to be forthcoming with that knowledge.

Also the direwolves are meant to serve as representations of a characters "Starkness" or "Northernness" Robb - Doesn't lose Grey Wind until he dies. He stays a Stark all the way through his story. Sansa - Loses Lady when she sides with Joff over Arya. She has a southron mentality at this point and is actively rejecting her Northern roots. She rediscovers them later, but the loss of the wolf here is still significant. Arya - She sends Nym away, but doesn't actually ever lose her. And when they meet again she sets her free in the wild, like she wants to be. She's still Arya Stark of Winterfell, she was always Arya Stark of Winterfell, but she belongs inside and outside of that definition. Bran - Loses Summer when he fully becomes the 3ER and ceases to be Bran Stark. Rickon - Handled poorly in the show. But in the books it seems like he's being dominated by Shaggydog. Shaggy imprints his own feralness on Rickon, to steel him for survival. And when Davos is sent to find Rickon, the wolf is supposed to serve as proof of his identity. Jon - "I've never been a Stark." I think when he says that in this episode it's the first time he means it. Before he's accepted he's not a Stark, in name, but has always felt like one in spirit. Sending Ghost North as he heads South to fight for a southron Queen against the wishes of his family, could there be a more pointed rejection of his Starkness? Even more so if he remains in the south as either Dany's husband or King Aegon VI.

The other good point about Sansa telling Tyrion about Jon is it gives her a very plausible excuse to Jon afterwards if it comes back to her. If Tyrion decides to keep the secret, and tell no one, well she's no worse off then before. If Tyrion decides to spread it and foment discord in Dany's ranks, he might still not tell anyone where he heard the secret. Tyrion has already been shown to have a soft spot for Sansa. And if Dany demands to know he might refuse to say anything. At this point Dany might already have found him guilty of sedition, and he would have little to nothing to gain from flipping on Sansa. Dany would definitely suspect Sansa over anyone else, but it would be difficult to prove. If Tyrion decides to spread it and he also decides to tell Jon and/or Dany that Sansa was the one who told him. Well, yes she told the secret she swore to keep, but it's not like she told the Northerners, or sent a broad proclamation out to the far reaches of the the realm. She told the Queen's Hand, the person who should be Dany's most ardent supporter. If the Queen's Hand was willing to betray her, doesn't that say something about the Queen? Doesn't that in and of itself partially vindicate her decision? Sure Jon might still hold it against her, but it's a better look then her blabbing to the Northerners and actively pushing for him to take the throne. The only way she actively loses is if Tyrion directly goes to Jon and/or Dany and tells them and only them. And we already know this didn't happen. I don't think this was a fully Littlefinger play like D&D seem to be suggesting in Inside the Episode. Sansa isn't purely doing this for power, I think she legitimately doesn't trust Dany and also legitimately fears for Jon and her family. And it did seem like she was struggling with her promise to Jon and only decided to go through with telling Tyrion at the last minute after he expressed concern for her. But if this is a Littlefinger play, it's a pretty good one.

Gotta say I kind of loved the way Sansa and Jon's story ended up in this episode. The mirroring of Jon/Sansa and Lyanna/Ned is just perfect. The fact that each set of siblings makes a promise based around the same secret is heartbreaking and beautiful. Ned chooses to keep the promise, and Sansa to break it, but I think in the end they both do what they do because of love for their family. I'm very eager to see if Sansa's decision will continue to haunt her the way Ned's did him. I could actually see this exact same scenario unfolding in the books because of how perfectly it fits with Ned and Lyanna's story. "Promise me, Sansa..." That also makes me wonder if these will be the last words Sansa ever hears from Jon. "Promise me, Sansa..."

I was under the impression that he senses Bran through the mark Bran wears. Also how accurate is that? Is it GPS accurate in which case he knows exactly where Bran is? Or is it more of a general "He's around here somewhere." or a "He's in that direction?" In which case he could be fooled if Bran was still in the vicinity.

That's true in the novels, and the Faceless Man must also be the one to kill the face and "take" it. The show plays pretty fast and loose with the rules though. Did Arya kill the serving wench she wore in the "Frey Pie" episode?

No. Because that doesn't explain how she infiltrated the godswood after the NK and his cronies arrive. The best option (IMO and without changing the rest of the episode/season entirely), would've been something like: The Night King stands before Bran, he draws his sword and raises it high above his head poised to strike him down. Bran stares at him, unafraid but clearly helpless, until he stands and swiftly stabs him with the Valyrian Steel dagger. Everyone shatters. "Bran" runs around to the other side of the weirwood where another Bran sits. Arya removes her Bran mask and embraces her brother. This explains most of the issues. 1) How did Arya infiltrate the godswood? She did it BEFORE the Night King arrived. Theon and the others helped her to replace Bran and hid him on the opposite side of the weirwood. You don't even need to explicitly state this, it would be obvious when she runs around to check on him. 2) How did Arya get the drop on the Night King? He thought she was Bran, and since Bran was in close proximity he didn't realize she was a fake. This might require a little inferral from the audience, but the integrity of the logic is sound IMO. 3) Why didn't Arya intervene when Theon was getting butchered, or atleast strike at the same time to improve their odds? She had committed to waiting until the NK got close. This also 1) Cements the fact that ONLY Arya could have accomplished this. She's the only Faceless Man 2) Brings her supernatural powers into this fight for humanity. If now isn't the time to use everything in your arsenal, when is it time?

I'd still have complaints. It's not about the brutality of the story, it's about the integrity of the story. How did Arya sneak up on the NK? It's not good enough (IMO) to say "She's good at sneaking lols" Let's compare to another fantasy epic. In Lord of the Rings, I guess spoilers if someone hasn't seen/read LoTR yet... LoTR is not particularly brutal, but the logic of how the undertaking was accomplished is intact. Sure there are little inconsistencies with minor things, but the BIG THING is pretty well explained.

All legitimate complaints too. The whole episode was rife with these kinds of issues. But the climactic moment (arguably of the entire series) is (IMO appropriately) going to be judged harsher then stuff like "how did Sam survive?" It's just the way a story works. Tiny things like a (relatively minor character's) survival can be hand waved. Big stuff like "How did we defeat the menace that threatened the entire world?" is going to be scrutinized.