Game of Thrones

[hulahulk]

People seem to mostly argue that what she did is okay because Randyll was a dick. He WAS, but just be because he was a bad man doesn't make burning him to death as a prisoner a good act.

Just because Jon hasn't faced her in battle means nothing. He HAS raised arms against her by not bending the knee and therefore denying her men and resources she could use. But he gets a pass for being an itch she wants to scratch, apparently. Daenerys says they need strength to do good, but the High Sparrow was just an old man in bare feet and his followers numbered in the thousands, a threat even to the Lannisters.

This whole thing is merely a wait and see political move (not that I think JS will ever bend the knee; especially considering the confirmation of his heritage). He knows what he must do to beat the Walkers. He's not being defiant in the traditional sense. I think you are misunderstanding Dany's motivations and moves. Comparing this situation to the High Sparrow issue is like comparing a Dothraki horse to a barrel of Dornish wine. Besides, I think you are also forgetting how Cersei dealt with the High Sparrow. She roasted him, some of her enemies, and hundreds of innocent people. Plus whoever was nearby when the building exploded. Kinda like comparing a lit match to a raging bonfire, is it not?

This is a medieval setting. With resurrected beings. And wargs. And beheadings. And rape. And poisoning. And dragons who like to char their meals before eating. And And beheadings. And frozen yet fast-running bloodthirsty zombies. And the ever popular testicle removal. And a Lannister family who is responsible for much of the continent's current misery. Joffery beheaded Ned. The Lannisters even made it look like Ned was a villain to all of Westeros so that crowds would cheer when his skull hit the platform below. Oh, and how can I forget the Red Wedding? You have a problem *plotwise and/or strategywise* with Dany BBQing a couple of asses that refused to serve her? Did you have a concern when she had the slave owners killed back on Essos?

The Tarley BBQ is a move to show Cersei that Dany means business. Dany could have roasted ALL of the defeated soldiers. Sure, she can use them better living than dead.

Dany knows she has to bust a few heads BEYOND the normal spoils of war in order to meet her goals. She refuses to be as ruthless as, say, Cersei. She refuses to be like her father. She refuses to be like her brother (the one that Khal Drogo killed). I guess killing the 2 Tarleys automatically negates everything she did for the thousands of slaves she freed *sigh*.

[brettc1]

Randyll wasn't just a "dick." He was a traitor and an oathbreaker. He had actively opposed Dany and killed her soldiers. In Dany's mind, he was a rebel against her, his rightful queen, and an oathbreaker who betrayed his liege lord. Both the books and the show have gone to great lengths to spell it out for us that Westerosi law and custom consider oathbreaking and treason to be serious crimes indeed.

How is he an oathbreaker? If the liege lord your talking about is Aerys the Mad Kind who burned men alive on a whim, frequently beat his wife, and wanted to kill every living thing in Kings Landing, I don't see the hardship in breaking faith with him.

He was guilty of numerous crimes and Dany was within her rights to punish him for those crimes. Even still, she offered him mercy. She gave him a chance to spare himself from having to face The Queen's Justice and he chose to defy her instead. Dany had a signed pardon in her hand, and he rejected it. His death was his own choice.

No, it was hers. That's like saying Alderaan chose to be blown up. I suppose Vader, Tarkin and Palpatine thought so, of course.

And Jon gets a pass because he hasn't actively harmed Dany or her ambitions yet. Yes, he's defying her a bit, but he's also expressing a willingness to work with her. Meanwhile? He is still the king of a powerful kingdom and he just might be the best line of defense for the rest of the Seven Kingdoms against the White Walkers (assuming they really exist.) If Dany kills him now, this new threat could come sweeping through the North and into the rest of Westeros while Dany's busy slugging it out with Cersei's forces. Even if she doesn't believe the White Walkers are real, killing the King in the North would only set the North against her, opening up yet another front on this war she's fighting.

So he gets a pass because he is not only good looking he is also useful and good looking. He has harmed her ambitions but refusing to let her rule him. Randyll worked to remove one house, Jon is denying her the entire North.

Randyll Tarly was a criminal who rejected a more than generous act of mercy. Killing him was legally justifiable and wouldn't cause Dany any undue political and/or military complications.

Aerys killed a lot of people legally as king. He was still as asshole.

Jon Snow is not actively harming Dany's ambitions right now. He's willing to cooperate with her because she has something she needs. Killing him for one act of defiance possibly leaves her realm open to a new threat or at the very least it will bring yet another new enemy down on her. As long as she has something she needs, she can put pressure on him to bend the knee to her, and if he continues to defy her, she can always finish off Cersei first and then direct her full might toward bringing him, and the North, to heel.

Ah, so you think she'll use him and then burn him alive. Well yes, that makes her much more moral.

There are perfectly pragmatic reasons why Dany killed one man and not the other.

I'm glad we agree that she is acting pragmatically, not morally.

[MichaelC]

Sadly, while he seems smart and clever in a certain sense, I'm not sure he's that different from the T-1000 in the Terminator 2. The T-1000 was smart and clever, but only in a computer programmed sense.

What if he's just a haywire T-1000 of sorts using the almost full normal computerlike capabilities of the human brain (to pursue his glitched goals) who will just go back to sleep and do nothing if he wins and kills all humans and children?

I think that's possible, and even appropriate. He's simply death coming for everyone. He doesn't have desires or ambitions. He doesn't care about politics or honor. And he absolutely will not stop until everyone is dead.

[AndrewCrossett]

Even if Howland Reed is alive and tells people of Jon’s true heritage, it’s the assertion of one guy. His testimony would have to be extremely convincing to make sense to characters on the show. Additionally, this claim can only be backed up by the revelation read by Gilly in the last episode but that doesn’t mention a child, only that Rhaegar’s marriage was annulled. I wonder how the writers will do it to make it believable.

Gilly didn't finish reading the whole entry before Sam interrupted her. But at the least it would prove that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married at the time. That, plus Bran's vision, Howland Reed's word, and the fact that Drogon appears to recognize Jon as a Targaryen would be the body of evidence. Unless some more definitive evidence comes to light, it would pretty much depend on Daenerys accepting him as such.

Since he is ahead of her in the succession, that might be a problem. It would mean that Dany has to accept a demotion from queen to princess, and out of the succession entirely if and when Jon has children. But since Jon probably doesn't want the Iron Throne, they might come to an accommodation where Jon is the sovereign King in the North and Dany is queen of the other six kingdoms. She might be more willing to accept that if the whole of Westeros is under Targaryen rule at least.

[AndrewCrossett]

How is he an oathbreaker? If the liege lord your talking about is Aerys the Mad Kind who burned men alive on a whim, frequently beat his wife, and wanted to kill every living thing in Kings Landing, I don't see the hardship in breaking faith with him.

It was his oath to Olenna that he broke. He turned against her, and facilitated her execution and the destruction of his liege house, because he personally disliked her choice of which ruler candidate to back. He might not like that Dany didn't grow up in Westeros and uses Dothraki barbarians as shock troops, but honestly that wasn't his decision to make. Daenerys has a valid claim to the throne and it was Olenna's decision to recognize it; Cersei has no claim to the throne under any interpretation of Westerosi law... even Robert had a familial claim to rule, tenuous though it may have been. Cersei is just a straight up usurper.

[brettc1]

This whole thing is merely a wait and see political move (not that I think JS will ever bend the knee; especially considering the confirmation of his heritage). He knows what he must do to beat the Walkers. He's not being defiant in the traditional sense. I think you are misunderstanding Dany's motivations and moves. Comparing this situation to the High Sparrow issue is like comparing a Dothraki horse to a barrel of Dornish wine. Besides, I think you are also forgetting how Cersei dealt with the High Sparrow. She roasted him, some of her enemies, and hundreds of innocent people. Plus whoever was nearby when the building exploded. Kinda like comparing a lit match to a raging bonfire, is it not?

This seems to be another common statement, that however bad Daenerys gets Cersie will be worse. But that's just degrees of badness.

The Tyrells would tell you horse and Dornish wine both taste like shit

This is a medieval setting. With resurrected beings. And wargs. And beheadings. And rape. And poisoning. And dragons who like to char their meals before eating. And And beheadings. And frozen yet fast-running bloodthirsty zombies. And the ever popular testicle removal. And a Lannister family who is responsible for much of the continent's current misery. Joffery beheaded Ned. The Lannisters even made it look like Ned was a villain to all of Westeros so that crowds would cheer when his skull hit the platform below. Oh, and how can I forget the Red Wedding? You have a problem *plotwise and/or strategywise* with Dany BBQing a couple of asses that refused to serve her? Did you have a concern when she had the slave owners killed back on Essos?

Yes. And it was proven to be a mistake, because all it did was inflame the Sons of the Harpy.

Should the slave owners have been executed. Seems fair. Bur crucifying them was over the top and a lot of Unsullied payed for it. It's all very satisfying in the short time to exact bloody vengeance but go ask Walder Frey about the long term benefits. You'll have to dig him up to do it.

The Tarley BBQ is a move to show Cersei that Dany means business. Dany could have roasted ALL of the defeated soldiers. Sure, she can use them better living than dead.

Dany knows she has to bust a few heads BEYOND the normal spoils of war in order to meet her goals. She refuses to be as ruthless as, say, Cersei. She refuses to be like her father. She refuses to be like her brother (the one that Khal Drogo killed). I guess killing the 2 Tarleys automatically negates everything she did for the thousands of slaves she freed *sigh*.

Stannis would tell you one good deed does not automatically negate a bad one. What a person did in the past is rarely as important as what they are doing right now.

Does she refuse to be as ruthless as Cersei? She's not there yet, but you can see in this episode that Varys thinks there is potential to get there. ANYONE can be corrupted. Except in horribly written stories like Revenge of the Sith characters don't go from straight up good to full on evil.

[brettc1]

It was his oath to Olenna that he broke. He turned against her, and facilitated her execution and the destruction of his liege house, because he personally disliked her choice of which ruler candidate to back. He might not like that Dany didn't grow up in Westeros and uses Dothraki barbarians as shock troops, but honestly that wasn't his decision to make. Daenerys has a valid claim to the throne and it was Olenna's decision to recognize it; Cersei has no claim to the throne under any interpretation of Westerosi law... even Robert had a familial claim to rule, tenuous though it may have been. Cersei is just a straight up usurper.

Olenna was herself in rebellion against the Queen and supporting the Queen of the Dothraki. When it comes to murder, rape and slavery the Dothraki make the Ironborn look like noobs.

What claim does Daenerys have really? That she was the daughter of a psychopath and the ancestor of a Usurper herself. Even Jon questions her legitimate claim, or he'd have bent the knee right off. He voids the oath of his ancestor to serve in perpetuity. Ergo, oathbreaker.

[Vanguard-01]

How is he an oathbreaker? If the liege lord your talking about is Aerys the Mad Kind who burned men alive on a whim, frequently beat his wife, and wanted to kill every living thing in Kings Landing, I don't see the hardship in breaking faith with him.

From Dany's perspective, he still actively assisted in depriving her of the throne that was hers by right.

But that's not the oathbreaking I was talking about. I was talking about Olenna. Randyll was sworn to serve and support House Tyrell. He didn't. He betrayed her and went to serve the Lannisters instead.

No, it was hers. That's like saying Alderaan chose to be blown up.

The penalty for rebelling against your queen is death. By the law, Dany was obligated to kill him. She offered him a way out. He chose to refuse it, leaving Dany with no choice but to enforce the law.

So he gets a pass because he is not only good looking he is also useful and good looking. He has harmed her ambitions but refusing to let her rule him. Randyll worked to remove one house, Jon is denying her the entire North.

The harm Jon has done her is inconsequential compared to actually killing her troops. Right now, Jon is not fighting Dany, nor does he intend to start fighting her unless she forces him to. Like, say, by putting her foot down and demanding that he kneel to her or die?

One guy killed her soldiers and would've happily killed more. One guy is mildly annoying her by not falling to his knees at the sight of her. Bottom line is? Neither Jon nor the North are attacking her right now. If she kills their king, however, that will change and change fast.

Aerys killed a lot of people legally as king. He was still as asshole.

Strange how nobody on this thread has said anything to dispute this?

Aerys killed a lot of people legally and a lot of OTHER people just for kicks. Dany tried to temper justice with mercy and Tarly decided he didn't want it. Under the law, Dany had only one realy option left to her at that point. Bottom line? She still TRIED to avoid killing him. Aerys would've killed him on the spot, likely with an insane cackle as he did it.

Ah, so you think she'll use him and then burn him alive. Well yes, that makes her much more moral.

Nope. She'll use him until Cersei is defeated. Then? Once it's just him and her? Then she can ask him to bend the knee again. Maybe by that time, Dany will have proven to him that she's a ruler who deserves his fealty and he will be happy to do as she asks. If not? Well, the last time the King in the North bent the knee to a Targaryean conqueror, it was a completely bloodless affair once the King in the North saw how badly he and his forces were outmatched.

The mere fact that Dany expressed no desire to kill Tarly and clearly took no pleasure from it speaks volumes of her morality. She won't want to kill Jon either and will no doubt offer him every chance to avoid that fate. If he forces her hand, however.....?

I'm glad we agree that she is acting pragmatically, not morally.

In this case, morality and pragmatism go hand in hand.

Tarly was a bad person who had condemned himself to death through his own actions. Jon is a GOOD person who is trying to save the Seven Kingdoms and shouldn't be murdered for no reason other than offending Dany's pride somewhat.

[k von doom]

The Tarley BBQ is a move to show Cersei that Dany means business. Dany could have roasted ALL of the defeated soldiers. Sure, she can use them better living than dead.

That was a justified move IMHO. What other option was open to Dany? She'd offered them more mercy than was required. For all Dany knows, Olenna and Ellaria were also killed. Letting the Tarly's live would have been a sign of she's fighting with kiddie-gloves: already refusing to take Kings Landing by dragon force, letting opposing leaders live would make Cersei's allies think there's no consequences to fighting against Dany.

[Vanguard-01]

This seems to be another common statement, that however bad Daenerys gets Cersie will be worse. But that's just degrees of badness.

The Tyrells would tell you horse and Dornish wine both taste like shit



Yes. And it was proven to be a mistake, because all it did was inflame the Sons of the Harpy.

Should the slave owners have been executed. Seems fair. Bur crucifying them was over the top and a lot of Unsullied payed for it. It's all very satisfying in the short time to exact bloody vengeance but go ask Walder Frey about the long term benefits. You'll have to dig him up to do it.




Stannis would tell you one good deed does not automatically negate a bad one. What a person did in the past is rarely as important as what they are doing right now.

Does she refuse to be as ruthless as Cersei? She's not there yet, but you can see in this episode that Varys thinks there is potential to get there. ANYONE can be corrupted. Except in horribly written stories like Revenge of the Sith characters don't go from straight up good to full on evil.

You are trying to apply 21st Century morality to a world that has a completely different way of looking at things. This is a radically different world from our own world. Expecting people to think and act like you is the height of folly.

[brettc1]

From Dany's perspective, he still actively assisted in depriving her of the throne that was hers by right.

But that's not the oathbreaking I was talking about. I was talking about Olenna. Randyll was sworn to serve and support House Tyrell. He didn't. He betrayed her and went to serve the Lannisters instead.

Who was herself in rebellion. Tarly had a legitimate reason to break faith, the same as Robert and Eddard.

The penalty for rebelling against your queen is death. By the law, Dany was obligated to kill him. She offered him a way out. He chose to refuse it, leaving Dany with no choice but to enforce the law.

So he had a choice, but she didn't. That's silly. Didn't she tell Jorah she'd kill him if he returned. He's not dead, is he?

She made a choice. Saying she didn't have one is simply erroneous.

The harm Jon has done her is inconsequential compared to actually killing her troops. Right now, Jon is not fighting Dany, nor does he intend to start fighting her unless she forces him to. Like, say, by putting her foot down and demanding that he kneel to her or die?

One guy killed her soldiers and would've happily killed more. One guy is mildly annoying her by not falling to his knees at the sight of her. Bottom line is? Neither Jon nor the North are attacking her right now. If she kills their king, however, that will change and change fast.

One guy is old. One guy is young and good looking. Neither will surrender. Only one gets burned alive.

Strange how nobody on this thread has said anything to dispute this?

Aerys killed a lot of people legally and a lot of OTHER people just for kicks. Dany tried to temper justice with mercy and Tarly decided he didn't want it. Under the law, Dany had only one realy option left to her at that point. Bottom line? She still TRIED to avoid killing him. Aerys would've killed him on the spot, likely with an insane cackle as he did it.

Because there is no disputing it.

Queen's MAKE the law. That's why Aerys got away with as much as he did. If she didn't want to kill him, she doesn't have to. Legally Jon should bend the knee, apparently. He made a choice not to. These arguments that Daenerys has no choice in her actions are a form of denial of responsibility.

Nope. She'll use him until Cersei is defeated. Then? Once it's just him and her? Then she can ask him to bend the knee again. Maybe by that time, Dany will have proven to him that she's a ruler who deserves his fealty and he will be happy to do as she asks. If not? Well, the last time the King in the North bent the knee to a Targaryean conqueror, it was a completely bloodless affair once the King in the North saw how badly he and his forces were outmatched.

The mere fact that Dany expressed no desire to kill Tarly and clearly took no pleasure from it speaks volumes of her morality. She won't want to kill Jon either and will no doubt offer him every chance to avoid that fate. If he forces her hand, however.....?

This is an important point - to a Targaryean CONQUEROR. Aegon would have killed thousands. Saying he is not guilty of wrong doing is like saying the guy who pulls a gun on an old woman and demands her money and then doesn't shoot her when she gives it to him has done nothing wrong.

If it comes to who is more worthy, maybe she should bend the knee to Jon.

In this case, morality and pragmatism go hand in hand.

Tarly was a bad person who had condemned himself to death through his own actions. Jon is a GOOD person who is trying to save the Seven Kingdoms and shouldn't be murdered for no reason other than offending Dany's pride somewhat.

And Daenerys is a person who is wavering between the two.

Pragmatism = Morality. I don't think your avatar would agree

You are trying to apply 21st Century morality to a world that has a completely different way of looking at things. This is a radically different world from our own world. Expecting people to think and act like you is the height of folly.

It is not radically different. The folly is in thinking so.

By your argument here, Daenerys should have let the slave trade go on, because its okay for people to think differently about owning people as property.

[brettc1]

That was a justified move IMHO. What other option was open to Dany?

"Not burn him alive?"

-Varys

[hulahulk]

This seems to be another common statement, that however bad Daenerys gets Cersie will be worse. But that's just degrees of badness.

The Tyrells would tell you horse and Dornish wine both taste like shit

Baah! Dornish wine is why Olenna was such a slut in her early 20's!

Yes. And it was proven to be a mistake, because all it did was inflame the Sons of the Harpy.

Should the slave owners have been executed. Seems fair. Bur crucifying them was over the top and a lot of Unsullied payed for it. It's all very satisfying in the short time to exact bloody vengeance but go ask Walder Frey about the long term benefits. You'll have to dig him up to do it.

I was referring to when the slavers tried to overtake Mereen late last season. I should have specified, since there is a big difference.

Regarding the Sons of the Harpy inflammation, I'm sure Samwell can find a soothing balm for that. J/K. The Sons of the Harpy collapsed like a house of cards when things came together for Dany. I just wish Selmy could have survived to see it.

Stannis would tell you one good deed does not automatically negate a bad one. What a person did in the past is rarely as important as what they are doing right now.

Does she refuse to be as ruthless as Cersei? She's not there yet, but you can see in this episode that Varys thinks there is potential to get there. ANYONE can be corrupted. Except in horribly written stories like Revenge of the Sith characters don't go from straight up good to full on evil.

Stannis was a moron. Except for when he defeated the Wildlings.

And a great deed like freeing thousands of slaves certainly overrides a two-death spoil of war.

Varys is becoming increasingly shaky as an adviser for Dany, mostly since his experience primarily is in politics and backstabbing, not war strategy. He had little problem seeing Ned Stark in chains prior to Ned's prosecution and persecution despite knowing full well Ned was innocent and in the right.

Sure, Varys has a reason to be concerned, as does Tyrion. But they are only basing their concerns on past experiences with and history of the Targs. Aren't you trying to argue that past experience does not speak for current experience? So why should you believe Dany will go nuts?

And this Revenge of the Sith you mentioned....is that a movie? Sounds vaguely familiar. Like a forgotten bad memory whose traces linger between synapses. Random eyelid twitching, spinal shivers, and flatulence are common symptoms.

[brettc1]

Baah! Dornish wine is why Olenna was such a slut in her early 20's!




I was referring to when the slavers tried to overtake Mereen late last season. I should have specified, since there is a big difference.

Regarding the Sons of the Harpy inflammation, I'm sure Samwell can find a soothing balm for that. J/K. The Sons of the Harpy collapsed like a house of cards when things came together for Dany. I just wish Selmy could have survived to see it.




Stannis was a moron. Except for when he defeated the Wildlings.

And a great deed like freeing thousands of slaves certainly overrides a two-death spoil of war.

Varys is becoming increasingly shaky as an adviser for Dany, mostly since his experience primarily is in politics and backstabbing, not war strategy. He had little problem seeing Ned Stark in chains prior to Ned's prosecution and persecution despite knowing full well Ned was innocent and in the right.

Sure, Varys has a reason to be concerned, as does Tyrion. But they are only basing their concerns on past experiences with and history of the Targs. Aren't you trying to argue that past experience does not speak for current experience? So why should you believe Dany will go nuts?

And this Revenge of the Sith you mentioned....is that a movie? Sounds vaguely familiar. Like a forgotten bad memory whose traces linger between synapses. Random eyelid twitching, spinal shivers, and flatulence are common symptoms.

Varys is playing a long game. His plan was to see Ned at the wall, and he warned him several times about Cersei.

Why should I think Daenerys might go bad? Because she just burned two men alive, one of them more or less decent, and because Tyrion thinks it could happen. In GOT he tends to be one of the more consistent moral compasses.

[Vanguard-01]

Who was herself in rebellion. Tarly had a legitimate reason to break faith, the same as Robert and Eddard.

From Dany's perspective, Olenna was NOT in rebellion. She threw her support behind the true Queen and Tarly betrayed her for it. In Dany's minds and in the minds of her supporters, she is the legitimate Queen. Anyone else on the Iron Throne is a pretender and anyone who supports him/her is a rebel against the true Queen.

So he had a choice, but she didn't. That's silly. Didn't she tell Jorah she'd kill him if he returned. He's not dead, is he?

Queens also have the authority to issue pardons. Jorah proved his loyalty to her and earned a pardon. Should Dany distribute pardons to every criminal in Westeros just to show what a swell gal she is?

She offered Tarly a way out. He chose death.

She made a choice. Saying she didn't have one is simply erroneous.

She made a choice to punish a criminal who harmed her and who betrayed one of her allies to her death. She made this choice AFTER she made a choice to offer that criminal a way out and that criminal made a choice to reject it.

One guy is old. One guy is young and good looking. Neither will surrender. Only one gets burned alive.

One guy harmed her. One guy didn't. One guy is willing to cooperate with her to an extent. One guy literally declared he'd rather die than serve her.

Queen's MAKE the law. That's why Aerys got away with as much as he did. If she didn't want to kill him, she doesn't have to. Legally Jon should bend the knee, apparently. He made a choice not to. These arguments that Daenerys has no choice in her actions are a form of denial of responsibility.

She probably DID want to kill him. What part aren't you getting here? The man hurt her war effort, got one of her allies killed, and defied her legitimate claim to the throne. She wanted to kill him, and yet she was moral enough to offer him an alternative. Once he rejected the offer, all bets are off.

And Dany may have been willing to kill Jon, but right now she needs him to be at least "not an enemy." Thus? He's safe. For now.

This is an important point - to a Targaryean CONQUEROR. Aegon would have killed thousands. Saying he is not guilty of wrong doing is like saying the guy who pulls a gun on an old woman and demands her money and then doesn't shoot her when she gives it to him has done nothing wrong.

If it comes to who is more worthy, maybe she should bend the knee to Jon.

Once again you assign your own moral standards to a world that doesn't support them.

In medieval settings "Might makes right." Aegon had no legal claim to Westeros when he arrived. He took them because he was strong enough to take them. Then he and his family ruled Westeros for centuries, legitimizing their claim to it through law and tradition. When Aerys was usurped, he and his family lost their legal claim to Westeros. Now Dany is here to take it back and she will only succeed if she TAKES it back just like Aegon.

In feudal monarchies, it isn't "Whoever is the nicest person rules." It's "Whoever has the strength to rule shall rule." Don't like that? Well then thank your lucky stars that you live on a world that evolved PAST feudal monarchy a long time ago and replaced that system with a better, more equitable one. Meanwhile? Westeros has not gone through that particular stage of evolution yet, so getting angry with them for not conforming to your point of view is unfair and unproductive.

And Daenerys is a person who is wavering between the two.

Just like people in the real world do every single day. Very few people are perfect moral paragons who always do the right thing for the right reasons. And since Game of Thrones is NOT a story about perfect moral paragons, it's to be expected that some characters will make choices that you don't agree with.

Pragmatism = Morality. I don't think your avatar would agree

You read the part where I said "In this case," right?

Yes, morality and pragmatism are often at odds with each other, but in this particular case they were on the same side.

Unless your whole argument here is that killing people for any reason is morally wrong? In which case, I gotta ask: how have your gotten through watching this many season of a show where literally nobody has managed to uphold this incredibly ridged morality?

It is not radically different. The folly is in thinking so.

In our world, if you wrong me, I can get revenge upon you by bringing you to court and settling our grievance like civilized people.

In Westeros, if you wrong me, I can only petition my local Lord/Lady to avenge the wrong you've done to me. If he or she chooses to side with you, or takes no side at all because he/she doesn't care, then the only recourse left to me is to either accept the injustice and move on with my life or take revenge upon you in some tit-for-tat retaliation.

That IS a radically different world with a radically different way of looking at things.

By your argument here, Daenerys should have let the slave trade go on, because its okay for people to think differently about owning people as property.

False. Utterly false.

By my argument here, Daenerys was absolutely justified by the moral standards of her world to end slavery. Why? Because might makes right in the world of Game of Thrones and she was strong enough to impose her moral views upon the Masters. She didn't like slavery? She thought it was wrong? The Masters didn't agree. Dany won the argument by being stronger than them.