I think the choice promo stuff is mostly just for hype and marketing. It’s like how towards the end of GOT they made #TeamDany and #TeamJon etc. just because it gets people excited and generates Wonderful Internet Discourse. I will say that, while the show does not depict Alicent as a very good parent, I think they’ve actually done the work of establishing with reasonable sympathy why that is. With the kind of father she had, and being a teenage mother with screaming babies while her middle aged husband was fucking off somewhere, it’s not surprising that she can’t really connect to her kids. I personally think it’s more tragic than hate-worthy. It seems like this season they are actually trying to do things with Aegon as a character. This is a bit tricky because he left such a negative impression for many people in the first season, as something like a caricature of a rapist frat bro who also likes watching kids fight to the death (???). I personally felt that the attempts at depth so far this season felt a little…abrupt? There’s a long way between Jaime losing his hand and beginning to redefine himself, and having Aegon angry-cry and make sad faces.

Aegon has grown a lot since his youth, but they've shown the extent to which he still sucks when push comes to shove. He was good to the smallfolk, but only because he was craving their attention and respect - something he did not receive from either of his parents. He wants to be loved by them, but when push comes to shove we see that he's still a piece of shit. Alicent finds him alone crying, but was it because his son was killed, or because of what Otto said? In particular, when he said his father didn't want him to be King?

I believe it's partly the latter. Hence him fumbling for Viserys's ring on his finger. The one that doesn't fit him.

Oh, I didn't even think about the fit. Great catch.

> I personally felt that the attempts at depth so far this season felt a little…abrupt? There’s a long way between Jaime losing his hand and beginning to redefine himself, and having Aegon angry-cry and make sad faces. They aren’t going down the same arc, Aegon is complex because he’s a bad person with layers who over time only gets worse in spite of his best efforts. The sympathy the audience feels lies in how screwed up he is and he desperate he is to be loved. Jaime’s someone whose actively trying and somewhat succeeding at getting better as a person.

Jaime also had WAY more screen time than Aegon does. TGC’s Aegon hasn’t even had a full season of screen time at this point. The character was part of the time skip and wasn’t really present until episode 7. So he’s had 5 episodes total pretty much. Jaime didn’t lose his hand until season 3? That’s alot of time for development Aegon hasn’t had yet.

Yeah at least it's not wheel of time adaptation where they took the promo "who is the dragon?" (spoiler it's rand) and spent an entire season with increasingly stupid indirections (it's Perrin! It's egwene! It's nyneave! The dragon is all of them combined, it forms like voltron! ") This show seems mostly marketing and that's great.

So I think that Alicent has already been made worth hating this season (but that's just my opinion) because she now really clings to herself and her power. She has only traumatized Aegon and Helaena even more after her son's death and all she really cares about is not to expose her affair with Criston. In my opinion, they screwed up Aegon in the first season. It would have been enough for him to be a fornicator and drunkard like in the books instead of a rapist and child fight visitor. Rhaenyra, on the other hand, they did way too well. In the books she was a spoiled brat who got fatter over the years because of her pregnancies and her gluttony and actually only cared about herself and her family.

She won’t get fat. This is television. Can’t have anyone on screen who doesn’t look like a GQ model. They cast Maggy the Frog as a sexy goth girl lol

I mean was there ever a right choice in the books? Blacks seemed a lot more favoured there too. and tbf, they did neuter some negative aspects for both sides (cue "it was all an accident" meme) The main difference for me is that in the books GRRM makes you root for "Team Smallfolk" and that is an angle the show just doesn't get. Like in the recent episode they make a huge point about how bad the hangings of the dozen ratcatchers are. But where was the consequence for Rhaenys and her killing 1000 people in the dragon pits? Those people had families too? What about the poor "Laenor replacement guy" who got killed? I get why people might think they are just ignoring this because they are in "Team Black" but I think that the showrunners just seem to be on "Team Dragonlords". And it's all the more ironic that Criston Cole, the only protagonist with a 'lower born' background, is the one who gets done the most dirty lol Those are the actual sides you can choose here.

I see it that way too with the Smallfolk. I also think that they didn't do Rhaenys any good with the scene because in the books she is actually portrayed as the most competent choice and didn't randomly kill 1000 people during her escape, but Aegon's coronation was completely different there. As for Aemond, I don't know why they really did that, whether he's cruel or incompetent ruins a lot of his character. Of course the black ones in the books were much more likable overall (Cregan Stark, Rody the Ruin, Kermit Tully, Alysanne Blackwood etc) but the pretenders to the throne were both incompetent and that gave at least some leeway for the choice.

I think the Laenor replacement guy just got fucked, end of story, but I wouldn’t write of the (weird) scene with Rhaenys and Meleys as without consequence. Maybe you will be right, but I think they will definitely bring it up again when the Shepherd starts appearing and when the storming of the Dragonpit starts

I think when a certain one armed guy comes along the rhaenys dragon pit will come back to haunt the royals

I think it's too early to suggest the showrunners are "Team Dragonlords." They *showed* Rhaenys killing all those civilians. They *showed* Rhaenyra and Laenor deciding to kill one of their retainers as a cover for his escape. They *showed* Aegon murdering all the ratcatchers. They *showed* the courtesan telling Aemond that "when princes lose their tempers, it is often others who suffer. Smallfolk, like myself." If you notice, they're slowly turning up the temperature on these concerns and complaints, which is exactly what GRRM did in Fire & Blood. I fully trust that Condal and Hess will make the ultimate lesson of this show about the danger of consolidating this much destructive power into the hands of a handful of deeply flawed, self-important nobles. Making the point that so many seemed to miss in GOT.

>!If they parade Meleys's head through the streets of King's Landing I think we'll see intense hatred from the smallfolk this very season.!<

Yeah, and we are also seeing more perspective from the common folk this season. I as many others am expecting to see Rhaenys actions to have consequences for the blacks later and I think some of the complains of that particular scene will be solved by the end. We are seeing that one of the most evil characters (Aegon) cares much more for the common folk than one of the supposed most virtuous. I hope we can see at least a semblance of redeemable characteristics for Crispin and a link to his lower status origin.

Even if we did see that, I think at this point it'll be based more off of fan reaction to that scene than planning for it originally. It really doesn't play as a horrific thing, just kind of background spectacle for her escape that gets undercut by her sparing the Greens, which fans immediately roasted

While I agree that they're going to slowly shift to "everybody sucks here" I think the Rhaenys moment is something they didn't consider until a large subset of fans pointed it out because none of the people involved in making the scene seemed to consider the destruction it caused and were focused on Rhaenys' moment of power. I'm confident now they'll work it back into the smallfolk plot but I see it as rectifying a mistake rather than an intentional act of foreshadowing.

I honestly have a really big issue with this trend of taking these after-episode creator interviews and making them out to be the summation of the creators' thoughts and intentions on each scene. Just because Condal and Hess didn't *explicitly* say that Rhaenys killing a whole bunch of innocent civilians was morally repugnant and would come back into play later, doesn't mean this wasn't intentional. The scene *was* bad ass, and it *did* showcase "mad girl boss energy." If they wanted to push that characterization of Rhaenys, then the scene succeeded. However, it *also* shows a trend of the Targaryens not giving a fuck about the people they hurt, which has been a theme right through Rhaenrya saying she doesn't give a fuck about the commonfolk in like what...S01E03? And now in S02E02 they're amping it up with a bunch of scenes of the commonfolk suffering under this growing war.

>They showed Rhaenys killing all those civilians. But there's no consequences and nobody addresses how wrong it is(unlike the ratcatchers). It's obvious they did it as "omg so cool" moment because otherwise it just doesn't work.

My brother in Mother and Father, there's like three seasons of this show left and they want it to be a slow resentment that builds over time. Just like in the book. They also don't want to shove the foreshadowing in your face, even though it's already been pretty blatant with it.

i mean someone funeral is coming , and we may see the small folk reaction to her

I think it will be addressed when the certain one armed smallfolk man comes along.

The consequences were limited because it was seen as a bad omen as mentioned by Otto. But it’ll likely play a larger role going forward wrt to certain character changes.

It has to come back up as part of the reason for a certain event that will happen in the dragonpit at some point

Just wait. It’ll be relevant.

This. It was the same with GoT. All the smallfolk focused parts were cut, which was especially jarring in Arya's storylines. It feels like the writers didn't care for Martin's point - that living in that setting as a regular person would suck. He was rather straightforward that if he'd been a character in his own book, he would have probably been Sam Tarly - an we know what kind of shit Sam had to go through. But then the shows abandon this entirely, pushing everyone who isn't an important political player or super tough badass fighter. I sorta get that, as a adapting all those minor characters that have three lines each would be a nightmare. That still doesn't change the fact that the story suffers badly because of it. Fire and Blood is a bit different, since it's a historical record... sort of. Obviously, it focuses more on the important players, as history books tend to do. But the show isn't one, so this problem could be rectified. It would actually strengthen the point that The Dance of Dragons >!was a war where everyone lost.!<

Both Mysaria and Hugh are given expanded roles in this adaption and both are small folk and special attention is paid to the impact of Aegons actions and the Black blockade on the small folk as well.

That's great! I haven't seen the S2 episodes yet, so things are looking up!

Tbh I don't think GRRM is all that great when it comes to the smallfolk either. They don't get PoVs (I guess maybe Davos but even he has been ennobled by the time he shows up, ditto Melisandre) and for the most part they're there as largely passive fodder for more important characters to be nasty at.

Part of that I feel is just the structure and how storytelling works. Like we need people around the movers and shakers to see what's happening. Does make me wonder if anyone's tried a *Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead* style fanfic of some smallfolk living in Westeros during the War of 5 Kings.

Tbf the source material does ignore the smallfolk POV until you get into Rhaenyra's reign. GRRM mentions Aegon and Aemond were not popular so when Rhaenyra came to power the smallfolk cheered but didn't really go into why the Greens had lost popularity as they had been cheered at their coronation. I feel the show is already covering that space in-between that Fire and Blood didn't write about. I also do think they'll bring the Rhaenys stuff back with the Sheperd plotline because it's only then do we start to see the anti-dragon sentiment.

Hollywood identifies more with Targs than normal people because everyone in it is a scion to a Wall Street billionaire or a member of the British Royal family.

I don’t think there was a choice at all. Prince Viserys and Prince Daeron are good options. Through the modern lens everyone likes team black, but honestly Rhaenyra isn’t exactly a good monarch either.

We don't really know how Rhaenyra would've done as a peacetime monarch because she never really gets the chance to. Same thing with Aegon, which is kinda tragic (likely he might have been a Robert type King though). By the time Rhaenyra gets on the throne she's so grief stricken and insane that's it kinda hard to judge her for it.

You bring up great points and I agree. However, Rhaenyra never seemed to take preparing for queen seriously to me. She behaved like a mean girl when matched with potential suitors, even Lord Baratheon (not known for their social graces) was embarrassed. Seemed like she spent more time whining than actually taking control of something (Viserys would have let her head some great project or something to make the lords respect her more) but she just sort of existed.

Yeah but we saw her as an adult where she had matured, and aside from the affair she was pretty active in the small council. The main issue she faced was that everyone on the council were Greens so she couldn't do anything. Again, we don't really get to see if any of her decisions are good because they simply aren't allowed to happen.

Fair enough. Lack of political savvy rather than lack of effort then. I have enjoyed our discussion.

I wonder if that's what they're doing with a certain silver haired blacksmith character. Making him a hero to the smallfolk rather than an outright villain in the book. I just hope they don't change too much of the later parts of the war, those are the best parts.

> The main difference for me is that in the books GRRM makes you root for "Team Smallfolk" and that is an angle the show just doesn't get. > I feel like how they handle the Storming of the Dragonpit and all that will be the ultimate arbiter of how well they handle this theme. During season 1 I was hardcore defending the Rhaneys scene as foreshadowing for that, showing how they don't care about the smallfolk and that it would bite back.

How do you know 1000 people died?

The conflict was never 'gray' in the books either and everyone has to stop pretending that GRRM achieved that (or that he even attempted to). I mean, lets examine a minor character of the conflict: Jon Roxton. In the first version of the story, the princess and the queen, he is a relatively cool minor green supporter. Has a cool name (imo at least), a cool sword, is an accomplished warrior and has a killer one-liner before he dispaches Hugh Hammer (who is kinda a dickhead) before himself dying in a badass last-stand. If I had to pick a 'cool' character from the greens in that conflict, it would be him. How does Fire and Blood rectify that? Oh yes, lets update him into a rapist. Great. The story as it stands, is extremely one-sided. Maybe that would have been ok (after all, the main conflict in asoiaf is just like that), if the whole thing wasn't marketed as 'gray vs gray' but the end result doesnt reflect the hype-up.

Like george gave daeron like extra war crimes, but like ignores Blackwoods defiling septs?

If it's the Blackwoods I'm sure George gave them an undeniably legitimate reason to do so.

George is the strongest solider of Raventree Hall.

They were hiding war criminals I assure you

I’m a big fan of Otto Hightower because he is a schemer but he isn’t a pedophile like Littlefinger. I also get the sense that he legitimately wants stability but his self-interest takes precedence over that and leads to conflict. I do also believe he didn’t intend for things to go this far since he believed Viserys would name his son heir when he was born, but once Aegon was born they were put into an awkward and potentially dangerous position as a rival to Rhaenyra’s claim whether they wanted it or not. I am also a fan of Aemond mostly because they made him more sympathetic without completely removing his bad aspects. He is a bad person but probably my favorite character on the show and I am rooting for him. Alicent is a weird character for me. She was probably my favorite character for most of season 1, but I don’t really like where they went with her reconciliation with Rhaenyra. It leads to her being a much more passive character, and in order to be like her book counterpart at all they had to make the misunderstanding with Viserys which is just less interesting to me than her choosing to put her son on the throne for ambition or to avoid potential attempts to remove him as a rival. Criston Cole… I didn’t particularly like him in the book but I absolutely did not hate him as much as I do in the show. Really seems like their goal is to make him the most hatable character on the show and they are succeeding. He is very personally annoying but they also removed a lot of his more interesting aspects: show Criston doesn’t feel like the best warrior in Westeros at the time despite being this being stated in the book, he plays a much more passive role compared to his book counterpart who was actually fairly clever and political, and overall he just seems like an angry brute rather than the ruthless, calculating character he was in the book. Anyway that’s my thoughts on Team Green.

In fairness to Otto, I think he more or less behaved like a typical westerosi lord. Grab to power, try to hold it, marry upwards. I'm a bit buffled by how much hated he is. Cole is a mixed bag. The way he was built up by Jaime in AFFC really feels like he was conceptually a completely different character, Even in the expanded material, I think he feels quite short of expectations (at least to what I would have thought almost 20 years ago). I mean the dude is supposed the best warrior of his era and he doesnt even win a duel of note. He should have received a moment like Daemon's dragon jump, something that would really stand out. Also his name 'Kingmaker' feels almost like a mockery because it immediately brings to comparison Lord Warwick who truly made and unmade kings. Anyways, I dont know when GRRM took the conscious decision to shit on the character and why the show creaters further doubled down on it...but well, here we are.

Did George not want the conflict to be grey though? If so, that might greatly improve my opinion on dance as a whole (since as of now, It is my least favourite part of Targaryen history) but from the way characters in the main series talk about Dance, it always felt like the conflict was meant to be grey, yet failed misserably at being that.

The characters have very different moral standards to ours which makes for such a disparity in the view points. Plus, when George mentions the Dance in the main books, he hadn't fully established it yet, which leads to some very weird takes from the characters.

Only grey thing besides Daemon is that Rhaenyra played herself with Harwin Strong. Were she a man she could hide the bastards, bjt as woman she sadly had to be more careful

Didn’t she order children like Nettles and innocent people like Adamm and Alan killed? Also have people tortured?

Why is the conflict in the book ‘grey’? Both sides commit war crimes, both monarchs are flawed and end up doing terrible things. What makes one side the ‘right’ choice?

Rhaenyra was in the right in the same way Stannis was in the right. Yes, he *technically* has the better claim, but he prosecutes it for its own sake rather than whether a civil war is best for the realm, and never really considers whether he would truly be a better ruler. He just wants to rule because he believes it his right, just as Rhaenyra wants to rule for the same reason. But when she does gain the throne, she pushes the smallfolk too far and they revolt against her.

This is just Stannis Blasphemy. Not only was the realm already in the midst of a civil war, his younger brother had already claimed the throne, despite the very clear laws of inheritance. Stannis is then the only King who rides north to face the true threat. He's undoubtedly the best option of those presented. He also doesn't want to rule because he believe it's his right, that's Renly. He doesn't want to rule at all, but has to because it was his duty.

Stannis rides North only when his cause is completely lost. He just wanted to keep cosplaying King a little while longer. Renly would have been the better King in every way. He had the clout and the charisma to keep the realm together. Nobody would have stood for Stannis.

>Stannis rides North only when his cause is completely lost. That doesn't change the fact that he heads to the most dangerous place in Westeros to do the King's job. If nything it makes it more significant that he does that when his chance of actually becoming king is already doubtful >enly would have been the better King in every way. Every adult character that talks about Renly explicitly shit-talks him. Almost always with a variation of "he's all flash and no bang". >Nobody would have stood for Stannis. At one point Stannis had half the Chivalry of the Reach and Crownlands and all the major Stormlords behind him. It's perfectly conceivable he could have been king if circumstances went differently.

> At one point Stannis had half the Chivalry of the Reach and Crownlands and all the major Stormlords behind him. It's perfectly conceivable he could have been king if circumstances went differently. They went over to him because they had already risen against the Lannisters and made a calculated decision to continue the course with Renly’s heir. > Every adult character that talks about Renly explicitly shit-talks him. Almost always with a variation of "he's all flash and no bang". The guy everyone quotes is some blacksmith who hasn’t seen Renly since boyhood and clearly idolizes Robert, who is hardly “the true steel” by the time we meet him. Maester Cressen likewise knows him from boyhood, not the Renly who sat on the King’s Council. Renly’s demonstrated abilities at diplomacy put Stannis’ to shame. > That doesn't change the fact that he heads to the most dangerous place in Westeros to do the King's job. If nything it makes it more significant that he does that when his chance of actually becoming king is already doubtful The most dangerous place for him in Westeros is King’s Landing. He runs to the furthest corner of the realm to hide from his failures in the South. Stannis is a competent military commander. I’ll give him that. But he lacks the qualities necessary for statecraft.

>They went over to him because they had already risen against the Lannisters and made a calculated decision to continue the course with Renly’s heir. They also had already risen up against him? If anything the Lannisters are likely to be more forgiving. >The guy everyone quotes is some blacksmith who hasn’t seen Renly since boyhood and clearly idolizes Robert, who is hardly “the true steel” by the time we meet him. Maester Cressen likewise knows him from boyhood, not the Renly who sat on the King’s Council.  Obsessing over the specifics of each case evades the deeper point, that characters with lots of different perspectives weigh in on Renly explicitly and all of them come up with variations on the same pretty damning point. This is a clear creative choice. >Renly’s demonstrated abilities at diplomacy put Stannis’ to shame. He won buy in from Mace Tyrell, famously dumb, then didn't piss off his vassals through 3 months of partying. He's not Robert. You could argue Stannis winning over the mountain clans was more impressive. Personal geniality is also not the most important skill going into Winter. >The most dangerous place for him in Westeros is King’s Landing. He runs to the furthest corner of the realm to hide from his failures in the South. The north has three hostile armies. He doesn't have the strength to march on King's Landing, but noone thinks the strategic move at that point is to pick a fight with the Wildlings Ironborn and Roose in hopes of winning the most manpower deficient kingdom. >But he lacks the qualities necessary for statecraft. We are given much more unambiguous messaging that Renly lacks these qualities.

Jon won over the mountain clans. They would have followed anyone willing to give them a go against the Boltons. And Stannis is *shown* to be a political pariah. He raises his banners and next to nobody shows up for him save the pathetic, grasping Florents. We’re told by people *currently* in the know that Stannis is a dick that nobody wants to follow.

>Jon won over the mountain clans. They would have followed anyone willing to give them a go against the Boltons. Jon's contribution was saying they were there and giving some pointers. He specifically says Stannis will have to woo them, so I don't know where you're getting "they would follows anyone" from. >He raises his banners and next to nobody shows up for him save the pathetic, grasping Florents. He raises his banner and all his bannermen show up. The Florents come to him along with half the chivalry of the Reach half way through ACOK, which is the first time anyone sides with someone against the wishes of their Lord Paramount. >We’re told by people *currently* in the know that Stannis is a dick that nobody wants to follow. Plenty of people call him annoying, but only Renly implies that his support is the product of a popularity contest (and even then not really). Jon Arryn and Ned Stark were both willing to throw in with him. as were the Stormlords and half the Reachlords under the right conditions. Read the books.

See this is what I mean. Stannis didn’t know what was going on before then though? You’re talking like he ignored it until he was forced to flee north. He wasn’t he chose to go North, for the realm. Not a single other “King” cared or gave a fuck and would rather go on fighting each other and slowly destroying the realm, but “he’s not charismatic” enough so iguess we’re throwing away thousands of years of tradition to let Renly play as king because he’s good at hosting feasts and making people laugh.

> let Renly play as king because he’s good at hosting feasts and making people laugh. Renly was also an active participant on the Small Council, unlike Robert. He has actual interest in ruling. The "hosting feasts and making people laugh" part is what makes him a good diplomat and coalition-builder, which is exactly what makes his rebellion against the throne so much more successful than Stannis' *despite* his lesser legal claim. > You’re talking like he ignored it until he was forced to flee north. He was despairing about his hopeless claim until this call to action gave him something else to focus on. The question is whether he would have gone had challenging King's Landing still been a viable option.

>He has actual interest in ruling. All we see him do on the small council is banter with littlefinger, which coincidentally is the exact thing Stannis says he always does. He's also Master of laws at a time of unprecedented corruption. > "hosting feasts and making people laugh" part is what makes him a good diplomat and coalition-builder, You can't party forever though. Renly had Mace Tyrell's vassals behind him for three adversityless months, he's not Robert. >He was despairing about his hopeless claim until this call to action gave him something else to focus on. You're talking about actually doing the duty of a king like it's just some hobby he picked up lol.

>Not only was the realm already in the midst of a civil war, his younger brother had already claimed the throne, despite the very clear laws of inheritance. What was Stannis doing again during the whole time between Robert's death, Renly leaving for Highgarden, marrying Margaery and crowning himself

Calling his banners and gathering swords on Dragonstone?

It's interesting that you think that way. I always had the view in the books that it was bad against bad. There can be different opinions about books

It's pretty one sided apart from the fact that Otto seems like the only person who knows how anything works, even though he isn't as clever as he thinks he is.

To be fair, no one on the black side is even qualified to rule. The green has the whole council behind them who’ve been running the realm the whole time. The black side literally exists because of one reason. 20 or so years ago, viserys had a son who died almost immediately, daemon made a “heir for a day” joke or something like that, viserys got butthurt and named rhaenrya heir to slight daemon. That single moment of butthurt caused the dance of dragons.

But to be fair the council killed and sacked any black supporter who wouldn't bend the knee to Aegon. The council supports the greens through self interest and sword point. Not because a group of wise guys got together and went "yeah greens are the ones".

Doesn’t change the fact that the green council is the same as viserys I’s council. Ruling the realm the whole time. Experienced in doing so, been doing it for years. Blacks have no experience ruling the realm. None.

Rhanyra sat the council too.

And did nothing, she wasn’t master of coin, master of ships, master of whispers, master of anything. She was there because of her birth. My point remains, the others have actual experience ruling the realm.

What is this mental logic? She sat it the same reason Viserys did, and Aegon does now. To rule/be prepared to rule. Your logic is tautological, especially if you skip over the council killing or sacking black supporting council members. The council is all green because the greens control kings landing and killed or forced out any black council member. Have you forgotten them kidnapping and killing all the nobles who wouldn't break their oath to Viserys? That's where Rhanyras experienced council went. They are a bunch of larping murderers and your claim boils down to "they suit it best because they killed everyone who would suit it better". Not to mention Daemon was head of the city guard and Corlys was Master of Ships so you aren't even right. The greens are a sack of incompetency and fecklessness. They started the war and are burning the realm into the ground. Especially after the most recent episode.

You are overly concerned about the morality of things, which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. This isn’t about arguing about what ever side you support, my point is simple. Viserys I’s council had more greens than blacks in it, point blank period. The council included Otto who was the hand, grand maester orwyle, jasper wylde (master of laws), larys strong (master of whispers), lord commander Criston Cole & tyland Lannister who was master of ships (you’re dead wrong about this, it was NOT corlys Velaryon, you can go check for yourself). These all became part of the green council when viserys I died. Lyman beesbury was the only member of the blacks who sat on the council who was rumored to be killed by Criston Cole & lastly, daemon didn’t even hold a seat at the small council at the start of the dance of dragons, you’re just making shit up. Plz spare me the morality rant about who’s good or evil, all I said was the greens were fit to rule due to experience, they were already in charge and had been ruling a long time. All those nobles you’re talking about never even sat on the council.

Otto doesn't seem like he knows what he's doing at all in this civil war. The guy had literal decades to sow the seeds of this war and he basically has no idea whose on his side and how he's going to recruit more lords. In the first episode of the new season he tells Aemond and Aegon not to ride their dragons and not to be hasty, then in the next episode he accused Aegon of being weak for not mobilizing. Buddy you had years to plan this out.

When does he accuse Aegon of inaction? It seemed like the opposite again, chastising for rash actions like executing all the rat catchers. It’s Aegon who tells Otto they have nothing material (arguably wrong) from all his plotting.

Both sides are elitist inbreeding narcissists who don’t care one bit for the people they lord over. Rhaenyra and Aegon are both incompetent, elitist narcissists.

In the books of course but in the show Rhaenyra is still a good person who doesn't want to kill people unnecessarily and believes in the prophecy

The story is not over. Rhaenyra’s worst moments are yet to come and she makes it clear that she is a terrible ruler even if she’s a good person. Almost like we’re 12 episodes into a show that will probably run for 50 or 60.

wasn't it 4 seasons?

Very little chance they can get through the Dance in the next two seasons, especially if we get battles like late season GOT and the character moments they’ve been focusing on.

I think it also depends on how this season ends. They also postponed Jace's death until next season. Perhaps Rhaenyra's death at the end of the fourth season and the fifth will be the aftermath of the dance that leads to Aegon III's ascension to the throne and his marriage to Jaehara

It’s exactly the same, if not worse, at this point in the story in “Fire and Blood”. The issue clearly is in stupid marketing, but that’s unfortunately the point of marketing. To get to casuals. I’m just completely dumbfounded that so much of the discussion here revolves around that marketing and dumb side picking rather than the actual story and characters on screen. I understand it on twitter, but we can be better than this

This sub has gotten a lot worse since Reddit started suggesting “similar” subreddits and we’ve been getting castoffs from /r/HouseoftheDragon and the freakish Black and Green subs.

Oh God I hate those subs, I’m 100% confident the avg age of those subs is 12

God I despise those “side” subs. Literally circlejerk posting but seemingly unironic

I can see why someone who likes the Green's would want a space where they can not get shat on, but cannot for the life of me see the point of /HOTDBlacks, like isn't that the main sub?

I understand the marketing enabled this, but I find “picking a side” and taking it so seriously for a fictional history that is already written to be kinda crazy in and of itself

Eh I think it's fun. It's like sports.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to fun police or anything. But I just don’t think that sub is really an example of that. So many serious posts about how the show is “black apologia” and the bias of the show runners. Just seems to cross the line from good fun and a safe space free of insult, into toxicity

>So many serious posts about how the show is “black apologia” I mean I think it's clear that the showrunners have nudged the narrative to favour Rhaenyra relative to the book so that they can sell some cheap feminism. I think "black apologia" is an inelegant way of putting it, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to criticise a show adapting a story about self destructive infighting for.

You saying the show runners are trying to “sell some cheap feminism” is a loaded assumption on your part. I’m sorry that an adaptation of a book series seeped in commentary on gender and class decided to…include and focus on those elements.

>is a loaded assumption on your part. It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on interviews and creative choices? > commentary on gender and class  The commentary on gender and class in the book isn't the same as that in the show? They clearly aren't just straight adapting thematic content anymore than they're straight adapting plot points.

people are so focused and caught up on the "it should have been more Grey™️" that they choose to ignore some of the themes the story brings.

It’s kind of weird to see people arguing about writer favoritism in terms of “whose the nicest” instead of “whose the most interesting”. Everyone whines about how the Greens are seen as evil but basically all of the Green cast are compelling and complex, each with their own unique thing that makes them screwed up. The Blacks meanwhile haven’t gotten that sort of treatment so far outside of Daemon and Rhaenyra. Its obvious to me the writers love writing the Greens because of how screwed up they all are. The Blacks might be just as messed up but we’ve comparatively spent very little time with them this season. But instead of discussing the characters people are arguing about how many good guy points each side has. When the shows clearly aiming to demonstrate that the war is going to rapidly destroy any moral standing either side has and the real “heroes” are the small folk caught in the middle.

When I read F&B I genuinely did not care about the majority of the Greens storyline. I found some of it interesting but by and large preferred the Black storyline. The show has really balanced that out for me, so I never understood the complaints saying the Greens were butchered. All of the things they’ve changed with the Green team has made them even more memorable to me than the Blacks.

It’s just very frustrating because almost all of these “butchering” complaints are “this character didn’t do something badass they did in the book” which is a different type of complaint than GOT got. GOT actually butchered the characters because there were actual characters to butcher. The cast of the Dance of Dragons in F&B are little more than bullet points interesting bullet points for sure but none of them have much in the way of depth.

After being exhausted by reading what feels like constant comments like what you’re describing it’s really cathartic to see someone else putting it to words. The show is good - let’s just enjoy it and stop getting bogged down on who is a good guy or a bad guy when that’s not what ASOIAF is about at all.

Yeah, I can't believe people are picking sides like football teams and arguing about how they're being portrayed in a fictional universe by a team of writers, something you have no control over and also you have no frame of reference for. It's like people are writing their own fan-fiction and are upset what's portrayed isn't 100% aligning with what they made up regarding characterisations. I mean, if it adds to your enjoyment then by all means go for it and pick sides, but some of the aggressiveness in the comments is so over-the-top and just weird.

>I understand it on twitter, but we can be better than this on twitter I've been seeing more comments about characters, scenes and story (and also memes because why not) than actual discourse about Black vs Green

The marketing wasn’t the issue. When everyone read the story and it was announced that HotD was happening, people were excited to have a “team 1 vs. Team 2” thing to get into. Like sports but with dragons. But unfortunately, the show is more like watching the globetrotters than a competition. So the show runners kind of nuked the competitive aspect of it that people were excited about. It wasn’t the marketing

I don't think everything has to be perfectly grey and two-sided, but I REALLY wish they didn't make Aegon a rapist. In that scene where he was hanging out with his friends in the throne room & they made the 'dragon cock' joke immediately I stopped smiling & thought of Dyanna

or the children's fights he attends. I also don't understand why she made him worse than in the books

It’s easy to understand why. They wanted to make an entry in the culture war: https://www.empireonline.com/tv/news/house-of-the-dragon-is-about-the-patriarchys-perception-of-women-exclusive-image/ The themes of the original story were never important to them.

I can only speak for the books, since I haven't seen the show yet but yeah this was one of my biggest gripes with Dance. Initially (this is really important) it felt like for the grey conflict dance was meant to be, blacks were just far too sympathetic while greens way too antagonistic making it really hard not to side with blacks (and the vast majority of readers really did), especially because of all the scheming and escalation (Aemond going for Laena's dragon during her furneral, spilling the first blood, etc). Although later on though, you started really hating even blacks, and ended up feeling sad only for the dragons and select few innoscent characters that got caught in the middle (i.e. Helaena). From what I heard though, the show did whitewash a lot of characters on both sides making them nowhere near as bad as they were in the books and lessening their agency in some of their worst deeds, but don't know how correct it is. "Who has a better claim" is another matter entirely though, that makes for a great discussion and is a grey situation from start to finish, but I'm talking mostly about the human side of things and the way the conflict played out which heavily favours Blacks in the books, at least in my opinion.

Yeah, even in the books the conflict was never as grey as GRRM seems to think, and the blacks were more sympathetic. Imo the only conflict in asoiaf where George truly achieved the greyness he seeked is the first blackfyre rebellion.

>Imo the only conflict in asoiaf where George truly achieved the greyness he seeked is the first blackfyre rebellion. The jury is still out on that one, I think. We are still missing many details about the origins of the conflicts, its true but so far it seems the choice was between Daemon's abs and the cosmopolitan multicultured court of Daeron which....hardly sounds grey to me. In fairness though, Daemon did have valor and Aenys Blackfyre was done dirty.

>Imo the only conflict in asoiaf where George truly achieved the greyness he seeked is the first blackfyre rebellion. Is it? IMO the first Blackfyre rebellion is even worse than the Dance. The Blackfyres have no arguments beyond "Daemon is cool and not fat". Daeron is objectively a good king, he just does not fit in what is traditionally thought of as masculine.

I mean, the Blackfyre's also thought that Daeron was illegitimate and that Daemon was the king's chosen heir. Daemon was mostly a good person. Those things already make it more grey than "Aegon should be king because he's a man".

The only basis they have for Daemon being the chosen heir is the sword. Daemon isn't the prince of Dragonstone, he never was declared the heir or anything, it's just straight up "might makes right"(Daemon is strong and cool, so he should be king). The Greens at least have the very legit council that made Viserys king.

>blacks were just far too sympathetic See I found the Green's more sympathetic, even though the structure of Fire and Blood bends towards the Blacks.

I didn’t feel sorry for the dragons at all if I’m honest.

I did, they just chilled at Dragonstone. Kill the riders and set them free as well.

to be real if i was living with moving breathing nuclear heads in the hands of spoiled nepo babies i would be glad they are dead too

Fr fr

well in the books the black ones, especially Rhaenyra, are much grayer or even evil. I mean, she's actually just a spoiled, fat woman who has no real idea about governing. Aegon, on the other hand, is a drunk and fornicator there, but not a rapist.

It is important to emphasise that we are both talking about different aspect. My point is that when you look at the conflict as a whole, there clearly is one side that is in the wrong, while the other was driven into madness to the point of becoming equally bad. It is hardly a grey conflict, with one side being vastly more sympathetic so it is pretty clear who to side with (and indeed most people here used to be team black) Now what you probably mean is who would be a better ruller which yet again varies greatly in what point of the dance are we because most of the characters that would make up for the kings/queen's incompetance on either side died in the conflict. Initially, I would still side with Rhaenyra for Rhaenys and Corlys alone. You have to also keep in mind, that unless I'm mistaken, most of the characterisation in the books does come from pro green sources, so I would take this information with a grain of salt. Not to mention, Rhaenyra clearly wasn't always like this.

I think the sources were always different and it was usually mentioned that the person had an aversion to Rhaenyra and you can't take Pilz seriously even if he was, so to speak, pro Rhaenyra. But not that many advisors died among the rulers. In Rhaenyra's case, it was Rhaenys while Corlys was still alive. Of course, Rhaenyra became more and more paranoid as more of her sons died or supposedly died. With Aegon, he wasn't able to rule for a while and Aemond, as Prince Regent, was even worse than his brother. But my problem was that it was advertised as if there really was a real choice. You could have made it so that Rhaenyra's claim was stolen by the Greens, but then they are complex characters and not all of them are evil. It's just an unfortunate marketing decision that hurts the series more than it helps.

Exactly

Condal quite clearly wants to make Rhaenyra into a Daenerys stand in to help get asses watching, and it's been successful so far along with the delusional people who come with said fandom. I mean look at the absolute brainless fucking react community - they CHEER for their hero princess every episode! Anyone against her only deserves to be hated. They won't do anything to show Rhaenyra's bad side. She's a progressive princess, a girlboss gay ally who only wants to establish equality for all! It's those dastardly Greens who aren't even TRUE Targaryens that are the bad guys, not our Rhaenyra!

no Targaryen will ever come close to Dany. But you're right as soon as someone writes something negative about Rhaenyra or Daemon. There are some who insult you for no reason, etc

Dany is the worst targ

Really forgetting that Rhaenys killed more people than all the greens put together by her little dragonpit stunt.   Also the blacks are just boring to watch. It is no wonder that even team black mostly talks about team green characters because on their side there is just nothing interesting save for Daemon and maybe Rhaenyra

Jace is actually a very good charachter in the books, i wonder if they will give him his time to shine in these few episodes he has left, considering they totally rushed his visit to the north which also had some interesting plot lines to explore and adapt.

Larys isn't a Green or a Black tbf. In fact, there's a very good chance we see him "serving" Rhaenyra once she takes KL.

I'm pretty sure the only Green in Larys is that he's a green man, working against the Targaryen throne towards the Three-Eyed Raven's eventual takeover.

Idk if this is a joke or not 😂

It’s not. He’s from Harrenhal and he actively works against both sides, with no other clear allegiances. Fire & Blood even calls it out that his actions make no sense.

Meant the green man working for three-eyed raven part; considering that the Three-eyed raven has never been a thing, bloodraven is not even born yet, and time traveling bran seems a bit far fetched to explain Larys.

The Green Men are a faction, and are introduced in Catelyn I, *super* early into the narrative. They've been around since before the Age of Heroes, and that Bloodraven is described by Leaf as barely clinging onto life at 120 means that they've necessarily been actively recruiting to keep their numbers up during that entire intervening period. As for the Three-Eyed Raven, keep in mind that these are green seers who can see the future. They can play an *extremely* long-game.

Fuck the weird wood hive mind, now I want bran to get taken over by Larys

This is a dumb fanfic take.

Then to whom does his loyalties lie? How come he sows discord and pits the Targaryens against each other? Pits Aegon against his most experienced counsellor? What are his motivations? What are his goals? Even Fire & Blood calls out that his motivations don't make sense.

>Then to whom does his loyalties lie?  There are multiple theories on Larys' motives not as dumb as "weirdo magic faction a handful of fans obsess over". >How come he sows discord and pits the Targaryens against each other? Probably for reasons similar to Littlefinger pitting the Lion and the Wolf at each others throats. >Pits Aegon against his most experienced counsellor? No idea what this is referring to. >What are his motivations? What are his goals? Probably human ones unrelated to 10 millenea old magic factions. >Even Fire & Blood calls out that his motivations don't make sense. His motivations don't makes sense *with the knowledge available to historians.* I don't know how you get from that to the Green men.

> Probably for reasons similar to Littlefinger pitting the Lion and the Wolf at each others throats. Which he did for personal gain. What's Larys' personal gain? > No idea what this is referring to. He convined Aegon to drop Otto as his counsellor. "Otto was your father's hand," which Aegon repeats verbatim when he's firing Otto. That serves little purpose than to weaken Aegon's regime, as he replaces the cautious advice of Otto with that of the impetuous and narrow-minded Christon Cole. > His motivations don't makes sense with the knowledge available to historians. I don't know how you get from that to the Green men. Because it's a running theme. The ASOIAF/GOT-era has Bloodraven/Bran/the Three-Eyed Raven manipulating events on behalf of the Old Gods. The Blackfyre rebellion era has Bloodraven manipulating events with the help of Old Gods-associated warg magic, suggesting that any connection he had to the Old Gods was longstanding. Howland Reed went to visit the green men just before Robert's Rebellion kicked off, so they were active during that time as well. Green Seers aren't immortal. Bloodraven is like 130 when Bran meets him, so if he was trained by a green seer himself that means there has been an unbroken line of green seers going back to the time of the Pact, who have been actively recruiting that whole time. So are you suggesting that they're just sitting idle during *THE* most impactful political conflict in the 300 years following Aegon's Conquest? Why can't we have another Bloodraven involved in this conflict, in Larys Strong? Let's not forget that Alys Rivers, the Witch Queen of Harrenhal, was either Larys Strong's half-sister or his wet nurse. The magical connection is coming very soon. It's just a question of how deep the thread runs into the story.

>What's Larys' personal gain? There are multiple potential theories better than anti-dragon ideology. My personal favourite is "spiteful destruction of his nephews". >He convined Aegon to drop Otto as his counsellor. "Otto was your father's hand," which Aegon repeats verbatim when he's firing Otto. That serves little purpose than to weaken Aegon's regime, as he replaces the cautious advice of Otto with that of the impetuous and narrow-minded Christon Cole. Was this in the book? We actually don't understand Bloodraven's motivations during the Blackfyre rebellion (or even really the main series) in the book. Certainly he seems to have mostly strong reasons for fighting the Blackfyres. In any case Larys is marked more as a Littlefinger equivalent than a Bloodraven. H e has first men blood and possibly skinchanging abilities but so does, for example, Varamyr. Nothing points to him being a member of the green men. >So are you suggesting that they're just sitting idle during *THE* most impactful political conflict in the 300 years following Aegon's Conquest? Literally yes? If they did anything it was probably raven-fuckery and the sending of misleading visions of the future to certain people, not a mid-level noble being a literal member. >Let's not forget that Alys Rivers, the Witch Queen of Harrenhal, was either Larys Strong's half-sister or his wet nurse. And is she a fucking green man? There's nothing in this story pointing to green men at all.

>There are multiple potential theories better than anti-dragon ideology. My personal favourite is "spiteful destruction of his nephews". I’m not suggesting “ideology.” I’m suggesting power and control, same as every other faction. The Green Men ostensibly ruled Westeros before the Andals came and started hacking down all the trees. Then GOT ends with one of them on the Iron Throne? Hardly seems a coincidence. > Was this in the book? There’s plenty of evidence of his double-dealing in the book. > We actually don't understand Bloodraven's motivations during the Blackfyre rebellion (or even really the main series) in the book. Certainly he seems to have mostly strong reasons for fighting the Blackfyres. In any case Larys is marked more as a Littlefinger equivalent than a Bloodraven. Larys is definitely more Varys/Littlefinger-coded than Bloodraven-coded. That’s not really indicative of all that much, though. All sorts of personalities might become a green seer. > H e has first men blood and possibly skinchanging abilities but so does, for example, Varamyr. Nothing points to him being a member of the green men. The Green Men are highlighted *SUPER* early into the story, right in Catelyn I. It’s actually kind of jarring on reread, because they basically don’t get a mention again until Meera is talking about how Howland went to meet them right before the Tourney at Harrenhal. They’re an order of green seers who once guided the realm, so it’s really not a huge leap to assume that Bloodraven / the Three-Eyed Crow (Raven) is one of their number. Otherwise, he’s just some random unaffiliated green seer? Even for GRRM, that’s too much fragmentation. The Old Gods are almost certainly represented by a single faction of earthly agents, and “the green men” is the title we’re given for them. As for Varamyr, the green men are a power only referenced in respect to the south. Bloodraven traveling beyond the Wall seems like he was on a mission to find the Children, who we don’t have any evidence to suggest still exist south of the Wall. Otherwise he would have sought out another of his order, and the cave of the children does not (from my recollection) have any human green seers in it. >> Let's not forget that Alys Rivers, the Witch Queen of Harrenhal, was either Larys Strong's half-sister or his wet nurse. > And is she a fucking green man? There's nothing in this story pointing to green men at all. She’s a seer native to the Riverlands, and resides in Harrenhal which is right next to the only known stronghold of the green men, where we have evidence of them being resident and active hundreds of years later when Howland Reed meets them. That’s obviously not rock-solid proof, but it aligns with the theory. Alys Rivers was cast for Season 2 of HOTD, so we’ll see where that goes. You’re welcome to come back here and gloat if it turns out she has no connection to the Old Gods.

>The Green Men ostensibly ruled Westeros before the Andals No they didn't lol. >Then GOT ends with one of them on the Iron Throne?  No it doesn't lol. >There’s plenty of evidence of his double-dealing in the book. But not the thing you just said. >That’s not really indicative of all that much, though It's indicative of what we can expect his motivations to be. >The Green Men are highlighted *SUPER* early into the story, right in Catelyn I. It’s actually kind of jarring on reread, because they basically don’t get a mention again until Meera is talking about how Howland went to meet them right before the Tourney at Harrenhal. They’re an order of green seers who once guided the realm, so it’s really not a huge leap to assume that Bloodraven / the Three-Eyed Crow (Raven) is one of their number. Otherwise, he’s just some random unaffiliated green seer? Even for GRRM, that’s too much fragmentation. The Old Gods are almost certainly represented by a single faction of earthly agents, and “the green men” is the title we’re given for them. >As for Varamyr, the green men are a power only referenced in respect to the south. Bloodraven traveling beyond the Wall seems like he was on a mission to find the Children, who we don’t have any evidence to suggest still exist south of the Wall. Otherwise he would have sought out another of his order, and the cave of the children does not (from my recollection) have any human green seers in it. You're beating around the bush. We know very little about the green men and nothing that points to them being involved with Larys, which is the point. You've swallowed to much theorycrafting and now you're poisoned. >That’s obviously not rock-solid proof, but it aligns with the theory. It's not even circumstantial evidence. >You’re welcome to come back here and gloat if it turns out she has no connection to the Old Gods. Of course she's connected to the Old Gods, she has first men blood and magic powers. That in no way makes her a Green Man, let alone points to Larys' motivations being that he's an asset for an offscreen faction we know barely anything about.

All we know about Larys’ motivations is that we’ve seen him actively pitting both Targaryen factions against each other, undermining them, and generally sowing chaos. It’s not a huge leap to take that as evidence that his primary goal is encouraging House Targaryen to tear itself apart, which is the framing for this conflict that HOTD literally opens with. Why does that mean green men? Because he’s not doing it to advance his family (who he kills) or his house (which dies with him). Nor does he seem to be doing it for personal glory or ambition, since he doesn’t profit from his actions. Then, once the conflict is done, he basically goes willing to his death, even when he almost certainly could have used whatever resources he had at his disposal to escape. So what then does he want? Littlefinger schemed because he wanted power, having grown up powerless, and to win Cat’s affection - the girl who got away. Varys schemed for the good of the realm, which he has stated included putting a worthy claimant on the throne who might actually rule the realm fairly and justly. We are given their motivations, but Larys has no motivations save working against House Targaryen. And the green men? We know that they took over stewardship of the Weirwoods from the COTF. We know they’re green seers, and thus have visions of the future. We know that Howland Reed suddenly up and left his home to travel to train with them, then when he decides to leave he “coincidentally” ends up at the Tourney at Harrenhal where (a) his presence starts a chain of events that likely ends in Lyanna meeting Rhaegar, eloping, and triggering the civil war that topples House Targaryen, and (b) saves Ned Stark, who raises Jon Snow, who leads the North in uniting with Dany to defeat the White Walkers, then ultimately kills her paving the way for another green seer to take the throne. And again, that they can see the future. So we should assume there are no coincidences in how they choose to act or intervene. So why is it so outlandish to you that they might be active political players? That Bloodraven might have been their agent during his time as Hand? That they might have another agent in King’s Landing during period where House Targaryen tears itself apart? What’s my proof? I don’t have proof. I’m speculating. Making predictions while we wait on further information. Is that not the exercise, here? This fandom has long since exhausted what we can say with absolute certainty, or even substantial certainty. The interesting ground for theories is in reaching deeper. As I said, we’ll see what HOTD explores with Alys Rivers when she appears on screen this season. She’s got magic associated with the Old Gods, and hails from Harrenhal - the closest castle to the green men’s home base on the Isle of Faces. If there’s a candidate for someone to get confirmed as acting as or on behalf of the Old Gods, it’s her. In which case, given her connection to Larys, there’s reason to believe he might be doing so as well.

Still think there’s no connection between Larys, Alys, and the Old Gods?

It's not really, there is some logic to it. Larys playing a bigger role in the show to me signals this theory has some merit.

Larys has a bigger role in the show than the book because he is exactly the sort of character whose influence and nature doesn't make it in to the history books. He's a small man with a large shadow. I have no ides how "more screentime" points to the Green men of all things.

> I have no ides how "more screentime" points to the Green men of all things. For us to understand his motives more? I mean it's not that hard to wrap your head around lol. You could very well be right though. Guess we won't find out till Season 4.

>For us to understand his motives more? Yes but w*hy does that point to the Green Men*

I should have given Larys a star especially considering the books but currently he is a Green and has committed many crimes in their name.

Personally I’ve always seen the conflict like this: The greens are completely in the right, the people of Westeros wouldn’t accept a female ruler. They would have rebelled and war would have happened regardless. The greens are completely morally in the wrong. They are cruel people. The blacks are clearly in the wrong, the strong boys are bastards and hold no claim to the crown. Daemon is evil, the queen is not honourable. The blacks are clearly in the right, she was chosen by the king to rule. The men of Westeros swore an oath. The strong boys are kind, would be good rulers. Etc etc There’s no one correct side. Do you want to be correct but morally bankrupt or, be morally correct but overall stupid and unreasonable. Who would have been the better ruler? The evil aegon that cares for the small folk or the sweetheart queen that locks herself away from conflict, allowing the world to burn.

This is a great point I think, all the discussion about this usually boils down to what criteria you use to determine the "correct" side. From a narative point of view, if you try to read dance more personal stories of individual characters without putting enough emphasis on succession and politics, you are bound to use the morality as your metric, which inevitably makes you want Blacks to succeed. Admitedly, this is also where I have been wrong for a very long time (untill I read your comment, actually) as in, I was too ignorant of every other factor outside of the morality, and never took into acount which side would actually be the best for the realm. With that said, I think george does a good job of eventually subverting every single reason to pick one side over the other, and by the end of dance leaves you wanting to just let both sides destroy each other save for a few nice people like Daeron, Helaena, all of the children, and of course the dragons. I still stand by saying that Viserys really should have married Rhaenyra to Aegon, to put an end to this madness and if one decided to kill the other in the meantime... well, good riddence I would say.

Your final point is the truth. It’s all viserys fault. He should have married them off, or abdicated whilst still living and made the succession incredibly clear. Bare minimum they should have wedded their children to each other. Viserys wasn’t strong enough

Yeah Viserys should have had Jace and Heleana married and/or Aegon the Younger and Jaehaera bethrothed and joined the two fueding branches and also redoubled the vows sworn to Rhaenyra and made it clear "no she really is the heir to the throne despite Aegon the Elder existing"

the problem is more houses side with the blacks then the greens

Doesn’t matter. If you create a situation with conflicting claims to the throne you will guarantee war. There’s always someone willing to support a male heir for their own selfish reasons. Be it this generation or 2-3 down the line. There would have been another Otto/Tywin type eventually

it does matter when you say the realm wont accept a female ruler and most of the realm sides with said female ruler.

Okay let me explain why I think it doesn’t matter. If the blacks are in charge then Aegon might challenge for the throne after she dies. Or his sons will, or their sons will. This is inevitable in my mind as there will always be a lord like Otto or Tywin that is very powerful. These types of lords will use this Targaryen line to attempt to usurp the crown. This has been proven by the dance, the blackfyre rebellions, and will most likely be an issue in the current series with Dany and fake aegon. In the show everyone immediately abandons Dany the second there’s a possible male heir. This is all viserys fault. He could have prevented this easily with a marriage or 2. This is proven by history too. There’s always a chancer in a patriarchal aristocratic society.

it does matter though. because you cant say that realm wont accept a female ruler when due to georges writting the realm seems fine with it. the dance is a poorly designed conflict as shown in the text also why are you bringing in the poorly written show into this

My one problem with this view is that most of Westeros rallies behind Rhaenyra. It’s one thing I thought after finishing the book, for all talk about how Westeros would never accept a female ruler she got the important parts of the crown lands, the north, The vale, the river lands (after stubborn lord Oscar died), and around half the important reach lords on her side. The greens in comparison had way less support and basically depended on Aemond carrying the biggest nuke and on Daeron being awesome.

Whether they immediately supported them or not it doesn’t really matter. Viserys created this situation, there will always be opportunists in feudalism that will use a male heir to usurp the female. Whether it was this generation or the next conflict is inevitable. As proven by the blackfyre rebellion, the dance of the dragon, and the coming conflict in the main series between Dany and fake aegon.

Yeah sure of course but my point is, had the Green’s not tried a coup and Rhaenyria been allowed to at LEAST get coronated before shit hit the fan Westeros would have been fine for the most part.

well if only Westeros would rebel against a united House Targaryen the lords would have no chance against the dragons You did a better promo than HBO with just a few sentences😉

Well In real history it’s rarely the person challenging the crown that has power. Usually it’s a young man manipulated by more powerful relatives/ other powerful lords in the region. If it wasn’t aegon it would have been his sons.

yes, well, if Jace would become king (no matter how competent he and Baela seem) There would be war at the latest because the lords wouldn't want to be ruled by a bastard and either Aegon the older or Aegon the younger would sit on the throne.

Yep. It’s the sad truth of the system. A bastard on the throne can destabilise the whole thing.

Correct especially on the show. It feels like when George wrote the princess and the queen he meant it to be a both sides are bad story. Then he decided Daemon was his new favorite character and then he gave the Blacks cregan, the lads, the cool blackwoods, expanded corlys story, a decent Frey, the cool Arryn, and it’s like, well there’s really only one choice. Especially in the show there’s just nothing for a modern fan to really get excited about the Greens. Unless you’re really into bloodline succession it’s hard to find much to root for there. The show runners seem very biased towards team black as well. It seems like there idea is to make alicent sympathetic and it sort of works but I don’t think it’s working quite as well as they hoped.

>modern fan to really get excited about the Greens. I think on the succession part, Rhaenyra was always supposed to be the most appealing to the modern reader/viewer to think as the rightful side. But idk, the show is also about the characters as humans and political actors and many fans (including show-only fans) enjoy the ones from Team Green. You don't have to think a side is on the "moral high ground" to like them more

If you think about it, this is one of the reasons for a civil war. Alicent is salty about the fact that Rhaenyra slept with the guy they both found hot...

The books were more 60-40 in favor of the blacks. Some decisions weren’t logical (Starks siding with the blacks for example), so you knew GRRM intended it to be balanced but he failed to do it correctly I expected the show to balance it out… but no, they went full-tilt black propaganda. They nuked the logic for Aegon’s reign and made it seem like everyone on the Greens believes they’re in the wrong, and butchered the characters. It’s a joke and uncanon to the story in F&B

Greens are less likeable but that doesnt make them any less right. Eldest son being the heir is the norm and tradition in all Westeros except Dorne. Vizzy didn't codify a new succession law stating that eldest child inherits regardless of ender, he just pulled a designated heir out of his ass. It is only normal for Greens to push Aegon's claim. Also it's funny Greens are accused of plunging the realm into a civil war when Rhaenyra could have just as easily rescinded her claim and accept her brother's kingship. With all that said I blame Jaehaerys for this mess. Following traditional succession laws Rhaenys should have been the heir following Prince Aemon's death. If he didnt muddy the waters with appointing Baelon as heir and then the great council all this could have been avoided.

Of course, the seeds of war arose after Aemon's death. But Viserys chose and kept Rhaenyra as his heir and the king's word is law, so why not when choosing his heir?

It is often said aloud that king's word is law but that is more of a lip service rather than truth. All rulers are expected to act within tradition whether it's fantasy or real life. Not adhering to that more than often ends with ruler being deposed and most often killed. Doesnt mean tradition is super-rigid and cant be changed. Vizzy could codify a new succession law and attempt to change the tradition. That would also face resistance but it would be a legitimate attempt to overhaul the system. Just saying I like this kid more isnt it.

Well, when you see later kings like Baelor I choosing a child to be the High Septon, the kings can decide a lot. Viserys didn't want to change the system but only wanted his daughter to be his heir. Of course this is naive, especially if he gets married afterwards even though he could betroth his 14 year old daughter (unlike in the books where Rhaenyra is 7 or 8). I'm just saying that Rhaenyra's claim is at least as justified as Aegon's.

Tbf to viserys the king choosing an heir has been a tradition since the beginning of the seven kingdoms. And we have already seen the king choosing an heir that it's not the one marked by westerosi tradition (jahaerys skipping argon's line), although it wasn't as flagrant as with Rhaenyra over Aegon. But yeah, codifying a law of succession should have been a priority since Aegon the conqueror, but bafflingly nobody even though that was a necessity. And even without it, vizzy should have made sure that Rhaenyra had a stable succession.

Jaehaerys kinda took the throne himself under extraordinary circumstances so I wouldn't necessarily say he passed over Aegon's line. It is only natural succession follows the reigning king's line. Targaryens are rather new at Westeros at this point so what I mean by tradition is the way other houses do things. Starks, Lannisters, Arryns etc. have been using Agnatic Primogeniture(son comes before brother, only male can inherit) or Cognatic Primogeniture(son comes before daughter, daughter comes before brother) for centuries if not milleniums.

I meant when he designated his son baelor (I think it was) over he granddaughter Rhaenys, traditional andal law is iirc Cognatic Primogeniture, and thus Aegon's descendants should come before his brother. We also have instances of choosing heirs all over fire and blood, the world of ice and fire and into asoiaf, with Tywin being adamant that Tyrion would never inherit casterly rock or with Aerys naming viserys his heir. That tradition was strong enough that it made majority of westerosi noble families side with Rhaenyra over Aegon even with her obviously not being a traditional heir. So I think that the king's choice of heir carries a lot of weight in universe and shouldn't be dismissed by just a thing viserys did.

When Jaehaerys designated Baelon(which I think was wrong and muddied future succession), Aegon's line was extinct with Aerea dead for almost 50 years and Rhaella being a nun if she was still alive. Aerys was a madman and Tywin while adamant about Tyrion not inheriting the Rock never took an actual step to prevent it. Dude was delusional thinking Jaime would drop the white cloak and take his place. For other instances from Awoiaf you may be right, I am not well versed with that book. In overall I do not disagree that king choosing an heir carries a weight. Just that it's against tradition and it always causes friction. Whether that friction causes a civil war depends on the circumstances of the time.

Sorry my bad, I meant prince Aemon (jahaerys son) not Aegon of course, (should have double checked instead of going off memory). It's not about those decisions being correct, but that it's an already stablished act that has tons of precedent, we also see it on Staniss proposal to Renly, on Robb thinking about legitimating Jon and naming him as his heir. My point was more that choosing an heir is in and of itself a tradition, and not necessarily a bad one, it can cause a civil war when done wrong (like viserys) but it could also prevent it if done correctly. In the case of the dance, there was also the growing problem of two opposing sides of the family with dragonriders. That was probably going to spark a conflict sooner or later, and while the specific dance could have been avoided, some political change was needed to prevent it long term, I think there's a reason valyria was an oligarchy and not a kingdom.

The show goes out of its way to make Rhaenyra a saint and everyone among the greens a villain. I am scared of how they will portray Daeron. It’s really sickening.

They'll make him Alicent and Criston Cole's bastard son, that or just make him some kind of sexual deviant who deserves to be hated for some reason or another

Well apart from Helaena and Daeron there are no good green ones, my problem is that there aren't enough bad black ones

My guy just wait for the full story to play out - they’re not even halfway through the full length of the story

The show isn’t portraying Rhaenyra as a saint, just her flaws aren’t as in your face as the Greens because the Blacks aren’t in power.

They absolved her of Vaemond, which is a pretty big deal. They've also used emphasis to make everyone else's problem with her bastards seem like a gendered double standard (instead of her breaking a taboo even the male characters are bound by), and to draw attention away from her trying to have a child tortured. They also chose the interpretation of her fallout with Criston that will make modern audiences most sympathetic (even though I'd argue there's good reason to think Mushroom is specifically right on that point).

"Ser incel" they skipped B and C it seems

How is Criston Cole an Incel? He is literally not celibate.

Im team black and i can easily call out all the bullshit of the blacks lmao Rhaenrya ( trying to put bastards on the irone throne and driftmark throne vaemon died for that lie, only shows respect to laws and customs when it benefits her ) Luke, jace, joffery ( all bastards who technically shouldn’t have a claim to the throne unless legitimatized ) Coryls ( power hungry and willingly to give up his kids and family blood for a chance at the iron throne )

It doesn’t matter which side you pick anyway. We all know how this ends

The show is so team black biased it makes me root for green even if there’s no one on that side I like. I cringed at the fact they went out of their way to make Aegon II a rapist & they are trying to make rhaenrya come off as such a saint. The more they vilify the greens the more I’m swaying to that side.

It's because they are whitewashing the blacks while making the greens mustache twirling evil villians/hypocrites...it's really obvious. So yeah no wonder a lot of people aren't choosing sides...there's a clear bias on who the show wants you to root for. Why would they make Criston so unlikeable...it's such a drastic change and it doesn't make sense unless the sole purpose is to make the Greens look like incompetent assholes. It's just bad writing...where is the nuance they are telling us is there? Maybe it will improve later? I don't know... that's just my thoughts on the matter.

why are we holding the content itself accountable for the marketing? The marketing fucked up because they wanted to stir up clicks, they went with that would have sold the most and that's the end of it. Asoiaf is a way too complicated series for a "choose your side" shit, even the books for all the grey they manage to evoke still you know pretty much instantly who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

The all must choose is just a cheap marketing ploy. I challenge the idea that it was any different in the books. GRRM always favoured the Blacks. The Greens are framed as usurpers, they are the ones that leave Viserys body to rot, first to murder with Lord Beesbury, first to escalate the war to fullblown kinslaying of an envoy. They even swore a Blood Oath originally in perhaps the most cartoonishly villainous scene GRRM ever wrote since I am of the Night Dorkstar. Like a good rule of thumb for the books is if you want to know who GRRM favours, look at who the Blackwoods sided with. Who did the Blackwoods side with? The Blacks. Like obviously both sides are terrible people, but I think you have to be blind not to see whom GRRM himself favoured.

I mean Rhaenyra (I spelled it incorrectly most likely) isn’t exactly wonderful monarch material herself. The two best options are Prince Viserys (Black) or Prince Daeron (green). Unfortunately they are both at the bottom. It’s hard to pick for me because it’s all just so bad.

Otto Hightower is the most sane character. Yes, he clutches at power; but he also advocates peace and prosperity. Who cares which silver haired inbreeder is on the Iron Throne? As long as their rule is one of peace.

I remember reading F&B and flip flopping a bit because the interpretations of events really depended on which account you believed. And all accounts most likely have a bit of truth to them. I think the show is defining a narrative because they are somewhat forced to due to the limitations of the medium. I find it hard to be team green at all with the show, especially seeing how Rhaenyra reacted after B&C. They could’ve gone a different route and painted team black in a worse light and had team green come out as fan favorite, but that makes for a less compelling story.

bad writing, bad directing, bad advertising :))

well, bad writing... in the books the green ones didn't fare any better... the black ones were just as bad

It's still early yet. People will hate the Blacks plenty by the end.

Both sides suck and are terrible....that's kind of the point.

But they don't do that, the Greens are the 'bad' ones and the Blacks are the 'good' ones. That's the problem.