I think the moral of the story is that war is bad, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and people can do objectively bad things for perfectly logical reasons.
I really don't understand why ppl think that Dany's "turn" was surprising. They've been talking about how she might be a mad tyrant literally the whole show. She's constantly being restrained from doing terrible things by her advisers. She loses faith in them, in Tyrion especially, and ignores their advice this time. She's ignored it before. Really don't get why this is surprising?
Well, I do, actually. It's because you feel betrayed by her as well. You thought she'd grown into a capable and compassionate ruler, but no, turns out she's just as tyrannical as all the other rulers of Westeros have been. I felt it hard when she started burning all those people, I felt really, truly awful, not just for all the people that were dying needlessly and horrifically, but also for believing her, supporting her, and believing in her. It felt bad. And I think when people feel bad they do weird intellectual contortions to avoid feeling bad, like trying to pretend that Dany wasn't capable of this, and this was a huge surprise to them.
It reminds me of Stannis the Mannis. We thought he was the Good Guy, the capable, compassionate leader who went North to do the right thing and fight to defend the kingdom. Then he burnt his daughter alive. Only this time, with Dany, you feel it even more, because we as the audience have invested so much more into her story than we did with Stannis.
I think a lot of it is a reflection on ourselves that we aren't comfortable admitting. She was actually ruthless and did terrible things from the very first season, but we always felt as though the person who received it deserved it. "It" being the key word. Even if some, many, or all of these people deserved to die, Dany's idea of how to accomplish "it" was among the most barbaric of any of the rulers. That says a lot about
us that is unsettling (and I'm lumping myself right in there - I was a big fan of hers and never gave any of this a second thought until Sunday).
Does an admittedly cruel person deserve to have his face melted by gold because of a drunken threat and if so, and it happened in front of any "good" person, would they take it so nonchalantly as Dany did?
Does a person deserve to be burned alive at the stake? Perhaps to die for what she did, but in
that way?
Do people deserve to be locked away in darkness to slowly starve or suffocate? What about the poor small girl in that cave with that giant man? What do you think became of her as he grew hungry? Even if she deserved to die, did she deserve
that?
What about all the people she had her Unsullied slaughter in their first scene together? Were they all evil because they were in a certain class? Were they all beyond redemption? Were all cruel and unjust and deserving of the slaughter? She spared their children, but also made them orphans, often, we must assume, right in front of their eyes.
What about all the people she crucified? Were
they all evil because they were in a certain class? It seems like she chose them based on outward appearance only (their garments).
What about the person she fed to her dragon? She flat out admits she has no idea if the poor guy deserved it:
"Who is innocent? Maybe all of you are, maybe none of you are. Maybe I should let the dragons decide."
As far as I can tell (at least from the show--I haven't read all the books), she granted
one person a trial before handing out their fate, only after basically being begged by an adviser. Hardly a just ruler in my eyes.
Was it OK for her to basically appropriate an entire culture by trapping their leaders in a tent and burning them all alive in front of their subjects just because we don't hold their values in high regard?
Was burning two prisoners alive who surrendered, but who refused to bow to her greatness appropriate? They were essentially burned alive because they refused to follow her and do her bidding. She would have burned any person there who defied her. Is that a good reason to kill someone?
Look, let's put it plainly - she's not a good person, and never has been. We thought she was because she waged class warfare against
groups of people (Masters, Dothraki leadership, Westeros leadership) that we assumed were
all worse people. They even might have been. But we don't really know that, any more than we know that anyone is guilty without a fair trial. We just assumed because of the way one side portrayed them that all were evil, and gave her a pass to do some pretty unspeakable things to them on a whim. Now we are faced with the prospect of holding ourselves accountable for this and asking ourselves what that says about us. Few enjoy that prospect, though many muddle through it.
Frankly, I think this is all a brilliant reflection on modern times and the way we're quick to lump each other into groups without considering the individual, especially when we think we're doing it "for the greater good." It's caused me to reassess the way I approached the series and how easily I was willing to overlook all the stuff above. There are a lot of good lessons and morals here. I'm looking forward to watching the series again with a fresh perspective.