Post in question:

Yep, that person is correct, they switched the reactions Otto canonically had to these events. Probably so Otto has a bit more to do, and it definitely allows Aemond to not suffer any social consequences of kinslaying or to move him more towards his sexual proclivities instead of his political/militaristic involvements. He seems more shadow-man floating from place to place than someone a part of this family even with him supposedly keeping more to himself.

This ask accusing Rhaenrya as being sociopathic is part of why I simply don't emotionally/morally engage at face value (as in these are "real" or well realized character) with this show as much as a lot of other people in the asoiaf fandom do. I do engage as critically (analytically) as I can AND use some scenes as evidence against fandom sexism. The clear misunderstanding and trying to fix characters into roles that don't make sense for their arcs in this story of the Dance undermines too much of the HotD story for me to remain Watsonian about it.

Bec it is not "Rhaenyra" that is sociopathic. It is the sexist writing breeding inconsistency after inconsistency for the character as well as the entire list of circumstances--how kinslaying seems no big deal and how it seems no big deal that Aemond commits this taboo and thus removing a critical layer to why the blacks go to war to answer such a tragedy (this layer that is already on top of how they usurped her).

Though she'd be a valid character if she had been adapted/created for some other appropriate story, FOR THIS ONE and for the relationship she has w/Daemon, she simply doesn't make any sense (the reasoning for war, her kids dying and little response or exploration of that versus her trying to do what Viserys thinks...the guy who ruled pretty poorly, etc.) and is horribly, sexistly written so that they can get as many people--who are not really weighing what the point of her character was in the Dance story or truly care to understand the very basics of misogyny--to like her character. Which itself tells us something abt our world--women over male characters of fiction and perhaps real life need to be morally upright in order for the sexist violence to matter or even be defined as sexist. (Catelyn Stark of ASoIaF is a character who has her flaws but also her valid reasons for how she acts. Margarey of GoT is not sincere to smallfolk, but we can't count her as evil for it. ETC.)

That the motive behind her usurpation and eventual murder was greedy sexism. Then entire reason why Viserys is king is bc of sexism and the Targs succession rules not having been solofoed in terms of which royal has a superseding claim than the other since Aenys and Maegor. Many Targ men actively blocked their female counterparts or children or others' children to strengthen their own claim in the eyes of the Andal-Westerosi descents they were ruling and assimilating into for the ease of said rule.

Therefore yes, the Dance happened bc of misogyny/you can never remain that misogyny played a small role in it happening.

Part of the reason--but not the only reason--she fights for the throne is bc she wants payback for her sons' deaths/punish the greens/not have Luke-Jace die from nothing at all.

This is the same woman who marries Daemon Targaryen bc she is like him in the ferocity, prideful way as well as wanted him for his loyalty and willingness to go that far for her, their family/kids, and her crown. It was actually rather cheap for HotD to portray a Rhaenyra who is conflicted over: some sort of payback for Luke's death thru Blood & Cheese vs the horror of Helaena's grief and pain as a mother herself. A sort of reckoning that she may or may not accept and how far does she actually "accept"? THIS, I argue, would have been far more interesting bc of the layers to it all that reminds me of ebing close to any other Gothic narrative...and this is more of a Gothic couple than they aren't.

This also goes into how the focus of her distrust of him is somehow whether he's trying to rule through her instead of self control. It appears a fine line--bc some might think if she actually cared to follow directions or lead, he wouldn't fly off the handle or go behind their backs or do stuff like "heir for a day", so it has to be him wanting the throne for himself sincerely, and that is all...no love. Again, that is what she was arguing he was trying to do in the actual S2 E2 episode, when she says that he is just trying to use her name to do what he wanted against the Hightowers/Otto/his enemies.

When we have already hashed this bit out AND Rhaenyra (if we say she is very careful and deliberate when it comes to her kids' safety) would not have endangered her 3 boys if it were obviously true Daemon was gunning for them for himself...also, his daughters were marrying those boys so he does have stake in the line even with Jacaerys ruling bc he'd have ruling grandkids through him. So no, it didn't make sense, her concerns.

Not unless we reason that:

*7/14/24* I guess we could argue that Rhaenyra was more trying to address his tendency to leave her when things get too hard by accusing him of cold ambition (as an expression from the fear that he only wants her for power since he didn't bother to help her out at least 2x before, so this is her taking an opportunity to draw him into it and express that fear)...again, this doesn't make much sense when this show has made us believe that they had rather very peaceful and happy and fulfilled days on Dragonstone from S1 E8! This is a pre-marriage argument or at least an argument had either before Rhaenyra proposes to him--thus the argument is her confronting him before she ties herself to him--OR it's had in the first two years when he does something nasty or sus and she confronts him. It's not an argument that one has 6 years after marriage and raising 6 children and seemingly completely satisfied with one's partner WITHOUT HAVING ALREADY WRITTEN MULTIPLE SCENES SHOWING/ESTABLISHING SOMETHING LIKE A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT HOLDS A LOT OF TENSION BETWEEN THEM BEFORE THIS ARGUMENT! It should have been built into to make any modicum of sense. *END*

So yeah, even though I liked the acting and energy of the fight, I didn't care for Rhaenyra's argument w/Daemon. and it isn't actually Rhaenyra nor does their Rhaenyra make any sense, so I don't care to actually engage with this show that much or take it as a serious project. It's their cluster fuck of a character they made to draw in people who can't handle dark or morally questionable female character OR genuinely don't grasp what an unreliable narrator is:

Yep, I pointed out the lack of the layer of kinslaying in the story HotD presents in Twitter. I agree with your points.

It makes me feel pretty empty, tbh. I can't really care abt Aemond, esp when Ewan has been told to just not emote aside from the brothel thing, and even then he just seems too much of an automaton. Reciting words and immature thoughts as if they are someone else's.

I think what might happen is that Jace will try to argue (maybe politely at first and then more insistent until he's redirected or sternly talked to...or perhaps he'll just talk to someone else abt it and not Rhaenyra or Daemon....or just Daemon....or he won't actually argue for long bc he'll see that's she's too heavy to really get into it). Instead of outright thinking it of a "step" he might feel/say it is just "eye for an eye". I also don't think they will really have a lasting argument abt it bc there's too much to do and they recognize the hurt in each other to really want to fight abt it...after all, Rhaenrya was the one who said she wanted Aemond dead, I don't think she'd be able to hold it much against JAce for feeling the way he feels. Unless the show pulls a fast one.

I'm not good at predictions, so 🤷🏽‍♂️.

Anon talks abt this post.

And i recently had an asker who brings up another reason why people weren't all that hateful towards Daemon or Rhaenyra for B&C HERE, where I give some more words to it.

Basically, there isn't any negative result against the blacks for B&C probably bc it was an act of revenge for an already existing blood debt from Lucerys' death. Why isn't Aemond killing Luke justified? Bec an eye =/= an entire life or has the same value. Outside of odd Westerosi ethics, when you know how bk!Aemond only went after Luke after Maris mocked his masculinity, there's even less sympathy for Aemond or reason he can have for killing Luke. It doesn't endear him to anyone with a brain reading that passage.

As for your last paragraph, yeah, I tend to agree and go that way even if cautiously.

A)

There was an ask somewhere where someone berated bk1Rhaenyra for not punishing Daemon and I answered that she'd likely didn't want to prevent her armies from being raised, as Daemon does. I should have also mentioned that she really couldn't when he was already at Harrenhal away from Dragonstone when he & Mysaria or just him, or just Mysaria plotted B&C.

And by the time he comes back, it's to meet up w/her at KL to take the Red Keep and she still had uses for him. that and I think she'd just not think abt that after Jaecaerys died, the attempt on her life, and the possibility of B&C not going according to Daemon's plan to remove Aegon from the greens instead of Aemond, bc reminder: Aegon is the head/Aemond wanted to also be seen as a capable ruler and I doubt he'd forgo the chance of being king which would trouble the greens' paltry condition of unity, etc.

As you refer, still think he genuinely thought to kill one of Helaena's sons and not one of Alicent's because that matches Rhaenyra's and his own grief PLUS Rhaenyra's followers still fought for her after Jaehaerys' beheading, so....whatever Daemon-Mysaria did to enlist as many followers for Rhaenyra + Rhaenyra's own reputation (Realm's Delight, that tour in the riverlands) and maybe a few of them had enough ignorance to STILL follow Rhaenyra instead of stay neutral after Jaehaerys' death more likely than not was announced and told throughout the kingdoms at any level of horror/gore/detail 🤷🏾‍♂️. Says something abt this world, but point is that that within the same world many greens stans argue "Rhaenyra would have to kill her brothers bc there'd be rebellions", all this shows that even if she hadn't already said she wasn't going to kill any of her siblings at the beginning she had more people on her side than not.

I agree, he didn't weaken much. You could maybe make the argument that he made her look bad, and she can express that she feared he cost her a few allies' enthusiasm to follow her bc of possible claims of kinslaying...It's not impossible that a small number of lords use this as reason to not follow her or look for ways to bow out during their fighting for her later. But that's very unlikely bc that is siply not how the dominant ethical values they live and grew up under would see this.

It's too easy for people to bring up it was an act to revenge for Lucerys' death and some of them would probably not feel like they could say much with such a blood debt also motivating them to act and "rebalance" the wrong done. Through some similar enough method. As what was that "eye for an eye" feudal-honor precedent that many greens stans flung in defense of Aemond killing Luke but unsuccessfully bc an eye =/- a whole person's life.

AND Aemond only really charged after Luke bc Maris goaded him by saying he was "sissy" for not doing so, so it wasn't necessarily for the eye but bc Luke "dared" to cost him an eye. Him, the "trueborn" male princeling. On top of being born of a woman "stealing" his and his brother's "birthright".

Jaehaerys' life is more "equivalent to the value of Lucerys' life.

Again, none of this is actually ethical, child death is horrendous. I'm saying that one cannot argue that in this world and in its society's feudal ethical system we cannot say that Daemon actually put her claim at jeopardy. Not bc B&C/the youth of the kid in question was so horrific and enough to turn any of them off from Rhaenrya, so Rhaenyra saying as much doesn't really make that much sense.

Not even Manfyrd Maidenpool cited B&C as reason for his later defection of self preservation!

B)

But can I tell you something crazy, anon? The original story has Rhaenyra more or less being of similar detachment that others have clocked as GRRM over-pathologizing a mother's grief to make her removed from the actual war efforts so men around her (who could also be grieving different people at different times but somehow also manage to be more involved in the planning themselves) other than delegation.

Don't get me wrong, delegation is obviously necessary. But he made it so that she isn't even a part of the KL takeover plans Jacaerys & Corlys had. He also could have had her recover herself enough to present the Dragonseed plan, similar to how there are many legends/true histories of women enlisting locals in those histiographies written by men.

Admittedly a lot of those stories are women who did so in the name of a male relative instead of in their own name...but GRRM could have done a tweak here the same way he tweaks Matilda's entire life to create Rhaenyra-the-character. He also could have had her and/or her ladies write down their thoughts, reasons, observations...some septa...or some pseudonym-having female historian in companion/contrast to Gyldayn AND/OR extend the timeline for Rhaenyra to recover and actually be more active during the war besides delegating tasks and deciding on compromises. So there have already been frustrations with Rhaenyra's character in terms of the displayed lesser seeming of competence in comparison to the men around her.

("Rhaenyra Triumphant")

Again, let me make myself clear. It's not that Rhaenyra was totally incompetent and that's why she doesn't deserve to rule OR be sympathized with in my eyes, bc:

Like you can be frustrated w/GRRM for giving her another loss without any memorable personal wins in sight, but that she made this decision (taxes, Rosby-Stokeworth vs Ulf-Hugh's rewards) at all shouldn't be seen as black-white-she-did-wrong I'd agree/relate. But I don't this is not the same as the former argument and it's much more complicated than that.

You make a great catch. One small reminder: Jaehaerys' death is arguably kinslaying (another taboo act that is a break of customary protections), as he's Daemon's grand nephew, unless kin slaying is only about first cousins, child, parent, sibling, uncle, niece? IDK how far kinslaying in Westeros extends.

--AND--

EXACTLY! That is what it is and has been.

Actually, makes sense for them. They don't hold themselves accountable enough and instead push it all on Rhaenyra? Sounds like their MO. It is funny, bc it really exposes them as the hypocrites they are, when Criston should have been around to protect the active Queen consort and her kids instead of fucking the Queen dowager, but 🤷🏽‍♂️. And Alicent, as people have been saying lie w/cole, should have anticipated some sort of retribution like her book counterpart sorta did.

Which she justified for the sake of her son and downplayed Luke's murder as comeuppance for the ye lost as if these are two equal things...and agrees/gloms onto Otto's "boys will be boys and be rash" shit. It's at least consistent with the smidgen of character they have for her.

War Crime definition:

Again, it's not condoning child murder, it's pointing out how hypocritical the anti-Daemon/anti-black/anti-Rhaenyra arguments for B&C are.

It's pointing out that killing envoys is taboo--or at least socially considered condemnable and ethically incorrect--in Westeros.

I was asked by someone to look over a specific post and write what I thought about it...this is an opportunity to group several arguments & point out the pattern for a certain discrepancy.

LINK to the post I will talk about. Quote (the parts I will address):

I don't know if this post was about HotD or the original canon, but I'll divide my own thoughts accordingly. This post is in no way an invective against the Tumblr user as a person, just a critique of their thoughts.

Their argument claims four things:

A)

Book!Alicent, Cole, and the older green adults' main reason for usurping Rhaenyra was always about ambition and power. They both believed in patriarchal privilege/Faith-dominance AND used patriarchal privilege for their own ends. Show!older green adults are motivated differently:

Going back to the book characters, here are quotes from the green council for why each green older adult wants to usurp Rhaenyra (keeping in mind that they are also presenting their reasons to the green council and Alicent has left Viserys' body to rot to buy time and has already imprisoned/held hostage several people in the castle):

Rundown

Book!Otto cites survival for himself and Alicent, banking on Daemon's hatred for him and subsequent disapproval of Alicent for being his daughter, saying that Daemon would definitely try to execute him for just being someone he hated even after Rhaenyra gets crowned. Following his sentiment, Alicent cites the need to preserve her kids' lives on account that they had "a better claim to the throne than her brood of bastards" and are thus a threat to her. So she amends Otto's statement of Daemon killing them just bc he hates them AND uses the aristocratic disgust with bastards and the social stigma against bastards to make the council people more suspicious of the blacks/Rhaenyra. Again, bastards are regarded as inherently untrustworthy people bc they come from lust, "loss of self-control", and not the "duty" involved in a noble marriage. Finally, coming off of Alicent's note about bastards being untrustworthy and from lust, Cole reasons that if Rhaenyra were allowed to rule, she'd have lots of sex with Daemon and both would sexually predate on various lords' children or wives (note the gendered roles: "wife" of a lord). He's talking about "sullying", especially when he brings up how he thinks Laenor would have influenced the Velaryon boys to be sexually predatory themselves by virtue of the fact that Laenor was gay. So like modern media and persons who claim that gay men & drag queens (sometimes women, too but not that often) will prey on children based on the taboo sexual boundary crossing that queerness is seen to be, Criston uses homophobia to express that Rhaenyra shouldn't rule. Meanwhile, the boys are not supposed to be Laenor's kids--that is the whole argument for them being bastards--and Laenor actually didn't spend as much time with the V boys as people around them would expect for a father since he only went to Dragonstone to put up appearances and maybe the odd purely social visit. Laenor mainly lived at Driftmark with his Velaryon family and never built a household with Rhaenyra. Jace (114) was the only one who was born at KL, Luke (115) seems to have been born at the Red Keep and Joffrey (117) was born in Dragonstone.

Counterarguments to the OP's Post (bc some arguments still cross over to the show by the show's own writing)

Rhaenyra has been able to get others to fight for her even after her and her first 3 sons' deaths. The greens were the ones who always made the first move to antagonize, provoke, or undermine Rhaenyra and the blacks in both the book & the show, not the blacks.

If it was just about surviving, bastardry being made into a moral argument wouldn't be used. Also, we have no proof that Daemon would willingly taint Rhaenyra's and their kids' reputation by willy-nilly murdering not just Otto but the Alicent, the would-be Queen Dowager to Rhaenyra's own father without provocation. His killing of the Braavosi noble boy who was betrothed to Laena was all in Corlys' permission, i.e. the lord of Driftmark. Daemon may be a violent man, but he's not a stupid man.

And he never expressed actual hatred for Alicent, it is far more likely he thought of her as an interloper. Otto is still safe even though Daemon hates him: he never killed Rhea Royce and he could have killed Otto when it was safer for him before Viserys died if only by underhanded means. It's not like Viserys would actually execute Daemon if he did, even if it were exile.

As for how Alicent's kids being in danger:

In the show, Laenor and Rhaenyra lived at the Red Keep together for all their boys to be born in the same place and it is very shortly after Joff is born that they leave together. Laenor still was not usually as physically close to Rhaenyra's side, but much more than what is implied in the book. However, Cole doesn't mention Laenor being gay as a reason for Rhaenyra's usurpation in the show and neither Alicent nor her father mentions bastardry or survival for their presented reasons to the council. It was just Otto shifting the conversation to naming Aegon and "discussing" the succession "question", Alicent being upset about being iced out for particular discussions and her trying to get them to not kill Rhaenyra and Beesbury's protests leading to his death plus Harold Westerling's giving up his cloak (who is actually already dead in the book). All because the show changed it to Alicent misinterpreting Viserys' dying words and her losing control over the council's and her father's actions, trying to prevent Rhaenyra's death--as she thought that was assured...tsk, tsk no confidence in one who she at one point was trying to go after her own son....

The show made the usurpation a whole, mere misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than the greens twisting truths, being blood purists and openly misogynists for their justifications. If somehow making the biggest civil war and injustices against a woman reads better as coming from a misunderstanding rather than an intentional perception attack on someone, I don't know if they understand the meaning of accountability nor think that misogyny is a real, palpable evil today or ever was, nor how to identify it.

B)

Since we actually do not have that much evidence for how book!Aegon felt about Rhaenyra as a person before she was coronated, this is my headcanon and reasons for why I think he felt he deserved the throne over her despite his trying to foist off getting crowned until Cole (not Alicent) convinced him to take the crown for pure self-preservation sake. At least according to Septon Eustace.

C)

This post goes into why Baela and Rhaena were not ever above the Velaryon boys in the line of the Driftmark succession.

D)

Viserys, Otto, and Corlys are the ones primarily responsible for their children's misery for how they all contributed/directed to how they will marry. Both and show, except Alicent in the book, very much wanted to be Viserys' Queen Consort and of her own volition formed a faction and harrassed Rhaenyra for most of her pubescence and early motherhood.

*EDITED POST* 10/23/23

I'm just going to be rude (not targeting you, though). Everything this user says, ignore it, it's bullshit. Not just in this post, I mean, everything.

For how Aegon III and Viserys II, why didn't declare Rhaenyra to be a legitimate monarch to be historically called "Rhaenyra I" (despite the multiple times she's called "Queen" or "the queen" in Fire and Blood-vol 1, esp after she takes KL), look to this POST. There was no damn "taboo", this is a gross exaggeration, no, a LIE about the situation. Possibly a self-delusion born from an inability to use deductive reasoning.

Being a villain or antagonist is a position that doesn't change, and I'm not referring to plot twists...twists does not shake off the reality of a smart villain or antagonists working against the protagonist or MCs in the shadows. All villains are antagonists, not all antagonists are morally bankrupt or "too far gone" like a villain.

First, protagonist =/= "good person". It just means "who's fighting for something against them/who is this story about". The antagonist(s) is the force/figures set against the protagonist, and thus they do not have to be "good" nor "bad". However, the Dance's protagonist is Rhaenyra. It is written about her rise, endurance, and fall.

Second, while a character can be dark, turn dark, or be an anti-hero, for a writer to try to actually make THE protagonist THE villain or the antagonist, the actual antagonist would have to also become the protagonist and the entire story will have become entirely different in themes, etc. Thus, you cannot establish the greens as protagonists or the "good guys" bc they are neither the winner, the person in the morally superior position, NOR who the Dance of the Dragons is about or whose struggle the Dance narrates.

The villains AND antagonists of the Dance are the greens. While the blacks have members who are not good people (classist, misogynist, etc.), they are leagues better than the greens and are meant to be their foils where one highlights the other's qualities to reveal the differing qualities between them. An example is how Daemon, while having beaten an adult messenger, AEMOND is the one to kill a young boy acting as an envoy who never reached Westerosi majority (16) because he felt like it. The same boy also happened to be Aemond's nephew, which includes kin slaying, something Daemon didn't do until Lucerys was murdered.

Even though I am sure Daemon would have no trouble killing Aemond and the rest of his green Targ family if he could get away with it before any green tried for him and Rhaenyra or their own, the point I am making is that the greens are misogynist, classist, etc x100. And they (aside from Jaehaerys I, he's long term and Viserys I, he made many stupid decisions for his daughter) short term caused the Dance.

Finally, yes, Lucerys had absolutely no chance of surviving Vhagar nor Aemond, since:

This wasn't a fight, it was an execution.

Yeah, my respect for this show already tanked when I saw that they totally skipped all the stuff happening between episodes 6 & 7, then more after Alicent forgiving Rhaenyra/Rhaenyra genuinely apologizing at all. And it already decreased after seeing how Alicent and Rhaenyra just magically became amicable with no scene showing this development. The logic also doesn't compute.

So I was depleted by episode 9 where apparently he read "the philosophies" and then couldn't control himself in episode 10 when no one provoked him...

I couldn't not get upset with Aemond's writing, his supposedly "accidentally" killing Luke. In general, whether Aemon did or didn't lose "control" of a dragon, I couldn't respect Aemond after that. You're telling me that this guy who had 6 years to learn how to control his emotions and give commands that Vhagr would obey, that the overall Targs never had issues directing their dragons -- unless it was either a magical issue or the bond not being properly formed yet -- this is the guy I'm supposed to think is smart, capable, and self-contained? Da fuck?

Ryan Condal says a lot of things. He is not the creator of ASoIaF, though, now is he? That's GRRM, writer of Fire and Blood, where Condal is supposed to be adapting these characters from and retain their original characterizations: personalities and motivation. But doesn't because he has one particular purpose for this series that has nothing to do with bringing their final story alive on screen. (Post written by @rhaenyragendereuphoria)

You and THIS anon have something in common.

But to get back to Condal, I already expressed my disdain for this change of how dragon riding works HERE.

But think about it. If:

Aemond claims Vhagar at 12(?) in the show and by episode 10 he is about 20. He has had 8 years to learn to control himself while on dragon back, but doesn't. And we see in the actual episode that he let himself go after Lucerys with no promoting from anyone else when this display is just too embarrassing to be had in front of the same lord they are both trying to get into their camp.

Finally, Condal has this thing where he writes to make characters react instead of act. Seth Abramson explains HERE. This dragon and their riders losing control of them is a huge part of Condal's "theory of accidents".

Narrative Pros and Cons for the HotD Change of Aemond Losing Control of Vhagar

Inspired by this post.

Pros

Cons

So this idea of mutuality gets contradicted or overlooked over and over again in HotD.

There's a suggestion of magic in the dragon bond that could refer back to how the Valyrians might have made the bond through magic and did some pseudo "genetic engineering" to connect dragon to Valyrian with blood magic, forever morphing Valyrian blood. But in a show where we absolutely could delve into this, instead we're shown dragons as either manifestations of human emotions or wild beasts.

It's like the writers themselves didn't know what to make of theirs unique circumstance and just decided to make this bond as flashy as possible, spectacles that serve the human much more than otherwise.

"Oh, I'm so sorry, mom. I chased down my nephew on my battle-hardened dragon that once flew with one of my ancestors because he took my eye and didn't get punished for it. I didn't know that the magical connection between my dragon and I could ever make me lose control over my dragon, even though I should have known something like that could happen from all the times I rode her and felt her before, when she did stuff that showed she could feel what I feel. Let's just put it down that I wanted to kill him, yeah?"

I just can't get over it.

Love how some will say that Alicent was right to demand Lucerys' eye for Aemond's eye-for-an-eye, say that this principle of "justice" was "normal" for this non modern setting, say that Alicent's demand made sense and we shouldn't criticize her for it...

And then say that Daemon having B&C kill Jaehaerys for Lucerys' murder was somehow different.

(Fire and Blood; "A Son for a Son")

So here we have both persons work from eye-for-an-eye.

Lucerys was younger than Aemond. Just as Jaehaerys was younger than Lucerys.

Yet Alicent gets out scot free for her actions in the moral debate?

Jaehaerys' murder and how it went down was both blood-chilling and tragic. It was also a direct response to Lucerys' murder, which Aemond willfully did.

So we can't treat eye-for-an-eye as the justification for Alicent to then enact her own unfair, traumatic act. (Which happened before any other vengeful act from the blacks.)

And you know what else was “normal”, or sometimes seen as “good” or “necessary” for this fantasy world that's nonmodern-structured?

All of these things were either real in-universe customs or real actions people took for themselves. These are the exact things that some will condemn on a moral basis (valid) but then they also argue for Alicent's uprightness for doing a thing that in itself is amoral. Her being a mother and wanting to hurt someone else for hurting her son using such an amoral principle like as eye-for-an-eye doesn't make her a moral model to aspire to. Just a mother who's looking out for revenge.

She was not out here trying to act fairly nor does her action right a wrong. It was purely an emotional response to destroy those who hurt her son, which is itself valid but it can't be seen as inherently justified or "good" when it also means that you will have another traumatized child, younger than the other (just as Jaehaerys was), on your hands.

This why eye-for-an-eye is horrible. It is unproductive and actually brings about more resentment, more violence, more destruction without any problem solving. This is why it's avoided in the first place.

But again, I must reiterate that Daemon is not worse than Alicent herself when they both use eye for and eye their justification of "justice". It is that Alicent began it of her own volition and with fully functioning faculties.