I mean that's just kinda standard storytelling to me.
You can only kill off so many good people unless you are going to have the bad people win right. But also killing off the good people sets the stage or story especially for an underdog improbable victory which is a common theme as well. You can't have emotional buyin and "stakes" if nobody good dies. GOT had a LOT of good guys so killing them while paring down the cast to the survivors is expected. It was in fact kind of a game at one point (still is to some degree) predicting who lives and who dies. Likewise there were plenty of bad guys but you don't need as many as long as they are winning - but their death also has more weight if they've killed many people both good and bad and pawns. Then they deserve their death more.
None of that has anything to do with TV vs book....that's the way the story was going to go.
A story in which the good guys win from the outset and kill the bad guys would be well....boring.
You can only kill off so many good people unless you are going to have the bad people win right. But also killing off the good people sets the stage or story especially for an underdog improbable victory which is a common theme as well. You can't have emotional buyin and "stakes" if nobody good dies. GOT had a LOT of good guys so killing them while paring down the cast to the survivors is expected. It was in fact kind of a game at one point (still is to some degree) predicting who lives and who dies. Likewise there were plenty of bad guys but you don't need as many as long as they are winning - but their death also has more weight if they've killed many people both good and bad and pawns. Then they deserve their death more.
None of that has anything to do with TV vs book....that's the way the story was going to go.
A story in which the good guys win from the outset and kill the bad guys would be well....boring.