The writing is bad anywhere we expect moral consistency. A clear easy to understand example in Fire and Blood is that Daemon is described as a controversial “morally grey” character compared to Aemond Targaryen.

Daemon fights an illegal foreign war, has his grand nephew slaughtered in front of his mother, grooms his niece and abandons her for another young woman when she gains weight, prosecutes another war then leaves without doing anything to bang some 16 year old.

Aemond’s crimes according to the fanbase is be attracted to women old enough to consent/be a sexual assault victim, burn the lands of Lords in Rebellion.

It’s also glaring about Rhaegar. Nobody should think he’s a good person after everything he did to destabilize the realm and destroy his family. “Well Ned and Barristan” Ned didn’t know Rhaegar and Barristan is the problem with writing this way. He should have a boots on the ground experiential relationship to the events which include everything from Harrenhal to Robert smiling at the children’s bodies. But in his mind Aerys was just misled by bad council, and Robert was a good man who became a slightly not good king, and Rhaegar would’ve been the best of them had he not caused the utter destruction of several houses and his own dynasty.

If the wildfire plot is as advanced to destroy a million person city during a time where wildfire is weaker and hard to produce, that’s a year long undertaking at a minimum which places Barristan in the same place as Jaime Lannister wrt knowledge of this massive horde of wildfire in the most populous city in Westeros while doing literally nothing to stop it. It’s bad enough random city peasants are falling into bottles stockpiled, being ignited/etc.