Daenerys 'Stormborn' Targaryen: The Breaker Of Chains, Mother Of Dragons Etc

Lady S. · May 13, 2015

That's all well and good when it doesn't involve killing innocent people. It's not an act of war when you crucify people because you were personally insulted by barbarians. There goes the moral high ground. And it's hard to ignore the fact that Dany is forcing Hizdahr to marry her after killing his father and sacking his city, and feeding people to her dragons as a posturing threat, which is all stuff Sansa has suffered at the hands of her suitors.

We unequivocally and enthusiastically call Ramsay a villain. Same with Good King Joffrey. I really am starting to think that we're getting baited and switched here.

Um, ok, I guess if you wanna accept the basic premise that 163 children are property and not human beings, then have at it. But then it also follows that Mossador and Grey Wind and the rest of the majority slave population had no lawful reason to ever revolt against their masters with or without Dany.

When did Good King Joffrey ever break the laws of war? Certainly not executing confessed traitor Ned when he believed himself to be Robert's lawful heir, the only iffy part was doing it on church ground but I'm betting Cersei never stressed theology in her delightful chats with him, so that's not on him either. Even having Sansa beaten by his KG was still following the rules he was raised with about a king never personally striking his lady. Ramsay has been raised to flay and psychologically torture prisoners, flaying, dismemberment, and rape are the Boltons' cultural heritage just as much as slavery is to the nobles in slavers' bay. Dany's cultural heritage is fire and blood, not lawful trials (which don't amount to anything more than trial by combat in Westeros anyway), and yes, when the people on the receiving end of her dragonfire fit only marginally into a definition of innocence then I do think she has the moral high ground over the Boltons and over dear old mad dad too.

Maximum Taco · May 13, 2015

Daenerys wants to abolish slavery and to insure it remains abolished.

Ramsay wants to cream his jeans.

So there is some difference between them.

Is that the sigil of House Bolton that I see?

So is your argument that the ends justify the means? That's a dangerous place to go to.

Is it alright to kill an innocent for the benefit of others? Would you then be alright with Mel killing Gendry or Shireen if it helps Stannis save the realm?

Or are you simply saying that Dany is less evil than Ramsay because her injustices are done with a greater good in mind?

Edited May 13, 2015 by Maximum Taco

nksarmi · May 13, 2015

So is your argument that the ends justify the means?

That's a dangerous place to go to.

Is it alright to kill an innocent for the benefit of others?

Would you then be alright with Mel killing Gendry or Shireen if it helps them in the battle with the Others?

Or are you simply saying that Dany is less evil than Ramsay because her injustices are done with a greater good in mind?

I won't argue that killing an innocent is "ok" but I think when you are killing someone with "blood on their hands" the moral high ground gets muddled. The men that Dany were taunting had children crucified and left at every mile marker on the way to their city and at least some of them are backing the Harpy cause. Dany liberated the slaves and she is going to have to fight to keep them liberated. If you want to take issue with her decision making - I think that is fine. But I can't go so far as to call the maesters "innocent" like Gendry or Shireen.

If anyone on this damn show feeds Ramsey and/or Roose to a Dire Wolf - I will likely cheer them on.

Maximum Taco · May 13, 2015

I just don't think that is what the writers are going for with Dany. Remember these "innocent" people are the same ones who left crucified children at every mile marker on the way to their city. While Hizdahr's father may have spoken out against such atrocities, clearly he was in the minority. Furthermore, at least some of these maesters are in fact behind the Harpy attacks. So while Dany might not know who is guilty and innocent, she definitely knows there are some monsters among these people.

That doesn't make it alright to punish people at random though.

If I know 1 person among 5 is a murderer can I just pick 1 to punish and call it justice? That's what Dany is doing.

I won't argue that killing an innocent is "ok" but I think when you are killing someone with "blood on their hands" the moral high ground gets muddled. The men that Dany were taunting had children crucified and left at every mile marker on the way to their city and at least some of them are backing the Harpy cause. Dany liberated the slaves and she is going to have to fight to keep them liberated. If you want to take issue with her decision making - I think that is fine. But I can't go so far as to call the maesters "innocent" like Gendry or Shireen.

If anyone on this damn show feeds Ramsey and/or Roose to a Dire Wolf - I will likely cheer them on.

Some of them are those people who crucified children. Most definitely, but not all of them.

Look at Hizdahr himself, he's only the head of his family because Dany killed his father. I assume the same is true for 162 other masters.

She didn't discriminate when she called all of the family heads in, she just brought them all in and then fed one to her dragons seemingly at random. What if that guy had only come to power because she had his brother executed? Should he pay for his brother's crimes?

Dany doesn't do any investigation, and aside from the one episode she doesn't conduct trials or have any kind of due process. She does whatever the fuck she wants and calls it justice. Well it's not, it's tyranny.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Maximum Taco

Lady S. · May 13, 2015

Yes, Dany qualifies as a tyrant, she doesn't qualify as a Bolton. Her ends justify the means philosophy makes her pretty equivalent to Stannis to me, but burning slavers so the rest of the population can live free strikes me as a better motivation than burning your brother-in-law because he disagrees with his sister's religious conversion or considering burning your newfound nephew because your shadow-birthing mistress says it will save the world somehow.

DigitalCount · May 13, 2015

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Certainly, it was wrong to kill children and in such a barbaric way, and it was clearly meant as a taunt to Dany. But then, a just punishment would have been a normal execution after determining who was responsible. Was Mr. zo Loraq one of the people who thought, "hey, let's torture some kids to death as a screw you to this lady"? No, because as we know from Hizdahr, his father spoke out against it. So why was he killed in retaliation? And if you're going to lawfully execute someone, rather than murder them, why choose such a painful, torturous method? That, to me, is why it seemed like she was doing it because she felt insulted. Doing it for justice is using a normal method of execution like beheading or hanging. Doing it because you're pissed is saying "NO U" and crucifying them right back.

(I know this next part is probably subjective, but I would say that the deprivation of liberty as a punishment for depriving others of liberty makes more sense than the deprivation of life as a punishment for depriving others of liberty. So I'm not even sure if killing slaveowners as punishment for owning slaves is morally sound; why not have them work doing menial labor, or put them in a dungeon? But I'm not going to say that this makes her a villain on its own--it's just something to stick a pin in for later.)

So then, along with executing the head of a Great House for a crime he didn't commit, under dubious authority and after being counseled to show mercy, the murderous inbred psycho forces that man's child into an arranged marriage. Does the preceding sentence describe Dany or Joffrey? Maybe it'll become clearer if I say that the psycho tortured their spouse-to-be over an indeterminate length of time. Or punctuated their threats with deadly weapons.

And as pointed out by Taco, the people who are in power now--the heads of the Great Houses who Dany rounded up and imprisoned--are only in that position because Dany already killed the former heads of their Houses. She doesn't know if they're former slaveowners, she doesn't know if they're Harpies. And she can certainly assume that they weren't the decision-makers in their households until recently; she already killed those people! But she actually states that it doesn't matter if they are guilty or innocent. ("Who is innocent? Maybe all of you are, maybe none of you are. Maybe I should let the dragons decide.") That's just...what? If executing people at random doesn't make you a villain, what does? That line there, a direct quote, tells me everything I need to know about this person.

EDIT: Realized I was wrong about House zo Loraq, edited accordingly.

Edited May 13, 2015 by DigitalCount

Lady S. · May 14, 2015

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Certainly, it was wrong to kill children and in such a barbaric way, and it was clearly meant as a taunt to Dany. But then, a just punishment would have been a normal execution after determining who was responsible. Was Mr. zo Loraq a slaveowner? Was he one of the people who thought, "hey, let's torture some kids to death as a screw you to this lady"? No, because as we know from Hizdahr, his father spoke out against slavery; though he wasn't in a position with enough power to end it outright, he disagreed with the practice. So why was he killed in retaliation? If killing an innocent is not okay, there's at least one innocent who's died at her hands.

Nope, Hiz never denied being a slave master and has never denounced slavery, he only denied being in one the crucifying 163 children to provoke a dragon queen idiocy.

Here's your direct quotes

Hiz: My father spoke out against crucifying those children. He decried it as a criminal act, but was overruled. Is it justice to answer one crime with another?

Dany: I am sorry you no longer have a father, but my treatment of the masters was no crime. (This would be the point to deny being a master, Hiz does not.)

.....

Hiz: You are the queen and I am a servant of Meereen. A servant who does not wish to see its traditions eradicated.

House zo Loraq and the other Great Masters are all guilty of being slavers, and if that's not worthy of capital punishment then Ned is a villain for sentencing Jorah to death. Or what about that time he sentenced poor Gregor Clegane to death without any trial?

DigitalCount · May 14, 2015

Like I said, a normal execution method would have been a lawful execution, and in any case that's not why Dany crucified those guys. She did it because she was insulted by their barbaric display--something Hizdahr's father had no part in. He was innocent of that crime.

If Ned had beheaded Jorah, acting as Lord Paramount of the North and with his own greatsword as the lawfully agreed-upon method of execution, that would be one thing. If he had instead given him to Roose to flay over the course of a few days, and not because he was a slaveowner but rather because Jorah said something about Ned's mom, then yes, he would be a villain. Better yet if Jorah actually didn't say something about Ned's mom, but Ned thought he might have, and who cares if he actually did it? Innocent or guilty, doesn't matter.

When Ned sentenced Gregor to death, he had engaged in fact-finding, interviewed witnesses, and the perp was incredibly distinctive in appearance. For example, if Baldy McDraglunch had been wearing a t-shirt with a Harpy on it and saying, "Harpies rule!" Dany would have been right in taking that as evidence that he was in league with the SotH. Likewise, Hizdad wasn't questioned, he was just chosen as one of 163 randoms. In neither of these cases does Dany make any effort to find the actual culprit. This has two outcomes: an innocent is punished and a guilty guy goes free. For all she knows, there's still some guy in Meereen who was all, "whew, good thing she just chose 163 people at random to crucify, that idea I had seemed great at the time, who knew." Maybe that guy's the same guy wearing the Harpy t-shirt.

EDIT: What you said about Jorah just reminded me, lol, this guy used to work for Dany. Maybe she has a moral opposition to slavery, but how come he's still breathing after a) selling people into slavery and b) betraying Dany directly, which led to an attempt on her life? This woman is nuts.

Edited May 14, 2015 by DigitalCount

Estelindis · May 14, 2015

House zo Loraq and the other Great Masters are all guilty of being slavers, and if that's not worthy of capital punishment then Ned is a villain for sentencing Jorah to death.

Slavery is against the law in Westeros, but not in Essos. As such, Ned is entitled to punish Jorah for breaking the law. That said, one could argue about the relative freedoms of peasants/serfs in Westeros and slaves in Essos. Take a look at the horrific reveal from Roose in this week's episode: he had a miller killed and raped his widow because they married without his permission. I would've thought that "free" men and women could marry as they pleased. Actions like Roose's would fit more with what I expect of slavery. And then, on the other hand, you have the ex-slave tutor who pleads with Dany to be able to go back to his old position, who felt valued and respected in spite of being a slave.

Those are probably extreme cases, but I think it remains true that freedom is a relative value in both Westeros and Essos. Ordinary people suffer a lot in Westeros due to the actions of powerful noble families, not entirely unlike the way that slaves suffer in Essos due to the actions of the Masters. As such, painting all the Masters with one brush is wrong, just as it would be wrong to paint all the nobles in Westeros with one brush. There are good, kind lords and ladies who try to do the best for their people, and there are clearly at least some Meereenese nobles who speak out against injustices (even though, from the fact that the children were crucified, the ones who spoke out must have been in a minority - but what if good lords and ladies are in a minority in Westeros too?).

I think that Dany fails to appreciate those shades of grey. Maybe she's taking some steps now towards rectifying her mistakes, but I can't help but feel very uncomfortable about her telling Hizdahr he's marrying her (no choice?) when she could've just as easily had him killed horribly, just as she'd killed another family leader who might've been innocent. Clearly Hizdahr was expecting to die, given the way he pleads for his life in the cell. Actually, he probably had every reason to think he'd be the next noble killed by her dragons. Back in the scene with the dragons, she first spoke to all the nobles in Valyrian, but when she said "Don't want to over-feed them; tomorrow, perhaps," she spoke in the common tongue of Westeros, which she knows he understands. That's as good as telling him "You're up tomorrow."

It's really not entirely unlike Ramsay. Dany is clearly a far better person with much nobler intentions. However, there's still not a million miles between the way Ramsay makes Theon think part of his hand will be flayed, but then says "I forgive you," and the way Dany makes Hizdahr think he's going to be burned alive and eaten, and then tells him that actually he's going to marry her. Obviously Ramsay did that to manipulate Theon, whereas Dany thought about her actions and decided that she'd made a mistake that she needed to fix. But from the point of view of Hizdahr, he's at her mercy, and couldn't have stopped her from doing whatever she wanted, which must've been a pretty awful feeling. Actually, I would love it if this experience made Hizdahr genuinely realise at a deep, personal level why slavery was so wrong. Hate having no agency in your life, being subject to cruel whims? Gee, I wonder what that feels like...

Maximum Taco · May 14, 2015

House zo Loraq and the other Great Masters are all guilty of being slavers, and if that's not worthy of capital punishment then Ned is a villain for sentencing Jorah to death. Or what about that time he sentenced poor Gregor Clegane to death without any trial?

Slavery wasn't illegal until Dany came to town.

If alcohol were to become illegal today, would it be fair for the cops to arrest you cause they saw you having a drink at the bar a week ago?

Conversely slavery was very illegal in Westeros when Jorah decided to take up the activity. Ned is justified in humanely executing people by painlessly beheading them when they knowingly broke the laws that were widely known.

Dany is not justified in cruely executing people by crucifying them and/or burning them alive and feeding them to her pets for going about their lives before she showed up and changed the rules.

Also while I'm sure Ned would execute every slaver he came across and was sufficiently proven to be a slaver, thereby ensuring the law is universal and fair, Dany does not do this, seemingly executing people at random for crimes they may or may not have commited, and even knowingly admits her own ignorance of their guilt or innocence.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Maximum Taco

Lady S. · May 14, 2015

I was more speaking to the idea that depriving someone of their liberty is not a crime worthy of death, especially since I think that's a rather flippant description of slavery. Theon was deprived of his liberty by the Starks, he wasn't at risk of losing a hand for getting in a fight with Robb or his tongue for backtalking Ned, as long as Balon behaved himself, his son was both not free to leave Starks and treated as an "honored" guest. What we've seen in Slaver's Bay is more comparable to Theon's time with Ramsay or Gregor's treatment of the commoners in the riverlands. We've had one, for lack of a better term, house slave, who expressed different sentiments but there's no indication he represents more than a small minority, or that he'd go back to his master if it wasn't a choice between his master and starving on the streets. I think innocent slavers is a bit of an oxymoron, yes, Dany is executing people for the wrong crimes but can we really say they didn't deserve to die? Because if you go down that road of playing devil's advocate, it naturally follows that they didn't deserve to die at the hands of their own slaves either. Can't we call them possibly the wrong slavers instead of innocent slavers?

When Ned sentenced Gregor to death, he had engaged in fact-finding, interviewed witnesses, and the perp was incredibly distinctive in appearance.

He was an annointed knight with lands and a keep! Isn't he at least entitled to trial by combat? How is the word of some smelly peasants enough to deprive a knight of his lands, title, and his very life? OTOH, Joff's execution of a confessed traitor was perfectly legal and so was keeping the traitor's daughter who'd already agreed to marry him in a betrothal lawfully arranged between their fathers. Ned never read the big book of baby names to Joff or introduced him to Gendry, he had good reason to believe he was Robert's heir, so where's the tyranny in his treatment of Ned and Sansa in s1? And why are the zo Loraq family traditions of human bondage and human cockfighting better than the Bolton family traditions of flaying prisoners and raping commoners? Because it's all legal in Essos? Then flaying was A-OK right up until the moment it was outlawed in the North, and Hizdad had no reason to complain about the crucifixion of little pieces of human property on moral grounds since nobody was breaking the law.

Dany is an unfair ruler, yes, but a life of human bondage is still way more unfair. Reek, Ramsay's mother, and the other folks raped and pillaged by the Lannisters/Boltons/ironborn/Dothraki would probably identify more with Mossador and the other agitated freedmen, than with Hiz and the slavers upset about losing their valuable cultural traditions.

As for Jorah, Khal Drogo was a slaver too and Dany fell in love with him. She was bothered by slaves being whipped and raped by the Dothraki, but her first solution in s1 was to suggest the Dothraki marry the lamb women like Drogo married her. It wasn't until learning about the training of the Unsullied and seeing slaves crucified in Astapor that she decided slavery needed to be stopped, but so far that applies only to the extreme slavery seen in Slaver's Bay. And I, personally, see a vast difference between Jorah's one idiotic brush with slavery and slavery as a way of life. Jorah has always known slavery was wrong, just like he knew possibly arranging the death of a teenage girl and her unborn son was wrong, he did both out of desperation just like he's desperate now. He never believed human bondage was a valuable tradition which should be legal, just that it could be useful when Dany needed an army of eunuchs or his wife needed to keep her nice things. I don't care if Hiz learns slavery is bad just because Dany makes him feel powerless. Know what should have made him realize slavery was bad? Owning human beings his whole life and watching other people's slaves be dismembered, raped, or crucified. Yet he has never once denounced slavery. Why should I care that his family drew the line at crucifying children just to send a message to an enemy? If Dany took the heads of every Great Master just for being slavers (which their own slaves had already been incited to kill some of them for), how would their deaths then be unjust? Her execution methods are wrong, but not one of her victims have been wholly "innocent".

Let me put it this way, if I go on a murder spree and then the cops pick me up because of Taco's re-instated Prohibition scenario, I'd be unjustly imprisoned but not undeserving of punishment, even if I lived in a land where I was legally entitled to murder sprees but not entitled to slake my thirst with booze after a long and busy day of mowing people down.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Lady S.

Brn2bwild · May 14, 2015

I can't help but wish they had retained one aspect of the books: Dany taking children of the great families hostage instead of the "leaders."

It just seemed a little too easy that all of the heads of the families were gathered up. If anything, you would think they'd be savvy about possibly being captured and go into hiding.

Then Dany would take "something they would miss" (the kids), but find that she was unable to actually punish them.

Edited May 14, 2015 by SilverStormm
Tagged book talk.

Estelindis · May 14, 2015

And why are the zo Loraq family traditions of human bondage and human cockfighting better than the Bolton family traditions of flaying prisoners and raping commoners? Because it's all legal in Essos?

If they are better, it wouldn't be because of any legal issue (since something can be illegal but still moral) but due to deprivation of freedom and forced combat being better than torture and rape (if that is indeed the case; it is, of course, arguable). My point is that local traditions are different, but the underlying moral issues are the same. On the basis of a common morality, we can assess the situation both in Westeros and Essos, looking at problems related to slavery and feudal systems of government. In any situation where an elite holds power over the vast majority of society, people's freedom is severely curtailed. If, in your view, the Masters deserve to be executed universally, what do you think the lords and ladies of Westeros deserve?

Saje · May 14, 2015

I've been reading through these posts and everyone is awesome.

What I'm worried about is why hasn't she been out there with a fucking whip and raw meat TRAINING her dragons? They know her, and maybe still even love her, but if she doesn't dominate they will never LISTEN to her.

I would have been out there with a sharp stick when they did wrong and kisses/charred meat when they did right ever since they were babies. And saddled their thick hides as SOON as they became big enough.

She has no idea how to wield her biggest asset.

Lady S. · May 14, 2015

If they are better, it wouldn't be because of any legal issue (since something can be illegal but still moral) but due to deprivation of freedom and forced combat being better than torture and rape (if that is indeed the case; it is, of course, arguable). My point is that local traditions are different, but the underlying moral issues are the same. On the basis of a common morality, we can assess the situation both in Westeros and Essos, looking at problems related to slavery and feudal systems of government. In any situation where an elite holds power over the vast majority of society, people's freedom is severely curtailed. If, in your view, the Masters deserve to be executed universally, what do you think the lords and ladies of Westeros deserve?

To be killed based on their individual crimes, since the average lord is not a Tywin, Roose, or Greyjoy, and therefore I don't see them as comparable to slavers. Also, it's said in Roose's introductory scene that flaying is now outlawed in the North, and he doesn't actually claim a legal right to droit du seigneur with Ramsay's mother either, he just did it 'cause he felt like it. Rape and flaying are ancient family traditions with the Boltons, but very localized from all indications, just as raping and pillaging as a way of life and not just a way of war is very localized to the iron islands. My point is that I don't see how forced combat and life-long human bondage (where striking out against your master loses you a hand just like with the Boltons) don't qualify as torture. I mean, dragons are fictional but slavery is/was very real in our world, so I find some disturbing implications in quibbling about what constitutes a nice slaveowner. I always felt sympathetic to Dany's first kill, the witch Mirri Maaz Dur, and I'm going with her definition of life not being worthy of the name without some quality to make it worth living. Grey Worm appears to be using the same thinking by saying his life didn't start until Dany freed him and that living free for only a few moments is better than a lifetime of slavery. Even the freedman who chose to return to his master can't completely argue with that, since his case stressed the chaos of living free to starve on the streets even more than the benevolence of his former master.

So I lost my home. Now I live on the streets.

....

The young prey on the old. Take what they want and beat us if we resist.

....

The young may rejoice in the new world you have built for them, but for those of us too old to change, there is only fear and squalor.

Maybe his experience as a house slave really was perfectly nice, but removing the talk of defending his master, the basic thrust is still about a life worth living, and leaves open the possibility that he'd want differently if he was younger.

Meredith Quill · May 14, 2015

I've been reading through these posts and everyone is awesome.

What I'm worried about is why hasn't she been out there with a fucking whip and raw meat TRAINING her dragons? They know her, and maybe still even love her, but if she doesn't dominate they will never LISTEN to her.

I would have been out there with a sharp stick when they did wrong and kisses/charred meat when they did right ever since they were babies. And saddled their thick hides as SOON as they became big enough.

She has no idea how to wield her biggest asset.

Quote: "A dragon is not a slave."

Maximum Taco · May 14, 2015

I've been reading through these posts and everyone is awesome.

What I'm worried about is why hasn't she been out there with a fucking whip and raw meat TRAINING her dragons? They know her, and maybe still even love her, but if she doesn't dominate they will never LISTEN to her.

I would have been out there with a sharp stick when they did wrong and kisses/charred meat when they did right ever since they were babies. And saddled their thick hides as SOON as they became big enough.

She has no idea how to wield her biggest asset.

Thanks you're awesome too!

Dany has no idea how to wield any of her assets.

She ignores her councillors, she sends her army to be shock troops, she isn't using any of her huge amount of resources to build a navy to protect the city or (god forbid!) start planning an invasion of Westeros. She created probably thousands of useless mouths when she freed the slaves, and all she seems to be doing is sheltering them, she should be employing them.

The strong she should have Daario (or Barristan before he died) training them to be actual enforcement agents (police) instead of using her Unsullied (military.) The masons and shipwrights should be producing ships because I assume she still has eyes on conquering Westeros. The smart she should be employing as tutors and teachers to educate the less educated slaves, teach them to read and write and do sums etc so they can be employed as scribes and accountants etc.

She knows that Jorah was spying on her, I can't imagine she's stupid enough to think they gave up after he was discovered, and yet I don't see her developing her own intelligence network to find out what is happening in Westeros, or even in her own backyard in Yunkai or Qarth or Astapor.

Again more opportunities for employment. And she could pay all these people with the money she is using to support them, instead of just creating the welfare state it seems like she is creating. Her city is going to eat itself to death eventually.

Dany is a piss poor rular and a piss poor mother of dragons and a piss poor mhysa to the former slaves.

nksarmi · May 14, 2015

Maximum Taco- I think your last line about Dany is correct as of right now - I just remain hopeful that she will learn how to be better at some things. I am just hesitant to put a black hat on Dany over the death of a slave master.

Robert B was a drunk and whored around more than he ruled, but the kingdoms were at peace under him - likely because he had a good Hand. Dany wants to be a good queen and she does care about the people, but damn, she needs some good council and her best one just died. She needs Jorah, Varys, and Tyrion desperately but I do wonder if she will understand that she needs them every bit as much as she needs her dragons.

I like Stannis so much better in the show and I am almost to the point where I think he too could make a good king if he can stop letting Mel burn people. But he is cold king and definitely needs people who can help him connect to those he would rule. For what its worth, I think Renly would have sucked at it.

I don't know if we have seen any better rulers than Dany yet - especially with what she wants to do in ending slavery. It would in fact be a lot like if she came to Westerous and told the high lords they had to take better care of their people or she would seize their castles and let the people elect their own ruler or something of that sort. She's ambitious and it likely won't work out for her. But her counterparts can barely rule while keeping the status quo so I'm not giving up on her yet.

Estelindis · May 14, 2015

To be killed based on their individual crimes

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Personally, I think that the moment we kill because we want to, as opposed to because we have to, we become no better than the ones we're punishing. That lines up with what Barristan said to Dany: when the Mad King punished his enemies, it made him feel powerful. In lashing out against the Masters, I think Dany fell prey to that. I think Barristan's advice was better than what she did, and I'm glad that she seems to have recovered some perspective, though I suppose we'll see where that goes.

Even with the killing of Mossador, I'm not sure that she was right. It was clearly something she didn't want to do, something that didn't make her feel powerful, but I don't know if that can be the only gauge of these things. Should she have shown him mercy? If so, what would've been his punishment? Imprisonment? Whether she killed him or took his freedom back, it would've been difficult.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Estelindis

DigitalCount · May 14, 2015

The only thing I can point to is Jon, I guess. When he had to take out a group of raping, murdering mutineers, he did so as a man of the Night's Watch carrying out the lawful punishment. He did not, in contrast, take them prisoner and have them raped before tying them to posts and letting them freeze to death, then make a joke about crowcicles for Ghost to eat.

I don't personally think that slavers should just automatically be killed; I find it hard to justify the death penalty for any crime where there's no intent to kill someone. But even if I did, I don't think the death penalty allows an official complete abandon with which to act as cruelly as possible in retaliation. There's quickly ending a life, and then there's torture. Mossador was executed for definitely and brazenly murdering someone. Baldy was tortured to death for possibly being a terrorist. There's a difference.

And nothing at all will make Dany's "guilty or innocent no1curr" nonsense okay.

Constantinople · May 14, 2015

The only thing I can point to is Jon, I guess. When he had to take out a group of raping, murdering mutineers, he did so as a man of the Night's Watch carrying out the lawful punishment. He did not, in contrast, take them prisoner and have them raped before tying them to posts and letting them freeze to death, then make a joke about crowcicles for Ghost to eat.

Jon Snow proposed killing all of the mutineers from the start to prevent valuable intelligence from falling into the hands of Mance Rayer. Jon expressly stated it had nothing to do with punishment.

From Breaker of Chains, Season 4 Episode 3

Jon Snow: We need to ride north and kill them all.
Ser Alliser: We just went over this, boy. Justice can wait.

Jon Snow: It's not about justice. I told the wildlings we had over a thousand men at Castle Black alone. Karl and the others know the truth as well as we do. How long do you think they'll keep that information to themselves when the wildlings are peeling their fingernails off? Mance has all he needs to crush us, he just doesn't know it yet. As soon as he gets his hands on them, he will.

Saje · May 15, 2015

Quote: "A dragon is not a slave."

Said by the woman who keeps them in chains.

Seriously, I agree with you, but they are wild animals. They are fiery wild mustangs with wings and bigger teeth. I have no doubt that given free rein (sic) they would terrorize half the world. I can't imagine that they can ever be tamed completely now, but Dany is their de facto mother and she should have given them some skills that would help them be actually useful instead of just spinning about singeing everything that moves.

From what we've seen, she most likely has a tenuous psychological connection with them and I've no doubt that if she asserted herself with them, they would grudgingly obey. At least to some extent. They know she loves them, and they haven't fried her at any of their opportunities to do so. I just think she should've stepped up and done more with them when they were younger.

DigitalCount · May 15, 2015

Jon Snow proposed killing all of the mutineers from the start to prevent valuable intelligence from falling into the hands of Mance Rayer. Jon expressly stated it had nothing to do with punishment.

From Breaker of Chains, Season 4 Episode 3

Valid, though I doubt they'd have gone up to kill, say, a Night's Watch ranging party. Killing them was only the option they were taking because they were to be executed for desertion. If they'd been rangers the mission would probably have been to find them and bring them back to Castle Black.

Lady S. · May 15, 2015

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Personally, I think that the moment we kill because we want to, as opposed to because we have to, we become no better than the ones we're punishing.

Ah, maybe my problem is that that line of thinking always annoyed me in the Batman cartoons I watched as a child. But at least Gotham had some semblance of the imperfect American justice system, there's not much chance for rehabilitation for Roose Bolton or the slavers in slavers' bay, that's why it's such a sticking point for me that Hiz has never once denounced slavery or endorsed the rights of the freedmen. I say you become as bad as those you're punishing only when you commit the same crime, which for Dany would mean brutalizing people out of a belief that they are property and not people at all instead of a belief that they are bad people. And if we're just talking killing in general without enough legal cause, then Ned and Robb Stark and Oberyn Martell should also count as villains, since Joffrey's arrest and execution of Ned was perfectly legal and Gregor Clegane was following the orders of the lord he was legally bound to.

Valid, though I doubt they'd have gone up to kill, say, a Night's Watch ranging party. Killing them was only the option they were taking because they were to be executed for desertion. If they'd been rangers the mission would probably have been to find them and bring them back to Castle Black.

And if they were raping wildlings with inside info on the NW, they'd be killed for being wildings. And if they were sheep and potatoes, they could be made into a stew. Would they have even been executed for their desertion otherwise? Mance Rayder deserted north of the Wall and got away with it for years, though he and his friends did kill NW men, and he would have gotten away with that for good if he'd only bent the knee to Stannis.

I hate to use an argument Tywin and Cersei would agree with, but if someone has no wish to repent their crimes and actively wishes you dead and their old position restored, is that not a reason to have them killed? The only Meereeneese noble who supports her as Queen still has not adopted her beliefs on slavery. Dany is under siege is her own conquered city, I don't claim to be an expert on warfare but that sounds like just cause for martial law to me.

One last thing, slaver's bay's particularly cruel brand of slavery may be new to Dany, but the tradition is not since she's lived in Essos since she was a baby. She had Illyrio's slaves serving her when she first appeared, and I'm sure they weren't the first, then her brother sold her body to Khal Drogo and she lieved with slaves again in Drogo's khalasar. So it's not quite like going from a dry county to a wet one and trying to stop people selling liquor. She freed Drogo's slaves at his funeral, then decided she didn't even like other people having slaves when she saw how bad it was in Slaver's Bay.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Lady S.

Maximum Taco · May 15, 2015

Maximum Taco- I think your last line about Dany is correct as of right now - I just remain hopeful that she will learn how to be better at some things. I am just hesitant to put a black hat on Dany over the death of a slave master.

Robert B was a drunk and whored around more than he ruled, but the kingdoms were at peace under him - likely because he had a good Hand. Dany wants to be a good queen and she does care about the people, but damn, she needs some good council and her best one just died. She needs Jorah, Varys, and Tyrion desperately but I do wonder if she will understand that she needs them every bit as much as she needs her dragons.

I like Stannis so much better in the show and I am almost to the point where I think he too could make a good king if he can stop letting Mel burn people. But he is cold king and definitely needs people who can help him connect to those he would rule. For what its worth, I think Renly would have sucked at it.

I don't know if we have seen any better rulers than Dany yet - especially with what she wants to do in ending slavery. It would in fact be a lot like if she came to Westerous and told the high lords they had to take better care of their people or she would seize their castles and let the people elect their own ruler or something of that sort. She's ambitious and it likely won't work out for her. But her counterparts can barely rule while keeping the status quo so I'm not giving up on her yet.

It's not the death that bothers me. It's the inconsistency in judgment as well as the unnecessary cruelty of the deaths.

If she wants to put all of the slave masters to death for the crime of being slave masters, fair enough, she should do that. But that's not what she's doing, she's putting random people to death for random crimes that she has no proof they committed of not. And she's not simply killing them, she is killing them in horrific ways, and I can't see any reason to do that, other then she delights in it. She takes pleasure from the terrible pain she inflicts upon these bad people.

Your analogy is flawed, Dany didn't come into Meereen and tell the slave owners to treat their charges better, she just killed them. There was no ultimatum to treat people better, or change their ways. She just killed them, and horrifically, and delighted in it.

Think about it this way. The Starks are part of the alliance that slaughtered Dany's family, they are, at the very least, part of the reason that her father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and neice and nephew were killed. They may not have done the deed themselves, but they are at least partly the reason it happened, because they were one of the main proponents in Robert's Rebellion. They might have spoken against it, they might have denounced it as a crime, but they didn't actually stop it, and they didn't punish anyone who did it.

It can thusly be said that the Starks probably had a similar hand in the murder of the royal children that the zo Loraq family had in the slaughter of the slave children. If Ned was still alive I think it would be fair for Dany to kill him for the crime of treason, he is definitely a traitor. But would it have been alright for Dany to crucify him for the crime of murdering children, taking her time to make sure his suffering was long and extended? Would it therefore be ok for Dany to burn Sansa, Bran, Arya and Rickon alive for the crime of murdering children or for treason? Are they child murderers or traitors or are they just Starks?

Edited May 15, 2015 by Maximum Taco

DigitalCount · May 15, 2015

Yeah, I do think Dany has a specific desire for the people she kills to suffer while she's killing them, at least when it's vengeance. She's burned a bunch of people to death, with really only one occasion where it was necessary to kill them that way (Pyat Pree), she locked Doreah and Daxos in a vault to dehydrate over the course of days in utter darkness, why does she seem to be such a sadist? This most recent episode was the most ridiculous example where she didn't order one of her several former slave guards or her amoral boy toy to behead the man or stab him in the heart, nope, you're getting fried and ripped apart by dragons.

Theon butchered two children to save face. Did he deserve death? Yeah, probably. Did he deserve Ramsay? Doubtful. I don't think it's all the same just because he deserves to die.

Constantinople · May 15, 2015

Valid, though I doubt they'd have gone up to kill, say, a Night's Watch ranging party. Killing them was only the option they were taking because they were to be executed for desertion. If they'd been rangers the mission would probably have been to find them and bring them back to Castle Black.

Jon Snow kills to withhold information.

Daenerys Targaryen kills to obtain information.

Jon was more successful, but they still have the same motivation.

Lady S. · May 16, 2015

It's not the death that bothers me. It's the inconsistency in judgment as well as the unnecessary cruelty of the deaths.

If she wants to put all of the slave masters to death for the crime of being slave masters, fair enough, she should do that. But that's not what she's doing, she's putting random people to death for random crimes that she has no proof they committed of not. And she's not simply killing them, she is killing them in horrific ways, and I can't see any reason to do that, other then she delights in it. She takes pleasure from the terrible pain she inflicts upon these bad people.

Your analogy is flawed, Dany didn't come into Meereen and tell the slave owners to treat their charges better, she just killed them. There was no ultimatum to treat people better, or change their ways. She just killed them, and horrifically, and delighted in it.

Think about it this way. The Starks are part of the alliance that slaughtered Dany's family, they are, at the very least, part of the reason that her father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and neice and nephew were killed. They may not have done the deed themselves, but they are at least partly the reason it happened, because they were one of the main proponents in Robert's Rebellion. They might have spoken against it, they might have denounced it as a crime, but they didn't actually stop it, and they didn't punish anyone who did it.

It can thusly be said that the Starks probably had a similar hand in the murder of the royal children that the zo Loraq family had in the slaughter of the slave children. If Ned was still alive I think it would be fair for Dany to kill him for the crime of treason, he is definitely a traitor. But would it have been alright for Dany to crucify him for the crime of murdering children, taking her time to make sure his suffering was long and extended? Would it therefore be ok for Dany to burn Sansa, Bran, Arya and Rickon alive for the crime of murdering children or for treason? Are they child murderers or traitors or are they just Starks?

Well, death by dragonfire is kind of a family tradition, but yes, her more eye-for-an-eye killings were all her own. And Ser Barrythe Bold and Merciful was also inconsistent, since I believe he smiled during the Dracarys scene, and frying Krasnyz and having his slaver friends killed after giving him Drogon under false pretenses was unmerciful and dishonest to boot.

Should Dany have asked the Meerenneese nicely to give up slavery after they sent her a message with the mile markers? She got their own slaves to conquer them, it was pretty much her most honorable conquest yet. Of course crucifying 163 slavers at random was unjust, is anyone saying it wasn't? But even sadism doesn't make her evil when she believed (wrongly and unjustly) that they could all be blamed for the children's crucifixions. Her only role model in being a Targ monarch was Viserys, so isn't it possible that has more to do with her poor sense of justice than a Ramsay-like love of watching people in pain?

No, Dany'd probably be more likely to have Ned killed the way one of her relatives was, and none of them were crucified. As for the Stark kids, I don't believe any of them are slaveowners, so they're probably safe. The only "innocent" people Dany's ever had killed were pro-slavery, and even if we accept the premise of an innocent slaver, we don't know who or how many of them actually are "innocent". We only have Hiz's own word that his dad drew a line against child crucifixions, but how many of the others didn't? And the most recent Mr. Dragonchow could have been wearing an I heart Harpys t-shirt under there for all we know. It's bad ruling that she didn't catch the right people to stop this shit, but the best we can say about the ones she did kill is they were possibly not guilty, we can't know the truth of their guilt any more than Dany did, that's part of the problem.

Estelindis · May 16, 2015

Ah, maybe my problem is that that line of thinking always annoyed me in the Batman cartoons I watched as a child. But at least Gotham had some semblance of the imperfect American justice system, there's not much chance for rehabilitation for Roose Bolton or the slavers in slavers' bay, that's why it's such a sticking point for me that Hiz has never once denounced slavery or endorsed the rights of the freedmen. I say you become as bad as those you're punishing only when you commit the same crime, which for Dany would mean brutalizing people out of a belief that they are property and not people at all instead of a belief that they are bad people.

I'm no expert on Batman. I don't know if his code is totally against killing or if he's okay with killing if it's necessary to defend the lives of others or himself. All I can say is that when I draw the distinction between killing because one has to and because one wants to, I'm pointing to a difference between killing in the heat of combat in order to protect people (which is constructive) and killing in order to satisfy emotional urges like the lust for vengeance (which is destructive).

Hizdahr hasn't condemned slavery, to our knowledge, but he hasn't defended it either. Whenever he speaks about respecting traditions, he never mentions slavery. He's only had a few lines so far in a small number of scenes, so we hardly have the opportunity to see what he thinks about many things. "I cannot defend the actions of the Masters" was his comment on the murder of the slave children. Also, his words when he comes back from Yunkai might imply that he's onboard with Dany's new, slavery-free world order: "In the new world that you've brought to us, free men would fight free men." Interestingly, he also speaks on behalf of the some of the people she freed: "The pit fighters you liberated plead for this opportunity. Bring some here and ask them for yourself." However, she's not interested in their perspective if it doesn't fit into her own views. They're free to do what they want, as long as it's also what she wants. She's a mother who knows what's best for her children.

Dany mightn't believe people are property, but she can still treat people as if they are. I think that's how she treats the family leaders who she arrests, by acting like their lives are disposable. I think that's how she treats Hizdahr when she dictates that she will marry him, regardless of his views. Her own introduction to "slavery" was an arranged marriage, after all.

The only "innocent" people Dany's ever had killed were pro-slavery, and even if we accept the premise of an innocent slaver, we don't know who or how many of them actually are "innocent". We only have Hiz's own word that his dad drew a line against child crucifixions, but how many of the others didn't? And the most recent Mr. Dragonchow could have been wearing an I heart Harpys t-shirt under there for all we know. It's bad ruling that she didn't catch the right people to stop this shit, but the best we can say about the ones she did kill is they were possibly not guilty, we can't know the truth of their guilt any more than Dany did, that's part of the problem.

In terms of whether pro-slavery people can ever be innocent, it depends what you mean by "innocent." They're obviously not innocent of taking part in a system that deprives many people of their freedom, but to what extent would alternatives have been possible in their particular circumstances? Since Meereen was a city apparently ruled by several families rather than one, any given family wouldn't have been able to make huge, sweeping change, like abolishing slavery. Probably the best any well-intentioned nobles could do would be to work for better treatment and some freedoms for slaves. The other families wouldn't let them win other concessions, since they wouldn't want their power, built on slavery, to be eroded. That would be compatible with a situation where Hizdahr's father unsuccessfully argued against crucifying the slave children. His position was clearly a minority among the Masters, no matter how beloved a citizen he was. (And, really, Dany doesn't just have to take Hizdahr's word on this. His family's famous. It should be possible to find out what kind of person his father was, how he tended to vote, etc., if she wanted to look into it. Since she could find out so easily, it'd be surprising if Hizdahr would lie about it.)

Dany has troops and dragons that let her seize power, allowing her to use brute force to implement her will (not that it's implemented perfectly as she wants). Any Meereenese noble who wanted to end slavery didn't have the benefit of dragons and an army. Or... let's imagine that all the noble families had some warriors, household guard, or what-have-you. If the ones that want better lives for slaves are in a minority, they're going to lose any fight involving troops. And maybe the group that would suffer most in such a conflict would be the slaves anyway. Maybe slaves would be forced to fight each other in those struggles. It's a classic dilemma between order (or oppression?) and freedom (or chaos?). A certain tyrannical order might be abolished in an armed struggle, but will what replaces it make the lives of most people better?

Now Dany arrives, with the ability to fundamentally change the situation in Meereen by force. It seems to me that someone like Hizdahr, who chooses to work with her, is likely in favour of a situation in Meereen where the freedom of the liberated people is balanced by an order that gives structure and security to society. However, he's unlikely to have had much influence on the matter up to this point, given that his father had been the head of his family previously, and even then couldn't win a vote on something really morally important!

How much influence, then, can we attribute to Mr. Dragonchow? If the nobles Dany brought down to the dragons were the heads of all the noble families, then there aren't hundreds of such families. This means that, on average, each family must have lost several members to Dany's crucifixions. It's quite probable that all, or nearly all, of those responsible for making decisions in pre-Dany Meereen are already dead. So... he'd have to be pretty innocent, in that sense. Of course, it's possible that he was secretly working with the Sons of the Harpy, but there's no evidence supporting that. The alternative is that there are way more heads of noble families than the ones she brought before the dragons, and she just put the other ones in cells initially (which, of course, we can't rule out completely).

Edited May 16, 2015 by Estelindis

Ambrosefolly · May 16, 2015

No, Dany'd probably be more likely to have Ned killed the way one of her relatives was, and none of them were crucified. As for the Stark kids, I don't believe any of them are slaveowners, so they're probably safe. The only "innocent" people Dany's ever had killed were pro-slavery, and even if we accept the premise of an innocent slaver, we don't know who or how many of them actually are "innocent". We only have Hiz's own word that his dad drew a line against child crucifixions, but how many of the others didn't? And the most recent Mr. Dragonchow could have been wearing an I heart Harpys t-shirt under there for all we know. It's bad ruling that she didn't catch the right people to stop this shit, but the best we can say about the ones she did kill is they were possibly not guilty, we can't know the truth of their guilt any more than Dany did, that's part of the problem.

In defense of Ned and his hand in her family's slaughter, hopefully she would hear what her father did to his father and brother after her (married) brother either ran off/kidnapped Ned's sister, that despite what the Targaryen did to his family, he not only wanted Jaime sent to the Wall for killing the King, he was so haunted not only what happened to Rhaegar's wife and children and upset at Robert's lack moral outrage, he didn't speak to Robert for several years.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Ambrosefolly

Lady S. · May 16, 2015

I'm no expert on Batman. I don't know if his code is totally against killing or if he's okay with killing if it's necessary to defend the lives of others or himself. All I can say is that when I draw the distinction between killing because one has to and because one wants to, I'm pointing to a difference between killing in the heat of combat in order to protect people (which is constructive) and killing in order to satisfy emotional urges like the lust for vengeance (which is destructive).

Hizdahr hasn't condemned slavery, to our knowledge, but he hasn't defended it either. Whenever he speaks about respecting traditions, he never mentions slavery. He's only had a few lines so far in a small number of scenes, so we hardly have the opportunity to see what he thinks about many things. "I cannot defend the actions of the Masters" was his comment on the murder of the slave children. Also, his words when he comes back from Yunkai might imply that he's onboard with Dany's new, slavery-free world order: "In the new world that you've brought to us, free men would fight free men." Interestingly, he also speaks on behalf of the some of the people she freed: "The pit fighters you liberated plead for this opportunity. Bring some here and ask them for yourself." However, she's not interested in their perspective if it doesn't fit into her own views. They're free to do what they want, as long as it's also what she wants. She's a mother who knows what's best for her children.

lol, I'm no Batman expert either, but I enjoyed the cartoons as a kid and I remember killing being a big no-no. My thing here, I guess, is that vengeance is such an accepted motive in this world from the pure and noble like Brienne and Robb Stark to the bloodthirsty Dornish, that it feels weird to condemn Dany's motives instead of just criticizing her methods. (Mossador got the most humane death, assuming Daario did it right, but Mr. Dragonchow at least died faster than the crucified or than how Doreah and Ducksauce would have ended in that vault. And we really can't have a main character with dragons and not let them have a BBQ now and then, can we? If it's gotta be someone on the receiving end, slavers are better for me than more truly innocent people.) I'd think a real psycho wouldn't just thoughtlessly order a mass crucifixion and walk away, she'd want to savor all of those long and painful deaths. I mean, I'm sure Ramsay enjoys every moment of his sadistic playtime. Dany was happy during her little show in the dragon vault, but was that because she got off on the guy's pain or was enjoying the others' fear or getting a (very misplaced) sense of payback for Ser Barry or just enjoying being in tune with her dragon children again after so long? I see no reason to assume pure shits and giggles was the primary factor when I think there was a lot going on in that scene. What about Jorah enjoying her first victory in Astapor, is he disturbed for being in love with such a woman and admiring her dishonorable ruthlessness?

I just realized Viserys was definitely not her only role model as a ruler, she's also very influenced by her late and ferocious warlord husband who kept his horde in control by being able to brutally kill anyone who resisted him or threatened his family. Dany watched Drogo dispatch her abusive brother, punish the wine merchant who tried to poison her, and fight off one of his own mooks for disagreeing with her. Being his wife was her first real taste of power and agency after a lifetime of living in fear of her abusive brother and their enemies across the sea, then she got her own independent power by hatching the world's only 3 flying flamethrowers. Is it any wonder the Mother of Dragons and Khaleesi of Dothraki only really knows how to rule through terror and harsh and distorted justice? It's bad ruling but it's all she knows, so can we really say it's the only way she'd ever want, that she's incapable of learning better and would do exactly the same in Westeros? Yes, other people have tried counseling a gentler course already, but Jorah tried that only once and she did listen to him then, and Ser Barry's advice was less than helpful imo, he was a military mind not used to really speaking freely to his monarch. I just don't think slaver's bay is a good place to learn diplomacy, because most of the other powerful people don't really want her there and just want their own positions back, and I doubt that's likely to change.

As for the zo Loraqs in particular, wouldn't all the surviving nobles want to distance themselves from those mile markers after seeing Dany's reaction? Or else all point the finger at each other so the dirty truth stays hidden? Even if she did find out he was lying, at least he'd have gotten his father's body off the cross, which he certainly wasn't going to do by defending crucifying children. If he was really thrilled by the emancipation, I think he'd want to trumpet that fact at every opportunity. (His first appearance was on the walls of Meereen in 4.03 and he didn't look too happy to see her.) Like when Dany badmouths the other slavers or Mossador said none of the nobles recognized the freedmen as people, why not chime in with a more emphatic and persuasive "not all slavers!"? His lukewarm support of the new regime is in his own interests if he's the kind of guy to see which way the wind is blowing and try to stay out of the dragonfire. Saying there are gladiators who'd like to return to the pits serves him and his respect for tradition just as much as it does the human cockfighters who only know one way of life. (And isn't it interesting that his second appeal on the subject coincided with the green whore's second ambush with the Sons of the Harpy? Convenient if they needed Dany distracted for a while.) And don't all mothers think they know what's best for their children or at least, aren't most lords/monarchs pretty arrogant? If Hiz was a slave I'd doubt he'd ever get to speak so freely to his master as Hiz did prior to this ep, we'll have to see how she actually treats him as a mate. I'm not saying Hiz is definitely down with the Harpys or even just a lying liar but I do think his trustworthiness should not be taken for granted when he's had reason to hate Dany from the very start, and reason to hide his feelings.

Anyway, this has been a nice back-and-forth, Estelindis, but I think we may have reached the endpoint until we actually get more new development in Meereen.

Hecate7 · May 16, 2015

Yeah, I do think Dany has a specific desire for the people she kills to suffer while she's killing them, at least when it's vengeance. She's burned a bunch of people to death, with really only one occasion where it was necessary to kill them that way (Pyat Pree), she locked Doreah and Daxos in a vault to dehydrate over the course of days in utter darkness, why does she seem to be such a sadist? This most recent episode was the most ridiculous example where she didn't order one of her several former slave guards or her amoral boy toy to behead the man or stab him in the heart, nope, you're getting fried and ripped apart by dragons.

Theon butchered two children to save face. Did he deserve death? Yeah, probably. Did he deserve Ramsay? Doubtful. I don't think it's all the same just because he deserves to die.

I object to the Doreah and Daxos example. That was the death THEY had planned for HER. It was only fair that she turn the tables and let them experience firsthand the end they were about to treat her to.

Estelindis · May 16, 2015

Anyway, this has been a nice back-and-forth, Estelindis, but I think we may have reached the endpoint until we actually get more new development in Meereen.

Yes, thank you for the very interesting discussion! I'm super-keen to see what happens in Meereen next.

For full disclosure, I think it's likely that Hizdahr actually does have something to do with the SotH, or will reach out to them in response to Dany's recent actions, but I only think that's likely because he's the show's single named Meereenese character, so there aren't really any other candidates. It's not because of how his character has been portrayed so far. I dislike meta issues like these and the one you raised about Dany having dragons and thus us needing to see them BBQ some people, but somehow I can't stop myself from noticing them.

Maximum Taco · May 16, 2015

I object to the Doreah and Daxos example. That was the death THEY had planned for HER. It was only fair that she turn the tables and let them experience firsthand the end they were about to treat her to.

Just because something is fair, doesn't mean it's just or right or good.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Maximum Taco

nksarmi · May 16, 2015

In defense of Ned and his hand in her family's slaughter, hopefully she would hear what her father did to his father and brother after her (married) brother either ran off/kidnapped Ned's sister, that despite what the Targaryen did to his family, he not only wanted Jaime sent to the Wall for killing the King, he was so haunted not only what happened to Rhaegar's wife and children and upset at Robert's lack moral outrage, he didn't speak to Robert for several years.

Hopefully Dany will grow to be the type of person who could listen to this about Ned, but I have to agree with those who argue they have not shown this so far on the series. I think the best we could ask of Dany is that she be like Stannis and allow those who once opposed her family to bend the knee and be spared, but even Stannis seems to hold a grudge against those who rode with Renly in the first place.

Holmbo · May 17, 2015

Interesting discussion with lots of good point brought up.

Personally I don't think it's possible to judge the masters as bad people solely because they where owning slaves. That is the society they grew up in and if we can't apply cultural relativism to people in this series then no character is worth rooting for since they've all done things which would be inexcusable in our modern world. (No one protests against the dictatorship system of governance or the lack of rights for women).

So a person who's owned slaves in Mereen is no more a bad person than say Ned Stark. They both happened to be born in a position of power in unjust societies and they don't try to change the system (though maybe some of the masters did try to change it, we don't know).

To continue the comparison to Dany's action. If some guys with democracy and the belief that all humans are worth the same came to westeros and burned Ned Stark for supporting a dictatorship and having his people living in squalor and poverty I don't know that I would consider them totally unjustified for doing so.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Holmbo

Maximum Taco · May 18, 2015

Interesting discussion with lots of good point brought up.

Personally I don't think it's possible to judge the masters as bad people solely because they where owning slaves. That is the society they grew up in and if we can't apply cultural relativism to people in this series then no character is worth rooting for since they've all done things which would be inexcusable in our modern world. (No one protests against the dictatorship system of governance or the lack of rights for women).

So a person who's owned slaves in Mereen is no more a bad person than say Ned Stark. They both happened to be born in a position of power in unjust societies and they don't try to change the system (though maybe some of the masters did try to change it, we don't know).

To continue the comparison to Dany's action. If some guys with democracy and the belief that all humans are worth the same came to westeros and burned Ned Stark for supporting a dictatorship and having his people living in squalor and poverty I don't know that I would consider them totally unjustified for doing so.

That comparison is once again not apt.

If Dany was killing them for the crime of owning slaves, she should kill all of them. And I actually would be more ok with that, because at least the logic works out. They are guilty of owning slaves, everyone who is guilty of said crime dies.

The problem is that Dany isn't killing them for being slave owners. She is killing them for crucifying children, and for supporting terrorism. But she isn't actually bothering to investigate who did order the children killed, and who did support the terrorists. She's just killing masters randomly because she knows some of the masters supported the crucifixion and some of the masters are supporting the terrorists. Slave ownership is not the crime Dany is prosecuting, it is an attribute that the criminals have.

This would be the same as if a police officer saw a man in a white hat commit a crime, and then started randomly shooting men in white hats, hoping that he got the right one. Wearing the hat is not the crime, it's just an attribute that the criminal had. It can be used to narrow the search, but it can't (by itself) be used to prove guilt.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Maximum Taco

Holmbo · May 18, 2015

Ah you're right Taco. My main point was the slavery one though which I stand by.

Rocket · May 19, 2015

Hum see a lot of applying Enlightenment principles to a pre Enlightenment world. I try to judge people by the moral standards of their time not ours. Second even post enlightenment I refuse to use the black and white logic that makes Danny and Ramsey the same that seams to being argued here.

This is not a police officer situation. This is the military options a ruler has to take situation. This is why war is always evil to some extent. Under the laws of war innocence or guilt is never the question, the question is the target a legitimate target or not. Pre enlightenment a legitimate target is a member of a group that some members of have attacked you. This is one reason why thousands of common folk uprising always failed. Urban gorilla action was always ended sooner or later by killing them all. Rural actions were ended by poisoning all the water supplies, killing all the game, and burning all the crops, like how Sherman and Sheridan took out the Apache and other indians who evaded and raided US troops for decades. By the way Lincoln suspended civil rights, made mass arrests, helped one governor become the dictator of his state for the duration of the war to keep it in the Union, and had generals like Sherman destroy everything in large areas to win, I think winning justified it as Lincoln worked very hard to pass an amendment to end slavery after winning the war.

In pre enlightenment times war actions went farther a ruler did what was necessary to win and if they did not this showed they were weak to all. No you did not need to rape and pillage the country side, that a bad tactic if you don't intend to kill them all, but if you can't figure out the guilty from the innocent back then you would have to kill them all. By the way torture works, the problem is you end up torturing and killing a lot of innocents in the process and the information is normally only good if you can immediately raid the target. Torture was part of tools the Mussolini used to totally wipe out the Mafia until the US let the few imprisoned survivors out. So torture works as long as your willing to be a despot as well (best to only confine to your country as well when your willing to kill them all if lessor measures fail).

Also rullers even now sometimes have drop into necessary evils to protect their countries, these I judge by motivation and alternatives.

In a pre enlightenment society the right of a ruler to do almost anything is often considered absolute. And any ruler who tried to use modern justice standards against their enemies will lose as no one will respect them. In example Peter the Great tried to address injustices and treat the inhabitants of a rebelling town justly, this show of weakness caused the town to kill all of Peters representatives. Peter then had the army kill everyone in the area no attempt to determine guilt and hanged them the slow way on rafts that he then sent down river to reminded everyone mess with the Emperor he will end it. Peter did use torture to obtain information even used the tongs and applied the hot coals him self, not because he enjoyed it just as an example he would do anything he asked others to do. But Peter was wonderful over all for Russia taking a backward country and making it a modern world power and improving the arts and culture. As stated in a GOT promo all rulers are butchers or they are meat. The difference between a good ruler and bad is what they do otherwise. Danny really needs to make clear she will kill all the slaver families even the children if this continues and probably is best off if she just does it no discussion. I'll draw on Machiavelli here you either treat conquered people as same as your citizens or you wipe them out. In this case if you want to free the slaves you then can't give the slavers what they want slaves so the slavers must be eliminated if you want your rule to be sure. Machiavelli is not evil or good, he is grey, he just points out what works which is rather be totally good or totally evil on things, no half measures. And pre enlightenment Machiavelli is right a ruler first duty is to rule and can not be anything else if they lose so must do what history shows works.

A necessary evil is still evil and a ruler should always take them reluctantly and feel guilty afterwards.

I will judge Danny a Great and good ruler if she advances rights over all and improves dramatically the areas she controls even if she has to make a lot of omelets just like all the other Greats. I will judge any ruler in Game of thrones bad if they don't maintain rule or don't act to improve things over all. To follow some nobel principle and lose when not following it would let you win and actually do something like end slavery I consider the greater evil.

You don't rase Armies and win in a world like this without having a huge Ego, being sure of your destiny, and being willing to do what is necessary to win. The common people of Westros are slaves by modern standards, they just a somewhat better type of slave bound to the land not an owner so they can not be sold on a market. I am sure Danny when she realizes that will free them as well, she will leave the nobles in charge of their areas she just will restrict what they can do to their free people. She might set up the first independent judge system as well, excepting the ruler of course rights of kings and all.

The Elite viewers of Anime consider the huge, 3 movies and 162 episode, Legends of the Galactic Hero's the best anime ever, and politicians in the east love to quote it on the nature of democracy. In short legends covers all the arguments and more by having a corrupt democracy think the worst of the US and other democracies fighting against a corrupt empire until a man a mixture of Fredric the Great, Napoleon and other greats takes total power overthrowing the old Emperor. This new emperor although feely admitting he had no right to take over provides to make the Empire a free from corruption rule of law country lifting the oppression of the common man vastly improving education and the economy and clearly by the end it's better for the average man to be ruled by him then the democracy, His chief foe totally a just man with no ambition but brilliant commander has total obedience to democracy no mater how poor it is even though clearly the troops, and most of the population would make him ruler if he just would agree to do it. The anime gives no clear answers and there is no bad guy in the eventual main leaders so it makes you think.

DigitalCount · May 19, 2015

There's a lot here that I'm not sure is relevant, but I definitely disagree that Dany has to be bloodthirsty and indiscriminate in applying torture and punishment. In fact, I think it will be her undoing. Not all rulers need to go full on iron fist, and the best ones inspired both fear and love. What Dany is doing is likely to create reasons to hate her. Given that you're a student of Machiavelli, you know that people will hurt themselves to spite a ruler that is hated. In fact, the great love vs. fear debate is a misunderstanding of his writings; you should go for both, but settle for fear only if you can't get fear and love. Tywin made the same mistake, and it cost him both life and legacy.

Furthermore, Dany has shown that there really isn't any reason not to support the SotH, because even if you don't you might get roasted. And if the Sons manage to oust her, they get their privilege back, so there's no practical reason not to plot against her. She's making many enemies with only a token effort to make friends. Even from a pre-E perspective, her strategy is doomed.

Funzlerks · May 19, 2015

I think most of GoT and the books is showing that leadership will not last if it only consists of slashing, burning, raping, and backstabbing. None of the bad guys are really doing to hot at this point, either. No leader is perfect but I think the series started with Eddard for a reason and it wasn't that he was so stupid. Daenerys's main issue is that she has all these selfish urges combined with little regard for others'. I would say it goes to the point that slavery is one of the few things that garners empathy from her. Eddard, for his harsh adherence to justice, also empathized with deserters, with the children of his enemies, with even Cersei. He understood that it wasn't a good thing to execute, it gave him no pride. The show put Jon's execution of Janos Slynt next to Dany's botched and ostentatious one for a reason. Both made the crowd uneasy, but one leader was still understood and respected afterward, the other had to be shielded by her mercenary army. She bought them with freedom, not money, and most people seem to follow her out of awe of her dragons or fear of them.

And I have yet to see any cleverness or concern with helping poor people out of poverty. I don't think she would naturally side with the peasants vs. the nobles. She believes in inheritances, birthrights, her own nobility - so why would she necessarily be the choice of the small folk? I am sure Tyrion-delivered to her with a bow through no action of her own -will grant her some much-needed Westerosi knowledge, but I want to see something from her beyond I will burn everything and then I will rule. The end.

Constantinople · May 19, 2015

The show put Jon's execution of Janos Slynt next to Dany's botched and ostentatious one for a reason. Both made the crowd uneasy, but one leader was still understood and respected afterward, the other had to be shielded by her mercenary army. She bought them with freedom, not money, and most people seem to follow her out of awe of her dragons or fear of them.

Jon Snow had the good fortune to execute someone who'd be publicly called out for cowardice in battle by Sam Tarly of all people; Daenerys didn't.

Lady S. · May 19, 2015

Jon Snow had the good fortune to execute someone who'd be publicly called out for cowardice in battle by Sam Tarly of all people; Daenerys didn't.

And Jon, being stubbornly honorable, would have executed Janos even if Throne actually did care about Slynt and even if Janos's friends in King's Landing weren't wholly imaginary. So I don't think Jon showed he was smarter than Dany or Robb (with his execution of Karstark), so much as he was lucky to be in an elected position with his authority recognized even by Alliser Thorne, and sentencing a worthless coward who had not a friend in the world. He was working from a much stronger position than Dany or s3 Robb, so while there's an obvious comparison to be made, the stakes are not equal ones for all the teenaged leaders.

After Tyrion stated all the reasons not to support Dany's claim, I expect we will soon see Dany have to confront those issues and can then judge accordingly.

bluvelvet · May 25, 2015

You know Dany getting upset with the fighting rang false to me, I mean she just fed a man to her dragons and watched them tear him apart and munch.

Spartan Girl · May 27, 2015

You know Dany getting upset with the fighting rang false to me, I mean she just fed a man to her dragons and watched them tear him apart and munch.

Maybe she doesn't like violence that she considers to be pointless...for her, feeding the guy to the dragons was supposed to set an example, though she probably didn't enjoy it either. But I get your point...

Did anyone else get a kick of how Tyrion was staring at her with those big puppy dog eyes while she was looking at him like he was a tarantula she just stepped on?

Maximum Taco · June 3, 2015

You know Dany getting upset with the fighting rang false to me, I mean she just fed a man to her dragons and watched them tear him apart and munch.

Dany's a huge hypocrite. She always has been.

That "break the wheel" speech stands to be her greatest hypocrisy. Is she gonna install a democracy in Westeros? I highly doubt it, she has shown absolutely no willingness to cede her own power, and also no real willingness to bow to the people's will until there is no other option left to her. If she means to be the Queen she is going to need the support of the aristocracy. Tyrion is right, it is impossible for a monarch to rule without the rich on her side.

And the sinple fact is if she does remain a Queen with absolute power and doesn't reform the government in Westeros it's all going to go back to the same way it's been for the last couple hundred years, after she dies.

She can't stop or break the wheel, unless she gives up her own right to rule.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Maximum Taco

Avaleigh · June 4, 2015

I haven't had strong feelings about Dany's character one way or the other for awhile on the show. I certainly don't dislike her but this episode I have to admit that I can understand why others find her annoying because frankly I did too.

Dany's a huge hypocrite. She always has been.

That "break the wheel" speech stands to be her greatest hypocrisy. Is she gonna install a democracy in Westeros? I highly doubt it, she has shown absolutely no willingness to cede her own power, and also no real willingness to bow to the people's will until there is no other option left to her. If she means to be the Queen she is going to need the support of the aristocracy. Tyrion is right, it is impossible for a monarch to rule without the rich on her side.

And the sinple fact is if she does remain a Queen with absolute power and doesn't reform the government in Westeros it's all going to go back to the same way it's been for the last couple hundred years, after she dies.

She can't stop or break the wheel, unless she gives up her own right to rule.

I was so interested in the other aspects of the most recent episode that I didn't really get the chance to get into the fact that I didn't think Dany came off well at all in that scene. I don't mean to say that she was out of character or that I didn't like the scene just that she comes across like an entitled and hypocritical person and I completely rolled my eyes during her break the wheel speech.

Who the hell would she be if it weren't for her name? Now she wants to automatically hate on people like the Tyrells and doesn't even know that the Martells would probably be inclined to support her. The Vale is left out of the conversation completely. She talks about this place like it's her home and she doesn't seem like she has any interest in what the current format is. She just wants to come in and break everything up without seeing what works and what doesn't.

Her arrogance too in automatically thinking that the common people of Westeros will want her to come in and install her little dictatorship was frustrating. She barely seems conscious of the fact that it was only a short time ago where the common people of Meereen were hissing at her and throwing rocks at her.

Oh, and if she does plan on going to Westeros soon why on earth is she blowing a marriage on Hizdahr? I don't get that. I'm not saying that it would be impossible to get out and he'll probably die anyway but it just seems unnecessary.

aucp3 · June 5, 2015

For all the criticism Dany receives, of all the “leaders” in the show/books she seems the most open to not only listening to opposing views, but implementing them. I haven’t seen that in Stannis, Cersei or even Ned Stark. How many people would not only sit at the table with a member of the family that murdered their father and had a hand in their being exiled, but then place that very person as one of their closest advisors?

For all intents and purposes, Dany is just a teenage girl. But it’s BECAUSE she’s a teenage girl in a world where the young and the women are dismissed, overpowered and disposed of so easily and frequently, that she has to put on this massive front like she’s the biggest most fearless mofo in the world. There is absolutely no room as a teenage girl in this world to show one crack of weakness. It’s why she has to make these big speeches and public displays of strength. It’s a massive front and NO ONE knows this more than Dany. It’s why she’s so willing to seek advice from anyone. Anyone desperate enough to seek advice from their handmaiden as to how to run a city, is obviously conceding that they’re unsure. She’s also a teenage girl who’s had one message pumped into her head since birth, and that’s, that she’s the rightful ruler of Westeros. On that, and on ending slavery she’s unwilling to compromise. But I see no signs that she’s unwilling to compromise in a host of other areas.

Dany’s transition from idealistic teenage girl to being more political and thoughtful in ruling is going to take some time, but it’s not impossible. Especially now that she has an advisor that’s worth something. And she was wise enough and compromising enough to allow him in, even though he is a Lannister.

Even in her “Break the Wheel” speech, the very first family she mentioned as just “another spoke” were the Targaryeans. She included HER OWN family in this. Dany has the greatest of intentions to create a just and equal society, she just doesn’t know exactly how to do that yet. But, WHO in this show/books, besides Tyrion (and that’s questionable) has made the right decision every single time? No one. Which is why I’ve never understood why people criticize her more harshly.

Edited June 5, 2015 by aucp3

Funzlerks · June 6, 2015

Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon allied with their enemies after the rebellion. Robert employed Targyrean loyalists as personal guards and courtiers. Ned Stark routinely allowed Northern lords to do as they may - a real distinction from the Southern lords. His loyalty to them still echoes. He really sucked up a lot to agree to be Hand for a friend. Enemies' children are often raised and married into families - Myrcella and Theon. Tywin killing babies was considered still egregious. The fact that Daenerys would even consider executing Tyrion instead of treating him like the giant unearned gift that he was shows that she is still an half an idiot.

Spartan Girl · June 15, 2015

I really hope Dany doesn't spend the better half of next season as a Dothraki sex slave. We've had enough rape on this show, thank you.

Sign In

Daenerys 'Stormborn' Targaryen: The Breaker Of Chains, Mother Of Dragons Etc

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Solace247

GraceK

Sakura12

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment