Jump to content

Daenerys the betrayer


Guess who's back

Recommended Posts

It's really not I guess, Its just the implications that Dany can only be compared to the likes of Ramsay, and Tywin are tiring.

Yea. It was a rhetorical question, because it's definitely not important. I don't understand the need to put everything done by certain characters under the moral microscope all the time, as though a character's slighter shade of grey has some great significant meaning to the rest of the series. These invisible lines in the sand are nonsensical and only succeed in dragging debate into a quagmire.

Torture is wrong, nearly everyone uses torture (even good guys like Qhorin), some characters use torture for sadistic pleasure, others (including Dany) don't. Why not look at the implications of the morally ambiguous acts, rather than constantly detailing out this invisible lines to say one character is more moral than another (not directed at you, but a more general statement)?

The implication of Dany's morally ambiguous actions are that she's likely to be distrusted by those in power, while celebrated by the oppressed masses, probably in both continents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were children.

So were the crucified children. You really do pick whatever side is against Dany, don't you?

We don't know. Its not really specific info.

Its entirely possible those who were put in and questioned actually were proven guilty.

Its not really fair to say we tortured innocents or not definitively.

This is what you're doing with Dany. You're claiming everyone she kills or orders tortured is innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert ordered the death of children... He is no saint...

When and where? Please point it out to me. A single instance would suffice.

You don't think that Dany, with "Breaker of Chains" on her resume, and in possession of a dragon might supplant these extant figures and draw even more unified support?

No. Because popular figures have to appeal to a common culture and common opinions. It works for her in the slaving cultures of Essos, by aligning with the slaves. But it won't work in Westeros. Dany is a cultural outsider. She doesn't believe in one of the common faiths. She has no exposure to the hardships of the smallfolk or lower nobility. She doesn't respect guestright. She breaks promises and treaties. She breaks guest right, of all things. She judges on a whim instead of rational thought. That will bring her into opposition to the Westerosi smallfolk movement.

Amm no? The Freys betrayed their leige lord, who they had given their oath to, for a marriage pact. Dany just lied to some slavers for two reasons, one being for her own benifit but the other is because she feels slavery is wrong and imediately she frees the unsullied.

She attacked them while being a guest in their city. She's broken ceasefires. She attacked envoys.

Why is everyone Dany kills automatically innocent?

Everyone? No. But enough. And she does kill them knowing it.

Would it be so surprising? Suggs is scum.

He isn't the guy who makes the decisions.

not that the eternal gyre about who tortures whom isn't fascinating, but can someone articulate why it's important? I'm not clear why the torture olympics matters in the big picture.

Because it sheds some light on the character who tortures whom for which reasons. For example, Dany tortures innocent girls to vent off frustration. Qhorin Halfhand tortures for information that may save hundreds of lives and gets it. Both is morally wrong. But the latter is far, far more excusable.

For all we know the wine seller is guilty. He and his daughters were in on the crime. The 163 crucified were guilty.

What's your point?

Dany herself said that the wine seller is likely to be innocent and that the torture would be worse than useless. Then she orders it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So were the crucified children. You really do pick whatever side is against Dany, don't you?

This is what you're doing with Dany. You're claiming everyone she kills or orders tortured is innocent.

No I am not. I'm saying the Wineselling family was innocent(innocent until proven guilty).

Not everyone she kills was innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children are not always innocent...

Arya is a child, far from innocent.

Joffrey (Seven save him), far from innocent..

Aegon I was barely more than a child when his Dragons roasted the noble knights of Westeros

In that logic, which is soooo wrong, the 163 may not be innocet too.

But wtf I am doing anyway :bang: ? Children are always innocent, Arya is fighting for her life, Aegon I was 27 during the conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea. It was a rhetorical question, because it's definitely not important. I don't understand the need to put everything done by certain characters under the moral microscope all the time, as though a character's slighter shade of grey has some great significant meaning to the rest of the series.

Because if Dany does 5 bad thing and Stannis does 2 bad things then Stannis is the better character and everyone should like Stannis and not Dany.

That's what it seems like to me. I'm waiting for someone to copy/past that list "atrocities" each character committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When and where? Please point it out to me. A single instance would suffice.

He ordered the death of Dany in the first book, when she was all but a child, and had his knives chasing Viserys and Dany while they were both still children.

I should also like to point out that he ordered the death of Dany while she was pregnant, so he would be killing a little girl and her unborn baby...

And he may not have ordered the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys, but he wouldve killed them all the same if he had beaten Tywin Lannister to Kings Landing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the sack probably was a bit over the top and she never really thought of the implications afterwards. Most of the slavers were fairly awful people though with their treatment of the unsullied etc.



Daenerys' problem is that she's a bit naive with the whole slavery thing. In her quest to get rid of slavery, she just assumes that all slavers are awful people while all slaves are poor, abused people forced into their work. Tyrion realises in ADWD that many slaves are treated well and that their treatment is actually better than servants in Westeros who, whilst servants in name, probably don't have much say in their work as they'll die without it. The slavers like Kraznys in Astapor are awful people; the ones who buy slaves and treat them well are not.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

and had his knives chasing Viserys and Dany while they were both still children.

And he may not have ordered the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys, but he wouldve killed them all the same if he had beaten Tywin Lannister to Kings Landing

No he didn't.

Are you a fortune teller or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He ordered the death of Dany in the first book, when she was all but a child, and had his knives chasing Viserys and Dany while they were both still children.

I should also like to point out that he ordered the death of Dany while she was pregnant, so he would be killing a little girl and her unborn baby...

And he may not have ordered the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys, but he wouldve killed them all the same if he had beaten Tywin Lannister to Kings Landing

On the first point, Viserys was trying to find ways in order to return to KL and take the throne back from Robert. In effect, Robert had every right to want the Targaryens dead when they were actively trying to revolt against him. His mistake was trying to kill Daenerys when pregant, as that enraged Drogo and actually made him want to invade, but him wanting to kill his enemies isn't a bad thing.

I agree on the last point though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his knives chasing Viserys and Dany while they were both still children.

This is from Viserys. And we all know how much of a reliable person he is.

Honestly, if Robert truly sent assassins to kill Dany and Viserys when they were two poor children who were beggars, they would already be dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how helpful her breaker of chains reputation will be. I think if the peasants of Westeros only hear how she freed the slaves in Essos, they will likely flock to her side when she arrives. But if they hear anything at all about the current state of the cities she "freed" or when they see she employs a slave army herself, they might be more reluctant to view her as a savior. If I'm a peasant from the south, and I hear Dany is coming, allied with the Iron born, commander of 8,000 unsullied slaves, and a dragon rider, I'd shit my pants. Most everyone in Westeros hates the Iron Born. Most everyone in Westeros hates slaves. Everything she touches goes from bad for some to hellishly bad for all.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aegon I was 27???? I thought he was like 15 or 16 when he sailed from Dragonstone.

He was born at 27 BD

yes he did

Did he? Please give me the quote where it is shown.

This is from Viserys. And we all know how much of a reliable person he is.

Honestly, if Robert truly sent assassins to kill Dany and Viserys when they were two poor children who were beggars, they would already be dead.

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from Viserys. And we all know how much of a reliable person he is.

Honestly, if Robert truly sent assassins to kill Dany and Viserys when they were two poor children who were beggars, they would already be dead.

He didn't send any assassins until Dany got pregnant.

But what do people think he'd have done with Viserys and Dany had Stannis gotten to DS in time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Because popular figures have to appeal to a common culture and common opinions. It works for her in the slaving cultures of Essos, by aligning with the slaves. But it won't work in Westeros. Dany is a cultural outsider. She doesn't believe in one of the common faiths. She has no exposure to the hardships of the smallfolk or lower nobility. She doesn't respect guestright. She breaks promises and treaties. She breaks guest right, of all things. She judges on a whim instead of rational thought. That will bring her into opposition to the Westerosi smallfolk movement.

Dany was a cultural outsider to both the Dothraki and the slaves. What was operative is that she championed the masses who didn't have a voice. A mass of people without a voice exists on both continents.

Will the smallfolk care if she exercises whim over reason at all costs if they see her as someone willing to champion their cause? Or is that what your criticism of Dany is?

Dany doesn't seem to champion any religious system, and practices tolerance for all. Which mean that she's not creating obstacles to anyone from joining her.

She didn't have exposure to the hardships of slavery either. But she saw it and made it part of her platform. It would take a blind person to come to Westeros and not see the smallfolk's misery and oppression. As an outsider, Dany is less entrenched in the way the nobility doesn't register the plight of smallfolk-- they look past it not seeing. The fact that Dany would be coming from outside of this is actually a point in favor of her taking note of it and acting.

I'm not sure if she truly broke guest right-- are you referring to getting the army drunk and attacking prematurely? She's gone back on her word as a tactic to gain the upper hand, but I fail to see how this is going to pit smallfolk against her.

Because it sheds some light on the character who tortures whom for which reasons. For example, Dany tortures innocent girls to vent off frustration. Qhorin Halfhand tortures for information that may save hundreds of lives and gets it. Both is morally wrong. But the latter is far, far more excusable.

Yea, this is exactly why it's not important. How do you measure the price of abolition against X many lives? A great good doesn't negate the bad, but this search to quantify what's more "excusable" is pointless and hardly honest to a reading of the books. Qhorin's use of torture is not "excusable;" it's still immoral, and though you might sympathize with his reasons for doing it more, it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things. It still raises the question of "so what?" So what does it matter? Qhorin is an easier character to sympathize with? Dany is a dark grey? Ok, what else is new? (I apologize if this sounds a little harsh, and I don't mean to direct this at you, but I really think fighting about this all the time misses the bigger points).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...