Do you consider these characters villains?

[Fear of Drowning]

Jaime Lannister     -    No
Tywin Lannister     -    Yes
Tyrion Lannister    -    No
Cersei Lannister   -    Yes
Petyr Baelish       -     Yes
Varys            -            Yes
Theon Greyjoy     -     No
Victarion Greyjoy   -   Yes
Aeron Greyjoy     -      No
Bran Stark        -         No
Arya Stark         -        No
Stannis Baratheon  -  Yes
Daenerys Targaryan - No

[Wavey Sauce]

taking advantage of someone is not justified simply because they have some kind of problem with their brain (as it seems likely Hodor does). In two instances, Bran's warning of Hodor is justified out of necessity in order to save both Hodor and the others from almost certain death (Queenscrown and the Hillside). He then continues to watt Hodor to explore the caves. Understandable, for someone who cannot walk, but wrong, nevertheless. And even in the justified example, it is still an awful thing to do. The invasion of one's mind by another is a heinous act. And Hodor is most certainly aware, as Bran notes to himself. I don't think Bran is evil, but one can't simply dismiss what Bran does when he warns Hodor. And I say this as a huge fan of Brandon.

Hodor is raping people or killing innocents. What he has done is what he honestly believes is for some type of greater good

 

The future is the future, but has not happened, bran is far from evil, at least not yet

[Walda]

Hey everyone,  this is my first post on the forum.  I am new to the world of ASOIAF, and while I have never read the books (I'm a graduate student at the moment and can't find the time), the show and peoples' theories are so addictive that I have just been devouring anything online about the series.  I'm very interested in what you guys think about the morality on obscure characters like Bloodraven and the Others?  I can see that this thread has like 16 pages, so I apologize in advance if someone has already brought it up.  

Hi, Braavosi033180, and welcome. You have come to the right place, but probably the wrong thread. Have you had a look at the Compendium of Theories thread? (be sure to click on 'see hidden content' in the first post.)

Bloodraven is not as obscure a character in the books as in the TV series. While the books and the TV series are heading in the same general direction, there are many differences, some less subtle than others. The books have more minor characters with better developed story lines and arcs, but most of them have been cut or conflated for the TV series.

It is probably better you read the books before posting theories in the General (ASoIaF) forum. I totally recommend them - if you have time to scan the internet for theories, you should be able to reward yourself for getting another page of your thesis done by listening to the audio book ten minutes while you take out the trash, or something.

If you truthfully shouldn't be trawling the internet for Game of Thrones theories, you should block this site (and your other fave sites) until you submit - Game of Thrones theories are a serious time sink, and you would rather have a thesis that expands the world's total sum of knowledge, than a brilliant theory about BloodRaven, wouldn't you? ( the answer is YES.)

[also, if you want to read the books spoiler free, better stop reading this post right now, and get back to work]

Here Yarra is Asha, Petyr Baelish is scheming to marry Sansa to SweetRobin's heir, Brienne is still looking for her and  Ramsey has married Jayne Poole (seen in S1E1 of the series, doing needlework next to Sansa, and also next to her at the feast, noticing that Joffrey looked in her direction.), who Tywin has palmed off as Arya.

There are plenty more subtle but important character differences, too. For an example we are arguing here, Bran has not used Hodor to kill anyone (yet).

Most of what the book readers know about BloodRaven is likely to be irrelevant to the show, and the little that they use will be changed to suit the creative vision and practical necessities of the showrunners - whatever season six reveals of his morality and purpose is far more likely to surprise book readers than show watchers, who have no preconceived ideas of what his morality should be.

 

For book readers BR was the youngest of three illegitimate children born of Aegon IV and his fifth major mistress, Missy Blackwood, 125 years old when he meets Bran, called BloodRaven because of a birthmark that looked like a raven and covered half his face. He was Hand to king Aerys I (the Mad king's great-great-grand-uncle. Bloodraven is Granduncle to Maester Aemon). While he was a (legitimised) Blackfyre bastard, he served on the side of the Targaryens in the Blackfyre rebellions. It was personal as well as political - he and Bittersteel got along like Brakens and Blackwoods. There was this thing about a girl (Sheera Seastar, their half-sister) and he lost an eye to Bittersteel in a duel in the first Blackfyre rebellion, and was sent to the Wall by Aegon V, Maester Aemon's younger brother, for assasinating one of Bittersteel's sons who came to Kings Landing as an envoy. He became Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, but disappeared on a ranging 48 years ago.

He is the three-eyed crow of Bran's dreams, and plenty of us believe he warged into the mother of the Stark kids' direwolves, and the stag that killed her, and the white hart that lured Robert to the hunt, and the boar that killed him, and he wargs into Jeor Mormont's talking crow and yells one word clues to Jon Snow. He might even have warged into Balerion the cat, or the cat that follows the blind girl. None of which is likely to be significant in the TV show.

The White Walkers on the other hand, have a lot more personality and more backstory in the show than in the books.

In the books, we have heard from Gilly and Gilly's mother that the ones that visit Craster are Crastors sons, and they have been taking Craster's sheep, too, but no eerily white sheep controlling blue-eyed zombie-sheep yet. Apart from that, Will saw Waymar Royce beaten in a duel with one of them (who had a glass sword), and stabbed to death by half a dozen of them. That is, before he is strangled to death by Waymar Royce's wight. Gared, who Ned executed, was 'half mad of fear' but apparently said nothing to warn of white walkers. (ETA: And Sam killed a White Walker, who was riding a mangy dead horse and killed Small Paul and snuffed out Gren's torch, when they were returning from the Fist of the First Men. ) Apart from that, I can't at the moment recall a PoV that has actually seen any. 

Jon does not go to Hardhome. When last we hear from Cotter Pyke, six of the eleven ships he sailed to Hardhome had survived a storm, Mother mole and her refugees had been reduced to eating their own dead, but mistook them for slavers (they had been predated on earlier by Lyseni pirates) and attempted to take over a ship, and there are 'dead things in the water' . Pyke requested they send help by land, but as a letter came to Jon with the word 'bastard' across it, apparently from Ramsey, Jon sent Tormund by land to Hardhome, and, treasonously, decided to go himself to Winterfell, where Mance and his female assassins have been caught spying at Winterfell, (posing as a band of musicians for the Wedding, attempting to rescue Arya in a plot contrived by Melisandre).

Stannis and his army have disappeared in a snow storm, his women all remain at Castle Black.  Ramsey's letter claims Stannis has been defeated and Ramsey has his shining sword, but it also demands Jon return Reek and 'my bride' (and Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, Val, and Mance Rayder's child, that Jon had swapped with Gilly's child, when Sam and Gilly had accompanied Maester Aemon to Oldtown, in case Melisandre got any funny ideas about King's blood and attempted a child sacrifice.)

As you see, there is enough distance between the books and the show to make book theories irrelevant to the show, and vice versa. How or why Hodor would go to Riverrun - no idea, the books won't help you. Apart from that, the books give far more scope for theory-making, and are far more rewarding for theory makers - no sane person could deduce Tyrion was the bastard son of the Mad King from his backstory and hair colour in the TV series.

[Maid So Fair]

Re: slavery - can we really make the argument that the people involved are ignorant of the fact because their culture has practice it from so long when there are at least two major, influential, nations in their world that have taken a stand against it? Surely the masters, being rich and presumably reasonably educated, would be aware of the fact that in Braavos and Westeros slavery is considered a crime and have had ample opportunity to reflect on why? It's not like slavery is universally accepted in their world.

[INCBlackbird]

Re: slavery - can we really make the argument that the people involved are ignorant of the fact because their culture has practice it from so long when there are at least two major, influential, nations in their world that have taken a stand against it? Surely the masters, being rich and presumably reasonably educated, would be aware of the fact that in Braavos and Westeros slavery is considered a crime and have had ample opportunity to reflect on why? It's not like slavery is universally accepted in their world.

When looking at history, it took time for the whole world to abolish slavery (and it's still going on in some places in the world) so there was a time when certain nations considered it a crime (I believe the UK was first and then decided that when slaves arrived on their soil they automatically became free because slavery was illigal) of course that also has to do with humans being greedy, slavery was profitable to a lot of people so they didn't want it abolished, because the worlds is filled with terrible people. But the point is that it was filled with terrible people back than, it still is now, I don't think that's ever gonna change. Humanity as a whole does improve over the years, which is why I think that in a few thousend years there will be something that we find normal now that will be considered completely unjust almost on a universal level. The point remains that when it's part of a society, it's difficult to change it and it's normal that many people who live there consider it just, they never questioned it because they've never known anything else, many of them probably don't even know that there are nations where it's considered a crime. Of the higher class, that includes people who do know about the other nations (most of them probably) where it's a crime, many of them won't want it to be abolished because of selfish reasons, some will just be like "well, that's their culture, I was born and raised in this culture, it's ours" and some will oppose slavery but not be able to make a change for the better because they can't stand against the majority.
And as pointed out before every society has good and bad people, an entire nation isn't evil. humanity doesn't work that way, I hope we can all agree on that. And it's quite difficult to distinguish the good people from the bad people when we don't know anything about the masters Dany had crucified, she doesn't even know anything about them... she just persumed they were all evil, which shows a lack of understanding of how humanity and culture work.

[Maid So Fair]

When looking at history, it took time for the whole world to abolish slavery (and it's still going on in some places in the world) so there was a time when certain nations considered it a crime (I believe the UK was first and then decided that when slaves arrived on their soil they automatically became free because slavery was illigal) of course that also has to do with humans being greedy, slavery was profitable to a lot of people so they didn't want it abolished, because the worlds is filled with terrible people. But the point is that it was filled with terrible people back than, it still is now, I don't think that's ever gonna change. Humanity as a whole does improve over the years, which is why I think that in a few thousend years there will be something that we find normal now that will be considered completely unjust almost on a universal level. The point remains that when it's part of a society, it's difficult to change it and it's normal that many people who live there consider it just, they never questioned it because they've never known anything else, many of them probably don't even know that there are nations where it's considered a crime. Of the higher class, that includes people who do know about the other nations (most of them probably) where it's a crime, many of them won't want it to be abolished because of selfish reasons, some will just be like "well, that's their culture, I was born and raised in this culture, it's ours" and some will oppose slavery but not be able to make a change for the better because they can't stand against the majority.And as pointed out before every society has good and bad people, an entire nation isn't evil. humanity doesn't work that way, I hope we can all agree on that. And it's quite difficult to distinguish the good people from the bad people when we don't know anything about the masters Dany had crucified, she doesn't even know anything about them... she just persumed they were all evil, which shows a lack of understanding of how humanity and culture work.

i don think the ignorance argumentbstans for tthe elite class, which the masters undoubtedly are. Braavos is probably the biggest naval power in ASOIAF and trades all over the world. Their reactions to various Westerosi characters how that they do on occasion interact with people from Westeros, or at least are aware of the existence of uch a place an their strange customs. If they are aware that they are profiting from something evil and continue to do so for selfish reasons, that is their prerogative, but its hardly a good excuse when someone shows up wanting to put a stop to it and punish the perpetrators. You don't get to plead ignorance.

[Daeron Velar]

It is all about perspective. To many characters, a majority of these characters are villains whether we agree or disagree. It is all about perspective. Whatever we might think of the Lannister characters, they could be seen as villains to many characters, like the Dornish for acts committed decades ago, for the North by beheading Ned Stark under King Joffrey Baratheon First of His Name, etc. Daenerys is also considered a villain, especially by the Slavers when she freed the slaves, by Volantis in disupting the Slave trade, by the Children of the Harpy, etc. Theon is also considered a villain in the North, even if he did not kill Bran and Rickon, a good chunk of the Northernmen still believe that tale and he is a villain, including most of the Greyjoys in their constant attacks and raids on the North. Stannis is a villain to the Lannisters/Tyrells who currently hold the Iron Throne by his claim and his actions, etc 

 

[INCBlackbird]

i don think the ignorance argumentbstans for tthe elite class, which the masters undoubtedly are. Braavos is probably the biggest naval power in ASOIAF and trades all over the world. Their reactions to various Westerosi characters how that they do on occasion interact with people from Westeros, or at least are aware of the existence of uch a place an their strange customs. If they are aware that they are profiting from something evil and continue to do so for selfish reasons, that is their prerogative, but its hardly a good excuse when someone shows up wanting to put a stop to it and punish the perpetrators. You don't get to plead ignorance.

I think it does to a certain extent because it's still the culture they grew up in, it's still normal to them. culture is difficult to change, which is not surprising because if you think of your own experiences. isn't routine difficult to change?
Like I said in my previous post, there'll be some masters who are for it for selfish reasons, some because they're super conservative and ignorant and some will be against it but unable to do anything about it. That's why it's difficult to change the system. and I don't think it's fair to blame those who want to change it but are unable to for the actions of the others. The gist of it is again: there's good and bad people everywhere.

[OldGimletEye]

Re: slavery - can we really make the argument that the people involved are ignorant of the fact because their culture has practice it from so long when there are at least two major, influential, nations in their world that have taken a stand against it? Surely the masters, being rich and presumably reasonably educated, would be aware of the fact that in Braavos and Westeros slavery is considered a crime and have had ample opportunity to reflect on why? It's not like slavery is universally accepted in their world.

The Ghiscari may be aware of Westeros and Braavos and still think what they are doing is not wrong. Braavos and Westeros and are thousands of miles from SB. And much of the world still practices it. If much of the world didn't practice it, I might be inclined to believe that their was some kind of international law or standard against it. But, I don't think Planetos, unfortunately, is there yet.

If you think that Westeros and Braavos have put the Ghiscari on sufficient notice that owning slavery is a crime, then I think you can only conclude that Dany should have punished and executed every slave holder in SB. But, quite frankly, that sort thing makes me uncomfortable, for the reason I have given.

Look,  do you think Dany should start handing out mass executions to the Dothraki, for their participation in slavery and other wrongs, when she takes control of them? I don't think so. I despise just about everything about Dothraki culture. Yet, I think it is important to be fair to the people in it. And I think executing many of them, on the grounds the rules changed, without notice they changed, is not fair or is at least arguably not fair.

I have no problem of course with Dany saying to both the Ghiscari and Dothraki, "slavery is hereby prohibited. You've been warned. Don't fuck up." As I've said before, I believe slavery to fundamentally wrong, whether or not general opinion in a culture believes it to be otherwise, and it does give Dany sufficient ethical grounds to go to war against slavers. That said I think ex post facto rule making ought to be approached with great caution.

[Knight Of Winter]

 

The Ghiscari may be aware of Westeros and Braavos and still think what they are doing is not wrong. Braavos and Westeros and are thousands of miles from SB. And much of the world still practices it. If much of the world didn't practice it, I might be inclined to believe that their was some kind of international law or standard against it. But, I don't think Planetos, unfortunately, is there yet.

 As I've said before, I believe slavery to fundamentally wrong, whether general opinion in a culture believes it to be otherwise

But can you fault a culture for not being advanced and progressive enough to abolish slavery. Our (modern generation's) belief that slavery is deplorable wasn't born overnight, it was rather result of centuries long old process. Heck, most of Western countries, self-proclaimed champions of freedom and liberty, still practiced some sort of slavery or slave trade in 19th centuries. It was not that long ago, from historical perspective.

Simply put - ASOIAF cultures don't have the same benefits as we do to conclude that slavery is fundamentally wrong (and I definitely agree that it is). If anything, WOIAF taught us that Westerosi and Braavosi (along with Summer Islanders, Naathi and few others) are the progressive ones, while most of remaining world civilization still indulges in slave trade.

I have no problem of course with Dany saying to both the Ghiscari and Dothraki, "slavery is hereby prohibited. You've been warned. Don't fuck up." ...That said I think ex post facto rule making ought to be approached with great caution.

with this completely.

[OldGimletEye]

 

But can you fault a culture for not being advanced and progressive enough to abolish slavery. Our (modern generation's) belief that slavery is deplorable wasn't born overnight, it was rather result of centuries long old process. Heck, most of Western countries, self-proclaimed champions of freedom and liberty, still practiced some sort of slavery or slave trade in 19th centuries. It was not that long ago, from historical perspective.

Simply put - ASOIAF cultures don't have the same benefits as we do to conclude that slavery is fundamentally wrong (and I definitely agree that it is). If anything, WOIAF taught us that Westerosi and Braavosi (along with Summer Islanders, Naathi and few others) are the progressive ones, while most of remaining world civilization still indulges in slave trade.

 

Absolutely. I have never been one to believe that all cultures are equally valid or good.
Even compared to Westeros or Braavos, I think Ghiscari and Dothraki culture are pretty fucked up.  
That said, I don't believe one culture becomes better than another because of the particular ethnic characteristics of its inhabitants. One culture can become more advanced or better for a variety of reason.  Accordingly, even the inhabitants of inferior cultures are entitled to a level of human decency and respect, to include basic due process and procedural fairness and some understanding why the people of the culture think the way they do.

[Protagoras]

 

That's right. People's sense of morality is often informed by the society that they live in. And that is what makes ex post facto criminal rule making so problematic. And why it should be avoided, except maybe in the most extreme cases, like the crucifixion of those children. This, in no way, is a defense of moral relativism. I have never believed in post-modernist relativist crap. In my opinion, slavery is objectively wrong in all times and in all places.

But, again, it would be delusional not to account for the fact that people learn much of their moral intuitions from the society in which they live. I dislike the classicist system of nobility in Westeros. But, cannot hate Ned Stark, Dany, and the whole gang, merely for believing in the system, because they live in a society that hasn't "discovered" the truth that class based on mere birth is wrong.

Absolutely nothing in this statement makes a persuasive case for collective punishment. It does, however, make quite a good case for why we ought to be careful about changing the "rules of the game" on people, without sufficient notice that the rules have changed. Dany's execution of the 163 is a case where issues of collective punishment intersect with issues of ex post facto rule making because it is often claimed that the execution was justified because the executed were part of the slave holding class, along with the usual justifications for collective punishment.

In short, it's wrong to impose collective punishment on a society simply because it engages in atrocious practices because that involves the same kind of ex post facto rule making that is generally found to be repugnant with regard to individuals.

 

First of all I should say that I am very much a moral relativist so this is not something you need to defend.

Ex post facto is indeed very problematic and would be a great argument why I, a member of another culture as well as another time era, should not execute slavers. This is however a horrible argument against Daenerys. She is not ethnically different. She is of essosi heritage, raised in Essos and conquer other essosi. She is no outsider by any meaning.  

In addition, Daenerys doesn´t even know about ex post facto and the society she lives in doesn´t see it as a good principle like you and I do. Her justice is not about legal arguments, but simply eye for an eye-justice - pay them back with the same coin. If you think that people are influenced by the society you should not criticize this since this is very much standard logic in the world of asoiaf as well as historically in our own world. Daenerys doesn´t "change the rules of the game", she is following them. 

The reason I cheer for Daenerys is not because what she did works well within my own construct of morality for me today but because it works well within hers and by acting as a moral beeing in her world she wins my support. Her justice is justice in her society and it is not really relevant if it would be justice today. The execution was justified because eye for an eye was just then, not because of modern interpretation of class. When I said that I was ok with Ned being killed it doesnt mean I personally have that right, but Daenerys do.

In short, you try to take a legitimate reasoning for 21th century humans and apply it on Daenerys in order to condem her, but those rules was not relevant for her in the first place. You then agree that morality is informed by the society they live, but you immediatly drop this for Daenerys who is, in fact, acting within said rules. I think the better question is - why do you blame Daenerys for doing something others do as well? You do seem a bit inconsistant when you on one hand uses ex post facto and at the same time you say you understand that morality is informed by the society they live in. Then why tralk about ex post facto?

I think you are mixing what I am allowed to do with what Daenerys are allowed to do and that you misunderstand my theoretical defense of collective punishment with a will from me to perform them myself in this case. I certainly would if I was living back then but I am not. You are certainly confusing me atm. 

 

No it doesn't seem logical to me. An individual might stay with such an organization for many potentially valid reasons. First, I'd note that there is nothing inherently criminal about governing bodies, like the Small Council. They have a legitimate function of governing. An individual might stay with such an organization, after it has made a decision the individual dis-agrees with, because he might figure, by staying, that he, at least, might be able to mitigate the damage caused by the decision. Or he might figure the person that would replace him might be worse. Or he might figure that by staying he might get the organization to change it's mind at some later time. He might stay because he figures, by leaving, he gives an easy victory to his political opponents with whom he disagreed. He might stay because he figures there are other pressing issues that he has strong opinions about and he is not willing to give up on them by leaving.

If I am a member of congress, I might be highly disappointed in a law passed or resolution taken, say like a law authorizing an act of war. I might believe that such an act is illegal and immoral. Should I leave? Well maybe not. I might very well stay and try to convince others to my point of view. There might be other issues that I care about too, that I am simply not willing to give up on.

I think your rationale is not particularly strong here.

I suppose I understand you better. But, I don't find your argument to be particularly compelling. Since you've mentioned Oscar Schindler here, are we in agreement that mere membership in a political party isn't a particularly good grounds on which to impose collective punishment?

 

First, we are in agreement that a mere membership is not a good ground. I have been talking from the beginning of those with vote, with power, with influence. 

Second - regardless of they reason for staying, don´t you think it´s reasonable for me to assume that you have stayed in congress not because you want to convice others (in general - convincing others in congress payed to hold a different opinion is very unlikely) but that the post that you hold simply matter to you more than your morals, that you staying is simply a way to sell out for the benefits you recieve? Sure, you might stay for another reason but I find that unlikely. Ned in fact is an excellent example, he first leave due to his morals, but was then back since he was not willing to risk the geopoliticial situation. In effect - he "sold out" the killing of Daenerys for power to stop the Lannisters.

[John Doe]

 

 Word, perhaps I overatated. I think the distinction between slavery and feudalism is vast. The slavers are much more evil, by their definition. Lords are not born with this original sin.

Westerosi Lords are for the most part though some cold eyed pricks; In the entire series I can only think of 3 actual good lords. Davos, Beric and Edmure. Davos became a lord, basically because he's the opposite of Stannis' lords (and he's never even been to rainwood) And Beric and Edmure wind up giving up their lordship for a moral option. 

The rest of these lords just play the game in circles Tyrion will bring carnage to Westeros, but he's so fucking entertaining

However I wouldn't classify them as villains. That's basically impossible when I'm rooting for at least one character per house lol. 

Eta.

What is more just or what is more effective? Justice can not be just, as it's killing the defenseless.

 

I agree, slavers in asoiaf are for the most part worse, but that's because of their individual actions rather than because of the act of having slaves itself. For example I don't think being a peasant under Roose Bolton would be better than being a slave under Xaro. Do you know the "Rome" series by HBO? I think the relationship between Caesar and Posca is a good example imho why not all kinds of slavery can be seen as equally bad, and why some slaves are better off than peasants.

[7-KG]

Jaime Lannister-No. I still find him a bit of a asshole, though.
Tywin Lannister-Yes. 
Tyrion Lannister-No.
Cersei Lannister-Yes.
Petyr Baelish-Yes.
Varys-Yes. Even if in the end he has good intentions, his motives are selfish.
Theon Greyjoy-No.
Victarion Greyjoy-Yes.
Aeron Greyjoy-No. He's just boring.
Bran Stark-No.
Arya Stark-No.
Stannis Baratheon-Hell, no.
Daenerys Targaryen-No. She may become one in the following books, though.
 

[Jeeves]

First of all I should say that I am very much a moral relativist so this is not something you need to defend.

Ex post facto is indeed very problematic and would be a great argument why I, a member of another culture as well as another time era, should not execute slavers. This is however a horrible argument against Daenerys. She is not ethnically different. She is of essosi heritage, raised in Essos and conquer other essosi. She is no outsider by any meaning.  

In addition, Daenerys doesn´t even know about ex post facto and the society she lives in doesn´t see it as a good principle like you and I do. Her justice is not about legal arguments, but simply eye for an eye-justice - pay them back with the same coin. If you think that people are influenced by the society you should not criticize this since this is very much standard logic in the world of asoiaf as well as historically in our own world. Daenerys doesn´t "change the rules of the game", she is following them. 

The reason I cheer for Daenerys is not because what she did works well within my own construct of morality for me today but because it works well within hers and by acting as a moral beeing in her world she wins my support. Her justice is justice in her society and it is not really relevant if it would be justice today. The execution was justified because eye for an eye was just then, not because of modern interpretation of class. When I said that I was ok with Ned being killed it doesnt mean I personally have that right, but Daenerys do.

In short, you try to take a legitimate reasoning for 21th century humans and apply it on Daenerys in order to condem her, but those rules was not relevant for her in the first place. You then agree that morality is informed by the society they live, but you immediatly drop this for Daenerys who is, in fact, acting within said rules. I think the better question is - why do you blame Daenerys for doing something others do as well? You do seem a bit inconsistant when you on one hand uses ex post facto and at the same time you say you understand that morality is informed by the society they live in. Then why tralk about ex post facto?

I think you are mixing what I am allowed to do with what Daenerys are allowed to do and that you misunderstand my theoretical defense of collective punishment with a will from me to perform them myself in this case. I certainly would if I was living back then but I am not. You are certainly confusing me atm. 

First, we are in agreement that a mere membership is not a good ground. I have been talking from the beginning of those with vote, with power, with influence. 

Second - regardless of they reason for staying, don´t you think it´s reasonable for me to assume that you have stayed in congress not because you want to convice others (in general - convincing others in congress payed to hold a different opinion is very unlikely) but that the post that you hold simply matter to you more than your morals, that you staying is simply a way to sell out for the benefits you recieve? Sure, you might stay for another reason but I find that unlikely. Ned in fact is an excellent example, he first leave due to his morals, but was then back since he was not willing to risk the geopoliticial situation. In effect - he "sold out" the killing of Daenerys for power to stop the Lannisters.

Excellent.  Collective punishment happens when you embargo an entire nation.  A lot of uninvolved, innocent become casualties during times of change.  Those slavers were neither.  They were resisting.  

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

Jaime Lannister
Tywin Lannister
Tyrion Lannister
Cersei Lannister
Petyr Baelish
Varys
Theon Greyjoy
Victarion Greyjoy
Aeron Greyjoy
Bran Stark
Arya Stark
Stannis Baratheon
Daenerys Targaryan

 

I'd say only Tywin, Cersei, Baelish, Victarion, and Aeron could be described as villains. Even so, I think that you could make the argument, as several have, that even the "evil" characters have motivations they consider reasonable and strong. 

 

Except for Roose. He lives like a vampire and dresses like queen. That man, is something else..

[Hugorfonics]

I agree, slavers in asoiaf are for the most part worse, but that's because of their individual actions rather than because of the act of having slaves itself. For example I don't think being a peasant under Roose Bolton would be better than being a slave under Xaro. Do you know the "Rome" series by HBO? I think the relationship between Caesar and Posca is a good example imho why not all kinds of slavery can be seen as equally bad, and why some slaves are better off than peasants.

  I agree some slaves are treated better then peasents, but not most and it's not worth it.

What of Posca and Antony? 

A slave under Xaro carries a litter all day or is a hooker. Peasents under Roose collect ransoms for the kingslayer.

Slaves give birth to slaves. They walk around with bells and a chain, like an animal. 

Smallfolk have become Lord Commander of Eggs KG, Lord of Harrenhall, Lord of Rainwood and Hand of the King.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

 

  I agree some slaves are treated better then peasents, but not most and it's not worth it.

What of Posca and Antony? 

A slave under Xaro carries a litter all day or is a hooker. Peasents under Roose collect ransoms for the kingslayer.

Slaves give birth to slaves. They walk around with bells and a chain, like an animal. 

Smallfolk have become Lord Commander of Eggs KG, Lord of Harrenhall, Lord of Rainwood and Hand of the King.

We really don't know enough about the histories of Essos to determine if nothing similar happened in their histories, some slaves rising above their ranks to become nobles/rulers themselves. It is likely that Essos has their own version of Freedman

 

[Sullen]

We really don't know enough about the histories of Essos to determine if nothing similar happened in their histories, some slaves rising above their ranks to become nobles/rulers themselves. It is likely that Essos has their own version of Freedman

We have the Widow of the Waterfront, who despite being both a slave and a woman became a considerable power broker.

[OldGimletEye]

First of all I should say that I am very much a moral relativist so this is not something you need to defend.

Ex post facto is indeed very problematic and would be a great argument why I, a member of another culture as well as another time era, should not execute slavers. This is however a horrible argument against Daenerys. She is not ethnically different. She is of essosi heritage, raised in Essos and conquer other essosi. She is no outsider by any meaning.  

In addition, Daenerys doesn´t even know about ex post facto and the society she lives in doesn´t see it as a good principle like you and I do. Her justice is not about legal arguments, but simply eye for an eye-justice - pay them back with the same coin. If you think that people are influenced by the society you should not criticize this since this is very much standard logic in the world of asoiaf as well as historically in our own world. Daenerys doesn´t "change the rules of the game", she is following them. 

The reason I cheer for Daenerys is not because what she did works well within my own construct of morality for me today but because it works well within hers and by acting as a moral beeing in her world she wins my support. Her justice is justice in her society and it is not really relevant if it would be justice today. The execution was justified because eye for an eye was just then, not because of modern interpretation of class. When I said that I was ok with Ned being killed it doesnt mean I personally have that right, but Daenerys do.

In short, you try to take a legitimate reasoning for 21th century humans and apply it on Daenerys in order to condem her, but those rules was not relevant for her in the first place. You then agree that morality is informed by the society they live, but you immediatly drop this for Daenerys who is, in fact, acting within said rules. I think the better question is - why do you blame Daenerys for doing something others do as well? You do seem a bit inconsistant when you on one hand uses ex post facto and at the same time you say you understand that morality is informed by the society they live in. Then why tralk about ex post facto?

I think you are mixing what I am allowed to do with what Daenerys are allowed to do and that you misunderstand my theoretical defense of collective punishment with a will from me to perform them myself in this case. I certainly would if I was living back then but I am not. You are certainly confusing me atm. 

 

Well, its not exactly true that Dany is completely unaware of the problems associated with ex post facto rule making. In one of the cases before her, she makes the decision to not punish a former slave owner for rape, exactly on that principle. In that case, Dany made the right call, as disgusting as the slave owner's actions were.

Also, there is law in Westeros. And in fact, they even seemingly they have some respect for precedent there. There was a Stark that went specifically looking for precedent against forcible donations of land in order to bring it to the attention of Jaeherys when Jaeherys ordered the New Gift.

If Dany thinks of herself as the rightful Queen of Westeros, and hence it's highest judicial officer, she would do well to learn the laws there and to learn about it's prevailing moral norms.

The depressing thing here is that the "stupid defense" has merit here. Certainly, it's not completely out of character. Dany ask Drogo to help take Westeros for her and has not one iota of clue what that really means. Drogo brutally butchers a Lhazareen Village and Dany is shocked. There was gambling going one there, I tell ya. She attacks Astapor, without one iota of a clue, that would likely lead to a wider conflict.

The people in Westeros, however, seemingly do know that there is something wrong about collective guilt or punishment. We learn from Ned that Robert's irrational hatred for all things Targaryen is a "madness". Sandor Clegane asks Beric and Thoros,"is being a Clegane a crime?", to which Beric and Thoros seem to answer in the negative. Barristan tries to tell Dany that maybe lumping Ned Stark with the rest of the "Usurper Dogs" may not be quite right. But, you know, some people just can't take a hint.

Perhaps most importantly, Dany herself might have come to the realization that there is something very bad, generally, about collective guilt and punishment. Wasn't that kind of her conclusion after the whole Hazzea incident and after Barristan had to explain some shit to her?

Let's hope the whole Hazzea incident and the aftermath that followed has served as a wake up call to Dany.

The fact that Dany has not developed the moral and ethical sophistication to know that collective punishment is usually very wrong, at the time she ordered the execution, does not, in any way, imply that collective punishment is generally ok. I'm after all not a moral relativist and do not believe what is right or wrong ultimately depends on general opinion within a society. In fact, if I did believe in such a concept, I'd have to conclude that Dany's war in SB was fundamentally wrong because moral relativism would imply that one would have to respect SB's institutions and there is no particular good reason to suppose that Dany's opinions about slavery are any better than what the Ghiscari think about it. Fortunately, I do not have that problem, as I do not believe in moral relativism as a starting principle. To the extent that Dany is ignorant about the problems of collective punishment, that is only a factor in mitigation when thinking about her character. It does not make the concept right. And, again, the Westerosi seem to know that there are problems with the concept. Dany does not, accordingly to you, know the prevailing normative standards in the place she means to rule. That is troubling.

First, we are in agreement that a mere membership is not a good ground. I have been talking from the beginning of those with vote, with power, with influence. 

Second - regardless of they reason for staying, don´t you think it´s reasonable for me to assume that you have stayed in congress not because you want to convice others (in general - convincing others in congress payed to hold a different opinion is very unlikely) but that the post that you hold simply matter to you more than your morals, that you staying is simply a way to sell out for the benefits you recieve? Sure, you might stay for another reason but I find that unlikely. Ned in fact is an excellent example, he first leave due to his morals, but was then back since he was not willing to risk the geopoliticial situation. In effect - he "sold out" the killing of Daenerys for power to stop the Lannisters

Let's assume for the sake of argument that......

No, let's not assume that.

Prior to the Battle of The Somme, somebody in the British Army said,"lets assume our high explosive artillery will take out barb wire and all forward enemy defenses, thus clearing the way for our infantry." Everyone said,"ok we'll assume that". The result was about 60,000 British young men killed on the first day, in part because they were caught up in the barb wire which was not taken out.

Unfounded Assumptions Cause Things to Be Goat Ropes

Where justice and life and death are concerned I am very unwilling to go with "Let's assume". Not good enough. Completely unsat. People should try to know, not assume.

Finally, I think your Ned Stark example is awful. The fact is that Ned argued very hard on Dany's behalf. The fact that he decided to stay in order to prevent a Lannister power grab does not change that fact. This might be extremely shocking, but Dany's welfare is not the only thing a policy maker might have to consider. And once Ned agreed to become Hand again, he still continued to pester Robert about Dany's fate. And Ned really never wanted to be Hand. He would have rather been back in the North. These are all factors that should be known and considered when making final judgement.