She’s lucky she’s not a Stark!

[Guest Other-in-law]

Your comment was "There's no excuse for readers to feel that way [uneasy about the less than honorable behavior], tacitly defending the atrocities of the slavers." That certainly implies that any hesitation on our part about the morality of Dany's actions is equivalent to endorsing what the Good Masters did. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize, but your words certainly lent themselves to that interpretation.

Jaak's question was literally whether deceit was worse than violence. If one agrees that it is, than one is taking the position that Dany was actually worse than the slavers, which is a sort of defense of slavery (they may skin people alive, but at least they aren't sneaky).

In some cases the complaint is that the slaves were "stolen". Aren't we accepting that the slavers have some kind of right of ownership of the slaves by looking at it that way? The slaves have had their own liberty stolen from them in the first place, so they're already stolen "property" (stolen from themselves) when the slavers own them.

And I usually don't see much of a denunciation of them that's at all proportional to the Dany bashing that goes on.

[L'Sana]

Jaak's question was literally whether deceit was worse than violence. If one agrees that it is, than one is taking the position that Dany was actually worse than the slavers, which is a sort of defense of slavery (they may skin people alive, but at least they aren't sneaky).

Okay, then, I see what you mean. At least in some circumstances, though, I think the argument that deceit is worse than violence has some merit. See my previous post and my comments about Jaime's "pretty words." Honesty and trust are the only ways that we prevent everything from turning into violence. Commerce exists based on the assumption that you and the other guy can trade without trying to stab each other in the back.

Was Dany's deceit worse than the violence committed by the slavers? On balance, I think not. But that doesn't mean that Dany was "right." If Dany can only be trusted to deal fairly with those she considers morally pure, she's going to have some serious issues.

And I usually don't see much of a denunciation of them that's at all proportional to the Dany bashing that goes on.

This is true, but the slavers are A) obviously evil, and not major characters. There doesn't seem to be much point in debating their actions. If you like, though:

"I, L'Sana, hereby proclaim that the leaders of Slaver's bay are some of the most morally reprehensible creatures in the serious. They are subhumans, on a level with Gregor Clegane, Vargo Hoat, and King Joffery. If the gods have any justice, they opened up an eighth hell, just for these slavers."

[Guest Other-in-law]

"I, L'Sana, hereby proclaim that the leaders of Slaver's bay are some of the most morally reprehensible creatures in the serious. They are subhumans, on a level with Gregor Clegane, Vargo Hoat, and King Joffery. If the gods have any justice, they opened up an eighth hell, just for these slavers."

Ok, fair enough. I'll make sure to never accuse you personally of defending the slavers.

And those "pretty words" are not insignificant. Oaths are what make the feudal system work. Lords care for their vassals because of the oaths those vassals have taken to obey the Lord's orders. The vassals in turn obey because their lords have made oaths to them. If it becomes a common belief that oaths, "pretty words," don't matter, then Westeros falls apart.

The flip side of that coin is that the pretty words can be equally responsible for ennabling and assisting crimes like burning Rickard Stark in his armour, chewing Queen Rhaella's breasts off, beating Sansa Stark bloody, and even incinerating hundreds of thousands of Kingslanders.

[Jaak]

Well, as far as killing the slavers goes, they had it coming. She did it underhandedly and dishonestly of course, but as one Eddard Stark showed us, in the game of thrones honesty is a fast way to become a head shorter.

The slavers of Astapor were not planning to make Daenerys a head shorter.

In spite of all this I didn't mind her until she burnt that sheep woman alive for the crime of assassinating the khal who attacked her peaceful civilization, had his men indulge in raping them, and than take their children as slaves. Is that supposed to be justice?

That maegi did it underhandedly and dishonestly, too. And she did not assassinate the khal. She assassinated the unborn baby. If that maegi had just said, sorry, our medicine is not almighty, our people still die and there are many illnesses we cannot cure, and Drogo has one of them, then Drogo would have died, and Daenerys would have been a pregnant widow. Death for treacherous murder of a baby is entirely just.

[Chalkobob]

The slavers of Astapor were not planning to make Daenerys a head shorter.

That we know of... But that is besides the point. My point was that to be a ruler in such a setting (or even nowadays) underhanded tactics are sometimes necessary.

That maegi did it underhandedly and dishonestly, too. And she did not assassinate the khal. She assassinated the unborn baby. If that maegi had just said, sorry, our medicine is not almighty, our people still die and there are many illnesses we cannot cure, and Drogo has one of them, then Drogo would have died, and Daenerys would have been a pregnant widow. Death for treacherous murder of a baby is entirely just.

I assumed the cream she put on his wound was designed to make it infected (or at least not help), and that baby wasn't just some random baby, it was going to bring slavery and rape to the entire world. It was worth it. Yes it was underhanded because she doesn't have the direct power the Khal has. But everyone from Cercei, to Cat, to Tyrion, to Jon (baby swapping) snow and even Stannis use underhandedness... the only person who didn't was Ned, and Ned's dead. Besides even if it's your opinion that killing that baby was wrong (which you are perfectly entitled to) maybe a hanging or beheading or something... but burning someone alive... That's just freakishly cruel.

[Zoë Sumra]

I share the... well, in my case, it's a slight feeling of disquiet that Dany's enemies so far have been a pretty unpleasant lot. Atrocities committed by them answered by atrocities committed against them by Dany, so on, so forth, the arguments for each side already having been expanded upon by previous posters in this thread. It feels, to me, like fairly standard fantasy fare.

The problem is Dany's view of Westeros, at least at this stage. Targs = good, Targ loyalists = good, Lannisters and Starks = bad, their supporters = bad, the Seven Kingdoms = a homeland she'll love as soon as she sees it. I like (at least some of) my Starks. I like (at least some of) my Lannisters.

In a normal fantasy series I wouldn't worry about this in the slightest. All the sympathetic characters currently leading diametrically opposing forces would realise they'd made terrible mistakes about each other and would cooperate not only to defeat the Others but to bring order to the Kingdoms afterwards. But this is far from a normal fantasy series.

I'm not at all bothered about Daenerys slaughtering slavers without waiting to listen to their explanations or trying to understand the complexities of their situation. Far from it. What bothers me is the pattern that this suggests, and the high likelihood that, later in the series, the mirroring situation will be Dany taking down a character or group of characters whom we've seen from the other side earlier in the books - a young Lord Rickon Stark/King Rickon of the North and his supporters, for instance, in his dual role as son of one of her father's team of killers and as head of a breakaway political region. Or Brynden Tully, or Shireen Baratheon (I hold no brief for Stannis), or, likeliest of all, Jaime Lannister.

Yeah, naturally I'm most bothered about my darling White Lion. But the point is capable of expansion to almost any sympathetic character not currently or imminently in Dany's retinue, with the exception of the mainland Martells.

[Mutethunder]

That maegi did it underhandedly and dishonestly, too. And she did not assassinate the khal. She assassinated the unborn baby. If that maegi had just said, sorry, our medicine is not almighty, our people still die and there are many illnesses we cannot cure, and Drogo has one of them, then Drogo would have died, and Daenerys would have been a pregnant widow. Death for treacherous murder of a baby is entirely just.

To be fair Rhaego would have been killed anyway "The boy will be taken from your breast the moment he is born. They will give him to the dogs". Jorah to Dany after Drogo falls of his horse, the maegi should have thought of this though and done nothing. She'd probably get killed if she refused do the spell though I'd wager.

[Roza Ahai]

Yes. Or were there any indication of a political opposition inside the slaver cities?

Dany did not try find out this. I don't think that all 12 years old who was raised in certain curcamstances is responsible for this. I don't think that all members of senate in Roman empire or of slavery class in Americaswho were raised on the profit from institutionalized mutilation and murder deserved to be murdered just simply because the society was on this stage of development.

"Her behavior" was meant to refer to her sexual alertness and premature development at age 15 that disgusted you so much, nothing more. Viseris and Drogo ARE responsible for that at least.

Hm, You youself told me that 15 years old is considered as adult in fantasy plot and in Medievil time. Sansa as 13 years old sexually matured, why Dany in her fourteens prematured, i don't understand. I find disgusting not her sexual behavior, but her methods to solve problems. I don't think that Drogo is responsible for this.

[Roza Ahai]

I continue to be amazed at how you just wave away the slaver's responsibility for their actions.

Shrug. I did not approve slavers actions.

They killed the innocent for the sole purpose of profit; she killed the guilty primarily to punish them, and additionally profited from it tactically.

I don't think that she killed only guilty slavers, i am sure innocent also. In massive killings there is high probability to kill innnocent people. Those children who lost parents were sold and made from them new Unsullied. So, she is also guilty. Just simply say, she has power, she has right for murdering without justice.