Daenerys broke guest right in Astapor?

[The Duke]

Getting mad over Dany killing and double crossing the Astapori would be like getting mad at an undercover cop who killed a pimp who is trafficking sex slaves. She gave the unsullied their freedom, and they chose to follow her. Dany has done some bad stuff (the Yunkish envoy), but some people stretch to paint her add the villain some times. The House of the Undying was trying to capture her and she was saved by Drogon, so to try to paint that as violating guest right there is ludicrous.

[Consigliere]

Dont think guest right has the same significance is Essos as it does in Westeros.

[Urien the Ragged]

And Planky Town.

Duskendale, I'd assume as well. Saltpans and Pennytree, too.

[Urien the Ragged]

Getting mad over Dany killing and double crossing the Astapori would be like getting mad at an undercover cop who killed a pimp who is trafficking sex slaves. She gave the unsullied their freedom, and they chose to follow her. Dany has done some bad stuff (the Yunkish envoy), but some people stretch to paint her add the villain some times. The House of the Undying was trying to capture her and she was saved by Drogon, so to try to paint that as violating guest right there is ludicrous.

To be fair, she didnt free the Unsullied until after she commanded them to kill everyone wearing a tokar.

[Urien the Ragged]

However, if you're offended by the sack of Astapor scene, you arent human. Best part of the series when Kraznys realizes Dany speaks Valyrian and that he's fucked.

[Lala]

Indeed. In any opinion you come to know far more about the author of the opinion than of the object of discussion.

But this is well beyond the OP discussion. The point is: shall we believe Daenerys' as innocent and rightful in her choices or not?

This is, quite honestly, a relatively meaningless question. No one is ever "innocent" in their choices, least of all a primary monarch as Dany is. "Rightful" depends on your normative definition of "rights." I have noted in the Dany rethink thread that Dany's brand of justice and "righteousness" is notably Biblical in its application and interpretation - it brings into focus the question of do people who live completely outside of "justice" have any right to recourse in an ideal which they themselves have explicitly rejected through years of tradition and history? Personally, I do not believe that Biblical applications of justice are inherently admirable - and I see Dany's actions in Astapor as an example of her innate realpolitik (something which Tyrion may be instrumental in helping her further develop). I would define her behavior as a moment where Dany's own natural idealism (her repulsion at the injustice of the institution of slavery) met a certain Tywin-like cunning. As MO mentioned beforehand, I criticize Dany quite often - and I do indeed criticize her actions in Astapor from a modern 21st century moral framework. However, I do not believe that the ends of her actions are morally repugnant, only the means. Which is a distinction I draw from Tywin's orchestration of the Red Wedding, in which both the ends and the means are morally disgusting.

The guest right/rite issue has already been discussed and I agree - it was not a violation of guest rite - what Dany did is a violation of the principles of honor and just warfare (potentially fair trade), but not of any "sacred laws" like guest rite.

Shall we believe that it is more important if what she broke was a customary of Essos, that it wasn't called like that in Essos or only that had some bloody consequences and was clearly unexpected and unagreed?

This is a complicated question - does it matter if what Dany disregarded was a traditional custom in Essos in the same way that guest rite is a traditional/sacred custom in Westeros? I would argue it does not possess the same significance on a societal level. The violation of guest rite in Westeros by the Freys is critical because the Freys are members of the traditional Westerosi culture/social landscape and active members of the Westerosi social contract. Essentially, the Frey violation of guest rite is troubling because it is a violation of a social contract by a member of the social contract. This undermines the ability of the members of the society from ever feeling safe/reliant on that social contract ever again - like oathbreaking (well guest rite is an unspoken oath), the Freys were undermining the very underpinnings of Westerosi society and the trust that allows a society to be a society.

On the other hand, it is important to remember that Dany is, first and foremost, an outsider to Slaver's Bay. Dany is, indeed, and Essosi at this point of her character arc, but Essos is not Westeros, with one unified culture and society. Even more importantly, Dany still mostly belongs to the Dothraki culture, one for whom Dany's actions are relatively quotidienne. So in her sack of Astapor, Dany only violated general, intrinsic principles of honor and just warfare (fair warning etc.), but did not threaten the social foundations of either her own society (the Dothraki, Unsullied, freedmen who follow her) or those of Slaver's Bay (because they still trust each other as much as they ever did - Dany's actions have no impact on the trust of those within their society). In fact, arguably, by her Sack of Astapor, Dany makes a new social contract with her own "society"/followers/nation - a promise that she will not turn a blind eye to the injustice of slavery which has robbed so many of them of their agency for so long.

shall we believe one does acquire enemies only through evil propaganda, or it was her actions that broke some relationship based on some assumptions?

One must have enemies for there to be evil propaganda. One acquires enemies because one stands up for something (paraphrased Winston Churchill) - even if Dany had waited outside of Astapor's gates and successfully overthrew the slavers by honorably besieging them, many of the same rumors and enemies would have appeared. This is because those who oppose Dany in Slaver's Bay fundamentally oppose her, not because of her means used in Astapor, but because of her ends achieved. Both the slavers and Dany understand that their conflicting philosophies cannot peacefully coexist and that as long as Dany remains in Essos, she remains a threat to their unjust way of life.

shall we sustain that it is right to break the rules of the reign that hosts us because we do not agree with them, or that we should respect those rules as we would like our rules to be respected in our kingdom?

First of all, you are mixing "rules" here. The rules that Dany did not agree with were the rules which enforced the institution of slavery - and this is a situation which is so rooted in the fundamental, intrinsic justice of human right to human agency, that I will always endorse violating cultural rules of slavery in any culture anyone finds themselves in. The rules that Dany violated were the rules of fair trade and honorable warfare - unspoken, implied rules which Dany does not disagree with, she simply found it inconvenient to apply them in the case of the slavers.

More complexly, because no human has the right to buy or sell another human being, the slavers did not have any right to sell Dany the Unsullied. This is where practicality and idealism conflict and indeed, what I would have preferred Dany to do would not necessarily have been the practical thing for her to do in the situation she found herself in. I would not criticize Dany (pretty much at all) if she had then told the Unsullied that they were free, and that they may work with her to destroy the (non-slave) soldiers and slavers of Astapor if they so wished. Unfortunately, given the Unsullied's training and their psychology at that time, what Dany did, simply command them to do so, was much more practical. Essentially, if Dany had taken the former route (given the Unsullied the choice of whether or not to fight the slavers) she would have simply enabled a slave uprising which was founded in the agency and rightful seeking of justice by those enslaved, as opposed to attacking a city with her own army, which is what happened when she commanded the Unsullied to do what they did.

[Max Berg]

This is, quite honestly, a relatively meaningless question.

I tried to summarize the questions we were answering since yesterday into this thread, not to write a list of smart questions. :-)

So, I agree with you on this point.

No one is ever "innocent" in their choices, least of all a primary monarch as Dany is. "Rightful" depends on your normative definition of "rights." I have noted in the Dany rethink thread that Dany's brand of justice and "righteousness" is notably Biblical in its application and interpretation - it brings into focus the question of do people who live completely outside of "justice" have any right to recourse in an ideal which they themselves have explicitly rejected through years of tradition and history? Personally, I do not believe that Biblical applications of justice are inherently admirable - and I see Dany's actions in Astapor as an example of her innate realpolitik (something which Tyrion may be instrumental in helping her further develop). I would define her behavior as a moment where Dany's own natural idealism (her repulsion at the injustice of the institution of slavery) met a certain Tywin-like cunning. As MO mentioned beforehand, I criticize Dany quite often - and I do indeed criticize her actions in Astapor from a modern 21st century moral framework. However, I do not believe that the ends of her actions are morally repugnant, only the means. Which is a distinction I draw from Tywin's orchestration of the Red Wedding, in which both the ends and the means are morally disgusting.

Fair enough. ;)

The guest right/rite issue has already been discussed and I agree - it was not a violation of guest rite - what Dany did is a violation of the principles of honor and just warfare (potentially fair trade), but not of any "sacred laws" like guest rite.

Idem.

This is a complicated question - does it matter if what Dany disregarded was a traditional custom in Essos in the same way that guest rite is a traditional/sacred custom in Westeros? I would argue it does not possess the same significance on a societal level. The violation of guest rite in Westeros by the Freys is critical because the Freys are members of the traditional Westerosi culture/social landscape and active members of the Westerosi social contract. Essentially, the Frey violation of guest rite is troubling because it is a violation of a social contract by a member of the social contract. This undermines the ability of the members of the society from ever feeling safe/reliant on that social contract ever again - like oathbreaking (well guest rite is an unspoken oath), the Freys were undermining the very underpinnings of Westerosi society and the trust that allows a society to be a society.

Agreeable to a certain extent. Yet if your cousin goes into a foreign country and when he goes back at you it tells you he had done several acts that in that place are not believed to be "so wrong" but here in your society are condemned.. what would you think of him? Daenerys may be far from Westeros, but Westeros is watching her and judging her because she will be back, sooner or later.

On the other hand, it is important to remember that Dany is, first and foremost, an outsider to Slaver's Bay. Dany is, indeed, and Essosi at this point of her character arc, but Essos is not Westeros, with one unified culture and society. Even more importantly, Dany still mostly belongs to the Dothraki culture, one for whom Dany's actions are relatively quotidienne. So in her sack of Astapor, Dany only violated general, intrinsic principles of honor and just warfare (fair warning etc.), but did not threaten the social foundations of either her own society (the Dothraki, Unsullied, freedmen who follow her) or those of Slaver's Bay (because they still trust each other as much as they ever did - Dany's actions have no impact on the trust of those within their society). In fact, arguably, by her Sack of Astapor, Dany makes a new social contract with her own "society"/followers/nation - a promise that she will not turn a blind eye to the injustice of slavery which has robbed so many of them of their agency for so long.

Uhm, I am not pretty sure that providing hope and aims to slaves to free themselves from their chains and showing them that social order doesn't have to be like they've been forced to perceive as "normal" all the time due to their weak position.. ..I am not pretty sure that this can not be defined as "not threatening" for the Astapori society.

One must have enemies for there to be evil propaganda. One acquires enemies because one stands up for something (paraphrased Winston Churchill) - even if Dany had waited outside of Astapor's gates and successfully overthrew the slavers by honorably besieging them, many of the same rumors and enemies would have appeared. This is because those who oppose Dany in Slaver's Bay fundamentally oppose her, not because of her means used in Astapor, but because of her ends achieved. Both the slavers and Dany understand that their conflicting philosophies cannot peacefully coexist and that as long as Dany remains in Essos, she remains a threat to their unjust way of life.

Nothing to say.

First of all, you are mixing "rules" here. The rules that Dany did not agree with were the rules which enforced the institution of slavery - and this is a situation which is so rooted in the fundamental, intrinsic justice of human right to human agency, that I will always endorse violating cultural rules of slavery in any culture anyone finds themselves in.

Which is in turn, a very modern and Christian perspective. Different people, different societies, different rules and rights and perspectives.

The rules that Dany violated were the rules of fair trade and honorable warfare - unspoken, implied rules which Dany does not disagree with, she simply found it inconvenient to apply them in the case of the slavers.

More complexly, because no human has the right to buy or sell another human being,

Argh..! This is a belief, a dogmatic assumption or at best a society agreement.. I don't like the way in which you try to make it "absolute", although I would like it to be true.

the slavers did not have any right to sell Dany the Unsullied.

Here I can not agree.

If the slavers did not have any right to sell slaves, then Dany has no right to sit on Iron Throne.

If one self-proclaims as a ruler and has the strength to force others accept it, then he has the right to do it and rule.

Power is always something you conquest.

This is where practicality and idealism conflict and indeed, what I would have preferred Dany to do would not necessarily have been the practical thing for her to do in the situation she found herself in. I would not criticize Dany (pretty much at all) if she had then told the Unsullied that they were free, and that they may work with her to destroy the (non-slave) soldiers and slavers of Astapor if they so wished. Unfortunately, given the Unsullied's training and their psychology at that time, what Dany did, simply command them to do so, was much more practical. Essentially, if Dany had taken the former route (given the Unsullied the choice of whether or not to fight the slavers) she would have simply enabled a slave uprising which was founded in the agency and rightful seeking of justice by those enslaved, as opposed to attacking a city with her own army, which is what happened when she commanded the Unsullied to do what they did.

I can see your point.

[WildBlood]

She was no guest, did not eat of the Astapori food or drink of their drink. It was only a business transaction.