Ramsays 63 and Daenerys 163... Is Martin trying to hint something?

[Alayne's Shadow.]

True, but I must ask myself would I be brave enough to try and stop it? I'd imagine physically trying to do so would lead to a grizzly fate. Behind my computer screen I say "YES, I WOULD!" but in the actual situation, who knows?

I agree with you, but every action has consequences. If one remains silent to protect his own life and allows a crime to happen, he is still punished. If it's voted for and although he loses, the voting still passes and the crime is still committed, he will be considered part of it, regardless of his internal thoughts. The Penal System doesn't concern itself with your subjective thoughts, but with facts.

[Asshai]

If anything, I imagine GRRM was drawing a parallel between Ramsay and the Great Masters. After all, their crucifixions were done with the intention of taunting their enemies, whilst Dany crucified the Great Masters out of a misguided sense of justice. Whatever we may think of it, "an eye for an eye" is still considered a form of justice, whilst crucifying enemies who have surrendered (after being promised mercy) and crucifying innocent slave children cannot be considered justice in any sense of the word.

Dany also displayed feelings of guilt, regret and horror at her actions, something Ramsay and the Great Masters have yet to do. So, again, if a parallel is meant to be drawn between Ramsay and Dany, it's likely to distinguish Dany from Ramsay and those like him.

I think it's also hugely important to Dany's arc in Meereen. Throughout her time there she begins to adopt their customs, their clothing, their "justice", and their cruelty. But by the end of ADwD, she realises that:

I completely agree with this.

Also, it's very interesting that people simply decide to attack Dany. After all, it seems that GRRM just likes the number; there were 63 people from Mole's Town who went back with Jon. Shame no one bothers to consider that, and I doubt that anyone would seriosuly entertain comparisons between Jon Snow and Ramsay. Though they may attack any who defend Dany as being an idiot, they are far more blinded, particularly as many seem only to judge Dany's moral standards. Practically no one goes on about how Robb executed some of Karstark's soldiers, even though all they did was watch, despite the similarity of that to any of the allegedly innocent Great Masters. And plenty support Stannis, despite burning people alive and kinslaying. And there are plenty as well who support Littlefinger, and revel in his immorality and that he started a civil war for his own advancement. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of all of them, and for different reasons. But they aught not to just single out one character for criticism, blind to their hypocrisy. They are all guilty of sins, yet apparently in one character that's something to be ignored or even desired, and in another something to be jumped upon and lambasted.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

:bang: I was clearly speaking about the GMs. Everything I've said has been about the GMs and their roll in the children's crucifixions! They're a governing body, kinda like a congress/assembly. They make decisions as a group. So, even if they didn't take part in the physical portion of the plan, they had knowledge of it. They are accessories to the crimes. They deserve to die, for that, plus all the other killings they are responsible for. And if you were innocent and picked, you could throw a pretty big fit that Dany would have noticed and questioned!

Eta: there is zero evidence these people were in any way innocent. That is a fact made up by Dany haters. Dany knows who they are, who their wives are, where they lived, she's clearly put some work into this. Saying they're random innocent members of the government has zero factual basis.

Then judge and punish everybody in that governing body. That would be justice. Or do you propose that the governing body consisted of exactly 163 people?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I'd claim the children are worse because they are children. At least the men participated actively in the war. What did the children do?

No, I'd claim that 3 innocent lives are better than 163 potentially innocent lives, one is murder the other is genocide. And they don't actively participated in a war, a crazy lady with MDW thought that it was ok to attact them, when on the other hand it was a rebellion with people who were fighting about their lives.

[Dany Girl]

Your words, "they were slavers, Dany should've killed them all" but slavery isnt a crime yet, its retroactive punishment.

You'd be making EXACTLY the same scene as the 162 guilty ones next to you.

My words in a thread that I have repeated been referencing only GMs. Must I write GM each and every time?

And no, Dany actually spoke with them. She knows their names, where they live and the names of their wives. When she spoke to them they could have pleaded their case. "It wasn't me, I tried to stop it, it was X". But she never says any of them denied their part. There's not a single bit of evidence that any were innocent.

[Dany Girl]

Then judge and punish everybody in that governing body. That would be justice. Or do you propose that the governing body consisted of exactly 163 people?

I've already said she should have killed them all :)

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Seems like Dany is just as big a villain, blinded by the nobility of her cause.

Like a lot of characters in this story if we look at them trough the eyes of the people who have died because of their cause.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

No, I'd claim that 3 innocent lives are better than 163 potentially innocent lives, one is murder the other is genocide. And they don't actively participated in a war, a crazy lady with MDW thought that it was ok to attact them, when on the other hand it was a rebellion with people who were fighting about their lives.

I think I've explained how the 163 slavers were not innocent. Re-Read my posts. And yet they did, because differently from Astapor, they did fight. They did participated in a War. Just because Daenerys made the first move doesn't mean they didn't participated on it. Also, I'm still baffled, how were anyone protecting anyone lives by killing two unarmed infants? Robert had already won the rebellion. The Mad King was dead. There was no need for the butchering of the Targaryen children and the rape and murder of Elia Martell. It's even repeated several times for it's brutality. Comparing it to warfare is not right.

[TheCrannogDweller]

No, I'd claim that 3 innocent lives are better than 163 potentially innocent lives, one is murder the other is genocide. And they don't actively participated in a war, a crazy lady with MDW thought that it was ok to attact them, when on the other hand it was a rebellion with people who were fighting about their lives.

Children should not be punished for their parents' crimes. The murders of Rhaenys and Aegon have nothing to do with the Rebellion. They didn't threaten anyone. They were just kids.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

They're slavers. They're not innocent. Dany should have killed them all. How many lives have they each ruined? Millions. Let them die, let it be brutal. I for one don't have a single f*** to spare caring about slavers.

yes they deserved it, Dany did come to their part of the world and get in their business. But it was dirty business and they were all playing with thousands of lives and deserved everything Dany, or anyone invading and standing up for the slaves, gave them.

The only problem I had with Dany's crucifixions is that she stopped at 163.

exactly, she should have Keyser Soze'd their asses and killed everyone they had ever met.

If anything, I imagine GRRM was drawing a parallel between Ramsay and the Great Masters. After all, their crucifixions were done with the intention of taunting their enemies, whilst Dany crucified the Great Masters out of a misguided sense of justice. Whatever we may think of it, "an eye for an eye" is still considered a form of justice, whilst crucifying enemies who have surrendered (after being promised mercy) and crucifying innocent slave children cannot be considered justice in any sense of the word.

Dany also displayed feelings of guilt, regret and horror at her actions, something Ramsay and the Great Masters have yet to do. So, again, if a parallel is meant to be drawn between Ramsay and Dany, it's likely to distinguish Dany from Ramsay and those like him.

I think it's also hugely important to Dany's arc in Meereen. Throughout her time there she begins to adopt their customs, their clothing, their "justice", and their cruelty. But by the end of ADwD, she realises that:

Eye for an Eye is exactly what she did, and a very big part of history on Earth lived by those rules. She wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. Ramsay, however, hunted women with dogs then skinned them alive while raping their gross dead corpses, and those he did that too were not people he was battling, no war was happening, that was just him being a sicko psycho for no reason. I think the numbers are purely coincidence or like others suggested a number GRRM happens to like.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I think I've explained how the 163 slavers were not innocent. Re-Read my posts. And yet they did, because differently from Astapor, they did fight. They did participated in a War. Just because Daenerys made the first move doesn't mean they didn't participated on it. Also, I'm still baffled, how were anyone protecting anyone lives by killing two unarmed infants? Robert had already won the rebellion. The Mad King was dead. There was no need for the butchering of the Targaryen children and the rape and murder of Elia Martell. It's even repeated several times for it's brutality. Comparing it to warfare is not right.

As I have said before are we sure that they were slavers? Because a crazy lady with MDWs attacted them, which what making the first move is, they had no right to defend themselves?

Was Robert the one who killed Aegon and Rhaenys? Not in the books I've read.

Killing the heirs is what happens in order to secure the new dynasty much like genocide. I am not saying that its correct, since I am not the one who brought that up, I am saying that happens. But saying that mass torturing and killing 163 people who are potentially guilty but you, not you you the crazy lady you, have no actual proof because of their culture is not OK.

Children should not be punished for their parents' crimes. The murders of Rhaenys and Aegon have nothing to do with the Rebellion. They didn't threaten anyone. They were just kids.

I am not the one who brought up Aegon and Rhaenys and I have never said that it was ok. What I said is that this happens and the reasons it happens and the fact that Robert owned nothing to them.

[Bronn Urgandy]

I agree with you, but every action has consequences. If one remains silent to protect his own life and allows a crime to happen, he is still punished. If it's voted for and although he loses, the voting still passes and the crime is still committed, he will be considered part of it, regardless of his internal thoughts. The Penal System doesn't concern itself with your subjective thoughts, but with facts.

Does Roslin Frey deserve to die then? Or on those occasions when a ship gets hijacked, a few pirates hold a lot of people captive, they recieve no ransom and execute a prisoner, do the rest deserve to die for meekly watching?

If so, Dany still ballsed up by demanding only 163.

My words in a thread that I have repeated been referencing only GMs. Must I write GM each and every time?

And no, Dany actually spoke with them. She knows their names, where they live and the names of their wives. When she spoke to them they could have pleaded their case. "It wasn't me, I tried to stop it, it was X". But she never says any of them denied their part. There's not a single bit of evidence that any were innocent.

Doesn't matter, you are convicting them of crimes there is no law against, I am all for implementing NEW laws, but you can't kill everyone who owned a slave, or even all the GM's. You're taking the (relatively) innocent ones who may have given their slaves a fairly decent life, with the absurdly guilty.

They ask "how many do you need to save us?" She says "163" the next we see, they are crucified. I really dont think she gave a figs, she still doesn't. She could've learned their names and addresses any time after that.

I've already said she should have killed them all :)

For the crime of crucifixitions, and I suppose, for the crime of doing nothing to stop them. Beheadings all round for the GM. Sorting the innocent from the guilty would be better, but we can't always win. What Daenerys did was not justice, it was bloody minded vengeance.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Being a slaver is not a crime. Men are sons of their enviroment. Whats the guilt of being born in a slaver society in the ruling class? How much choice does this people had?

People should remember that we as humans have 6-7k of history with slaves and just a cuple houndreds without it.

Slavery is bad, but going against it godlike in a society of thousends of years, mourdering all those who just were never educated to see it as wrong is far worse.

Its almost as if we pretend the north should have executed all the southeners who owned slaves after they won the war. Thats what Daenerys did in Astapor.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Its almost as if we pretend the north should have executed all the southeners who owned slaves after they won the war. Thats what Daenerys did in Astapor.

Saying things like this leads to hurtful, terrible discussions.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Does Roslin Frey deserve to die then? Or on those occasions when a ship gets hijacked, a few pirates hold a lot of people captive, they recieve no ransom and execute a prisoner, do the rest deserve to die for meekly watching?

If so, Dany still ballsed up by demanding only 163.

Roslin does deserve to die if she is a direct participant, legally speaking. If she knew and went through with it, she is guilty. In your case about the ransom, since they are being hold at gun-point, they can't be punished for it. It's actually very clear legally about this.

And yes, legally speaking, Dany did ballsed up by only demanding 163. Though I've thought she had gone for the "Eye for an eye" policy. Since they claimed 163 lives, 163 shall die. Of course that is unfair. In today's trials, they would all be punished.

As I have said before are we sure that they were slavers? Because a crazy lady with MDWs attacted them, which what making the first move is, they had no right to defend themselves?

Was Robert the one who killed Aegon and Rhaenys? Not in the books I've read.

Killing the heirs is what happens in order to secure the new dynasty much like genocide. I am not saying that its correct, since I am not the one who brought that up, I am saying that happens. But saying that mass torturing and killing 163 people who are potentially guilty but you, not you you the crazy lady you, have no actual proof because of their culture is not OK.

They had, but that is war. Killing children is not war. And I hadn't actually brought the Targaryen children, but the 163 children killed, but since we got to this topic... They weren't punished for committing slavery, but for the murder of 163 children. Robert did not killed them, true, but he did condoned the practice. That's very much despicable. And even if we do believe your point that It's the same, then defending one is equal to defending the other. That's why I despise Robert's actions with all my heart and can never bring myself to like him.

You are right. Are both equally awful and equally bad? Yes. But Dany didn't killed them for being Ghiscari, she killed them for killing 163 children. And In terms, she does have proof. Her proof is the 163 children rotting in her way to Meereen. It's not their culture to kill innocent children to intimidate an enemy. No matter their family name (Being daughters of nobles or having no family name at all).

[Dany Girl]

Doesn't matter, you are convicting them of crimes there is no law against, I am all for implementing NEW laws, but you can't kill everyone who owned a slave, or even all the GM's. You're taking the (relatively) innocent ones who may have given their slaves a fairly decent life, with the absurdly guilty.

They ask "how many do you need to save us?" She says "163" the next we see, they are crucified. I really dont think she gave a figs, she still doesn't. She could've learned their names and addresses any time after that.

For the crime of crucifixitions, and I suppose, for the crime of doing nothing to stop them. Beheadings all round for the GM. Sorting the innocent from the guilty would be better, but we can't always win.

Dany was punishing then for willfully antagonizing her. They(to be clear, I'm talking about the GMs) killed innocent children just to piss her off. She responded by killing 163 of them in the manner they chose. I've never said to kill every man that's ever owned a slave. I've only spoken, and I've repeatedly stated this, about the GMs. They all deserve to due. Dany conquered their city, yet spared some of them. That was a mistake. If she'd killed them all,she wouldn't have a lot of the issues she currently has in Meereen.

Where is the idea any of these men were not GMs or were remotely innocent coming from? Cuz it certainly isn't in the books! In fact, for the 8th time, which no one has been able to contest, she knows who they are, because she knows where to return their bones. Does this not speak to her having some level of their involvement? Of knowing, at the very least, that they are in fact GMs? Or how about, that as conquer, she has every right to kill off any or all members of the conquered ruling party? If so, you can say crucifixions are a horrible way to go (and i don't disagree,) but it was within her rights.

[PatrickStormborn]

No, I'd claim that 3 innocent lives are better than 163 potentially innocent lives, one is murder the other is genocide. And they don't actively participated in a war, a crazy lady with MDW thought that it was ok to attact them, when on the other hand it was a rebellion with people who were fighting about their lives.

They were not "potentially innocent"! They were Great Masters. They bought and sold and distributed slaves. Some of them, perhaps even most of them, thought it would be funny to crucify innocent slave children just to taunt Daenerys. When Dany confronted them, they didn't even bother to defend themselves.

In contrast, Rhaenys and Aegon (and the thousands raped and killed during the Sack of King's Landing) truly were innocents. So whilst I disagree with Dany's method of "justice", I find that "she shouldn't have done it because one of them may have been innocent" is totally the wrong argument. She shouldn't have done it because she's not a Harpy (and, based on her final ADwD chapter, I guess GRRM feels the same).

And no, killing 163 people is not genocide. Dany does not attempt to wipe out an ethnic group.

And, for the final time hopefully (because I have to explain this to you EVERY TIME): DANY KNEW EXACTLY WHO SHE CRUCIFIED. She knew their wives and their addresses, because she made sure their bones were delivered back to their homes. They were, without a doubt, Great Masters.

George Washington is a real person and we're discussing punishments in a fictional fantasy series. Let's stay within the rules of the book and not reach for real world figures.

Honestly, George Washington probably belongs in this thread... He was not only a slaver but also someone who was cruel and exploitative (he stole teeth from his slaves, after all).

[Dany Girl]

As I have said before are we sure that they were slavers? Because a crazy lady with MDWs attacted them, which what making the first move is, they had no right to defend themselves?

Where the hell are you getting this? Seriously, what, from the book, makes you doubt they are GMs?

Defend themselves? By crucifying 163 totally innocent children, likely slave children? Well, if that's a form of defense, it's news to me!

They were antagonizing her. She won, she got "justice".

[TheCrannogDweller]

That's why I despise Robert's actions with all my heart and can never bring myself to like him.

OFFTOPIC. The deaths of Rhaenys and Aegon were Tywin's doing. Even though Robert accepted it after it was done, I seriously doubt that he would've allowed it to happen if they were still alive when the Lannisters delivered them to him.

[E-Ro]

I really dont get this argument, honestly I dont understand how you can sit here and debate the morality of executing large sums of people, or even small sums of people for that matter.

Crucifying people=bad

burning people alive=bad

chopping heads off=bad

Owning slaves=bad

right? does everyone agree with all of the above? If the answer is yes then what is the issue? Dany was wrong to crucify those people, stannis was wrong to burn those men, randyle tarly was wrong to wash that girls private parts with lye. It all amounts to the same thing, death by torture.

I really dont care what a characters motives are in execution, I dont care about how its done. Its wrong, end of story. If you support the death penalty in real life thats fine, I disagree but that doesnt really matter. If, of course you DO support the death penalty, you have to make a case for why the slavers deserved to be crucified without actually trying to figure out who was responsible for killing the kids.