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

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Saying things like this leads to hurtful, terrible discussions.

A text without a context is a pretext. This should be read with the rest of my post.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Why do we always end up having conversations like this? Dany ordered to do what many kings and lord have indirectly caused in name of things like their honours or their lands. KIng A offends King B? King B declares war, invades King A and his men kill, rape and execute children, men and women, and I'm sure those are way more than 163. I think only Stannis has been known to say "no pillage" or "no rape". As far as we know, maybe Stark men have been also raping women along the way. Why wouldn't they? They aren't Ned nor Robb.

And not, that doesn't excuse Dany. The hanging of all of the slavers is a very ambiguous behaviour which, seen through our modern point of view, is terrible and we can't understand because we respect Human Rights. I've personally condemned and speak about a former leader that did exactly the same, sending troops to comb villages and killing anyone suspicious with no trial nor defence. But this is fiction and it's different times.

Might be forshadowing, but I don't think Dany will ever as evil as Ramsay.

Dany isn't evil. She might be mad and wrong, but she's not evil.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

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.

All is fair in love and war is the only answer for any of this.

Ramsay was neither in love nor at war for a lot of his murders. He is in the wrong no matter what the verdict on Dany is.

[E-Ro]

All is fair in love and war is the only answer for any of this.

Ramsay was neither in love or at war for a lot of his murders. He is in the wrong no matter what the verdict on Dany is.

If all was fair in love and war we wouldnt have people bitching every time a drone killed a few civilians, and the dropping of atomic bombs on japan would not be seen as an awful thing to have done.

the idea that all is fair in love and war is, to put simply, nonsense.

If you take the stance that all is fair in war you have to accept the red wedding as being fair, the killing of kids of a rival dynasty, the massacre and rape of smallfolk as terror tactics etc. All these things would be fair game.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

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.

I didn't brought Tywin up because It's actually not even necessary to state his crime. They were his doing, and I agree, Robert wasn't the one that committed the crime, but he still looked away and doomed them as "Dragonspawn." I can't accept that. And that's one of the reasons I can't like Robert.

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.

This.

[Sullen]

I think only Stannis has been known to say "no pillage" or "no rape". As far as we know, maybe Stark men have been also raping women along the way. Why wouldn't they? They aren't Ned nor Robb.

Not only Stannis, Theon did the same thing in CoK when he captured Winterfell.

And if Theon does it, it wouldn't surprise me if other, more benevolent lords would do as well.

[Bronn Urgandy]

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.

Lots of people call the slavers "innocent" or "potentially innocent". They aren't. Just because they might not have helped stake up the children doesn't mean they're not guilty of countless other deaths. These are not simply slave owners. They're the Great Masters. They're the ones running the whole show. They're the ones having people taken from their homes and sold off like cattle. These people often die, get abused, and always are treated horribly.

I quoted two posts you made earlier on in which you claim to want them all killed horribly for partaking in the (at the time, sadly) legal activity of slavery, blanketing every man and woman involved, and therefor admistering a blanket, retroactive punishment. Yes they were the Grand Masters, but in these posts, the posts I originally referenced, you decided that they all must die, horribly, for slavery.

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.

You can make up evidence for Daenerys hearing their innocence or guilt as much as you want. "How many must you have?" "163" in the VERY next scene, they are crucified. Yes they are Grand Masters, but they are 163 picked by their own, or at random. Daenerys only claims to know them and where they are from long after they've died on their crosses.

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.

They're being held at gun point, so that is an excuse. These GM that may or may not have disagreed, the sword might not be out the sheathe, but it is still there.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

If all was fair in love and war we wouldnt have people bitching every time a drone killed a few civilians, and the dropping of atomic bombs on japan would not be seen as an awful thing to have done.

the idea that all is fair in love and war is, to put simply, nonsense.

If you take the stance that all is fair in war you have to accept the red wedding as being fair, the killing of kids of a rival dynasty, the massacre and rape of smallfolk as terror tactics etc. All these things would be fair game.

'fair' does not imply right or wrong. It means if you are involved in war don't expect anything to be on the up and up.

and an act of terrorism is not war in the sense of the saying. you know what I meant.

but yes all those things can happen in war.

Can we stop bringing so many real-world examples into this. you really want to debate if dropping the a-bomb was a good thing or not? cmon now!!

[E-Ro]

'fair' does not imply right or wrong. It means if you are involved in war don't expect anything to be on the up and up.

So then why are you acting as if killing those kids was a big deal? It was war, why are you expecting the slavers to be on the up and up but not dany?

[Boxman]

I see it as confirmation that both Ramsay and Dany are completely insane

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Not only Stannis, Theon did the same thing in CoK when he captured Winterfell.

And if Theon does it, it wouldn't surprise me if other, more benevolent lords would do as well.

He had a reason for respecting Winterfel. But yes, some other lords might, probably Edmure as well. But it's not something that common either. And while they don't straight order their people to resepct the lives of others, they don't punish them for mistreat them either.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

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.

Actually if you check the books, when Rhaenys and Aegon died it was Rebellion which is a kind of war. Were those 163 the same 163 who killed the children? Robert had no reason to say something, I don't think that he owned them anything,why should he anyway?, and frankly I don't think that anything could be done since they were dead.

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).

And yet again, were those 163 the same 163 who killed the children?

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".

So she commited genocide because some people were slavers in their own city.

For the third time, are we sure that those 163 were the same 163 who killed the children?

You do know that since she declared war at them she didn't was just antagonizing them she attracted them right? Basically she does the same thing she accuses Robert of doing.

I see it as confirmation that both Ramsay and Dany are completely insane

Perfectly sums the last 7 pages.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Actually if you check the books, when Rhaenys and Aegon died it was Rebellion which is a kind of war. Were those 163 the same 163 who killed the children? Robert had no reason to say something, I don't think that he owned them anything,why should he anyway?, and frankly I don't think that anything could be done since they were dead.

And yet again, were those 163 the same 163 who killed the children?

So she commited genocide because some people were slavers in their own city.

For the third time, are we sure that those 163 were the same 163 who killed the children?

You do know that since she declared war at them she didn't was just antagonizing them she attracted them right? Basically she does the same thing she accuses Robert of doing.

Perfectly sums the last 7 pages.

And killed all their pairs over 13 in a neighbour city.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

So then why are you acting as if killing those kids was a big deal? It was war, why are you expecting the slavers to be on the up and up but not dany?

what? I wasn't expecting them to be on the up and up, I am saying they did lots of unforgivable things to humans and dany retaliated. She just did the same thing back to them. It was all fair IMO.

my point was that Ramsay is an evil fu%$er and was not at war, so no, him and Dany should not be compared.

[E-Ro]

You know now that I think about this, I was wrong.

the red wedding was totally cool because it was war. also, tywins rape and plunder of the riverlands was war so its ok too. He was just using terror tactics, a valid wartime move!

Killing the targ kids? That was totally fine too, since it was war and in war all is fair.

Burning alester florent? HAHAHAH! they were at war so its ok! Same for burning mance, it was war. Oh and the three peasbury men, Stannis was at war with roose so its ok.

Japanese treatment of pows in ww2? Totally cool man, they were at war. Its not like we tried anyone for war crimes.

wait, why does the term war crimes even exist if all is fair in war?

im confused./sarcasm

the idea that all is fair in war is bullshit. It does not fly in real life, and it does not fly in the books.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Varys got it wrong anyway. There is nothing more terrifying than anyone who advocates an eye for an eye.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

They're being held at gun point, so that is an excuse. These GM that may or may not have disagreed, the sword might not be out the sheathe, but it is still there.

I think we have different takes on the GM. Since they were living and breathing parts of their society, I don't think they were being hold at gun-point. If they were to kill one of their own for refusing to carry on these kind of orders and asks to leave the Council or to not participate on such act anymore, then they are truly brutal.

Actually if you check the books, when Rhaenys and Aegon died it was Rebellion which is a kind of war. Were those 163 the same 163 who killed the children? Robert had no reason to say something, I don't think that he owned them anything,why should he anyway?, and frankly I don't think that anything could be done since they were dead.

And yet again, were those 163 the same 163 who killed the children?

Rhaenys and Aegon died after the city was taken by Tywin. They didn't died on the Rebellion per se, they died out of treachery by Tywin Lannister. And YES, like pretty much everybody else has said it and others have said it before, these 163 did participated on the decision, therefore they were guilty of such crime. Why do you keep ignoring the point everyone has made to you several times? And about Robert, I think there really is something called morals, that some people have. If one only thinks about what they did directly to him, in terms to what they owed to him when proving justice, then that's not Justice. That's self-servicing. Not exactly what I'd want from a King.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

And killed all their pairs over 13 in a neighbour city.

But don't you see? They were not children who were punished because of their potentially guilty parents, they were not BLUUUDDDD OF DA DRAGUUUNZZZ and they should had killed themselves once the crazy lady with the MDWs decided that she was better than everyone else and it was ok for her to committed genocide.

Rhaenys and Aegon died after the city was taken by Tywin. They didn't died on the Rebellion per se, they died out of treachery by Tywin Lannister. And YES, like pretty much everybody else has said it and others have said it before, these 163 did participated on the decision, therefore they were guilty of such crime. Why do you keep ignoring the point everyone has made to you several times? And about Robert, I think there really is something called morals, that some people have. If one only thinks about what they did directly to him, in terms to what they owed to him when proving justice, then that's not Justice. That's self-servicing. Not exactly what I'd want from a King.

SE was under siege so the war was not over yet. Oh, are we sure that exactly those 163 did participated in the decision? Where were Dany's morals when it came down to torture and murder people who she was not true that they were inoccent? Where were Dany's morals when she decided that it was OK to kill every child over 12 who wears tokar? Where were Dany's morals when she started to commit genocide? Between someone who actually hadn't done anything bad so he owned nothing to 3 people and a crazy someone who because she is BLUUUDD OF DU DRAGGGUUUNNNZZZ and has MDWs she is better than everyone else and activelly starts commiting mass torturing and genocide without any actual evidence, I would take the first one please, everyday allday.

[E-Ro]

Varys got it wrong anyway. There is nothing more terrifying than anyone who advocates an eye for an eye.

I would argue that it should be "there is nothing more terrifying then anyone who advocates all is fair in love and war"

the term has to be one of the most idiotic things ever.

[Jasta11]

I don't think we can compare these two. Even when she's being ultraviolent, Dany has good intentions in the long run. Ramsay does what he does for shits and giggles, and would probably have crucifed more people if he had then on hands anyway. There's a massive difference.

That said, the mental gymnastics I see in this thread to make the execution of 163 people OK is pretty astounding, when Dany herself finds it a horrible act afterwards. Were the crucified Great Masters? most probably, yes. Did they all participate in the crime that caused the crucifixion (the murder of the children)? We have no bloody idea. There are no investigations we know about. The slavers tell Dany how much death will soothe her, she says 163 because symbolism is cool yo, and the next thing we know thoe people are dead. There is no mention of interrogation or investigations to know if they actually participated in the crucifixion. And if merely not doing anything about it is enough of a crime to warrant execution, then the entire city should be put to the sword, starting with Dany herself since she previously had been a silent witness to the horrors of slavery for years.

Thing is, we have no idea how the Great Masters are structured. Perhaps a small clique rules them, as with (apparently) the Good Masters in Astapor. Perhaps it was an Athens-like semi-democracy, albeit if I recall correctly there's no evidence of that. Until we know this, however, saying all 163 crucified GMs were directly responsible for the children's murder, and thus guilty of the crime Dany accuses them of, is premature. We have no idea if it's true or not. And they were killed all the same because Dany found a number to be appropriate.