Do you view Daenerys as a dishonorable character?

[David Selig]

Dehumanizing was always favourite tactics when defending mass murder or other crimes. Massacring humans is obviously despicable, but do label them monsters and it's ok.

Sure, but sometimes it's true. The guys who Dany cheated (the Good Masters who trained and sold the Unsullied) were clearly monsters. Martin went out of his way to establish this.

They Good Masters clearly deserved death for their countless atrocities and didn't deserve to be treated fairly. Cheating them in a deal in order to be able to punish them for their monstrous crimes and free the slaves - I don't see how this is dishonorable. Is keeping a deal more important than stopping something absolutely terrible, punishing people who clearly deserved it and freeing many thousands of slaves?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Dehumanizing was always favourite tactics when defending mass murder or other crimes. Massacring humans is obviously despicable, but do label them monsters and it's ok. Same reason King Bob never wanted to murder children, only dragonspawn.

Of course, it doesn't help that Slavers Bay is some kind of oriental freakshow, rather than a believable place - which always bothered me.

The problem is, in this case dehumanizing was done by the author himself. He painted the Astapori as such crude, one-dimensional evil creatures, that it's near impossible to sympathize with them. Did you pity all those poor Uruk-hai, so carelessly slaughtered by Treebeard's goons sacking Isengard? And the Uruk-hai were still less vile than the good masters. (“Douquor’s Pit has a fine folly scheduled for the evening. A bear and three small boys. One boy will be rolled in honey, one in blood, and one in rotting fish, and she may wager on which the bear will eat first.”)

It's not "dehumanizing", if they're created inhuman in the first place. Blame the author.

[Mikkel]

They Good Masters clearly deserved death for their countless atrocities and didn't deserve to be treated fairly. Cheating them in a deal in order to be able to punish them for their monstrous crimes and free the slaves - I don't see how this is dishonorable. Is keeping a deal more important than stopping something absolutely terrible, punishing people who clearly deserved it and freeing many thousands of slaves?

The Good Masters deserved death, no argument there. The way she went about it was still dishonorable though, but sometimes doing the necessary things means compromising your honor. I don't judge her for that.

What came after - the wholesale destruction of anyone unfortunate enough to not be poor or a slave (ie, wearing a tokar) - went way beyond anything defensible though.

[Blutraven]

Going back to Dany crucifying the Great Masters. Lots of people say they deserved to die because they sold slaves (a despicable act) but they weren't, they were crucified for killing the innocent children (another despicable act). We cannot say if all the Great Masters backed killing the children. Were they given a trial? No, 163 were picked at random and crucified for an act they may have not committed. If they were crucified for slaving I'd be alright with it, even if I think crucifixion is deplorable in any case.

Dany isn't an honourable person but she tries (and fails) to do the right thing.

[Black Things]

That the Quentyn affair would be mentioned in defense of Danaerys is just bizarre. Her handling of the situation was one of the most politically stupid acts in the series.

[scotcat]

The Good Masters deserved death, no argument there. The way she went about it was still dishonorable though, but sometimes doing the necessary things means compromising your honor. I don't judge her for that.

What came after - the wholesale destruction of anyone unfortunate enough to not be poor or a slave (ie, wearing a tokar) - went way beyond anything defensible though.

This is the way I viewed it as well. The Good masters deserved what they got plain and simple. But the things that went on after that I can't justify.

In the end, though, I'd have to say that Dany is no more or less honourable than many of the other characters.

[Winter's Knight]

That the Quentyn affair would be mentioned in defense of Danaerys is just bizarre. Her handling of the situation was one of the most politically stupid acts in the series.

Marrying Quent would require her to pull a Robb. He arrived the day before (?) her wedding to Hizdhar. She turned him down, treated him as an honoured guest and promised to try and help him.

[The Snow King]

The problem is, in this case dehumanizing was done by the author himself. He painted the Astapori as such crude, one-dimensional evil creatures, that it's near impossible to sympathize with them. Did you pity all those poor Uruk-hai, so carelessly slaughtered by Treebeard's goons sacking Isengard? And the Uruk-hai were still less vile than the good masters. (“Douquor’s Pit has a fine folly scheduled for the evening. A bear and three small boys. One boy will be rolled in honey, one in blood, and one in rotting fish, and she may wager on which the bear will eat first.”)

It's not "dehumanizing", if they're created inhuman in the first place. Blame the author.

Lord of the Rings is icky for a lot of reasons, the whole things with some races being universally evil is just tip of the iceberg. But at least that was written over two generations ago, I expected better from writers now. And, the whole freak show quality of Slavers Bay notwithstanding, I think Martin did better.

Good Masters are clearly human, and author does not deny them their humanity. Humans are capable of doing horrible, monstrous things and labelling them monsters (that are somehow inherently different than us, true humans) is just simple escapism. And stooping down to their level, with some 'eye for an eye' mentality as Dany is prone to do does not put anyone on a morally higher ground.

Sure, but sometimes it's true. The guys who Dany cheated (the Good Masters who trained and sold the Unsullied) were clearly monsters. Martin went out of his way to establish this.

They Good Masters clearly deserved death for their countless atrocities and didn't deserve to be treated fairly. Cheating them in a deal in order to be able to punish them for their monstrous crimes and free the slaves - I don't see how this is dishonorable. Is keeping a deal more important than stopping something absolutely terrible, punishing people who clearly deserved it and freeing many thousands of slaves?

Well, not doing any deal with them in the first place would be the honourable thing to do. But Dany does the practical thing, to buy the slave-warriors and then double crosses the slavers. In buying slaves to fight for her, she herself becomes part of slave trade, and while I don't blames her for being smart, it does not make her good. Or honourable.

Also, is punishing slavers the most important value? I mean, I have nothing against it, but the here the collateral damage destroys the whole city and probably kills more slaves (by starvation, exposure, crime, etc) than Good Masters have managed in a while. If she would destroy them with some idea for reform, that's a different story. But she killed slavers for her own gain, and left people unprepared for freedom, with no economy or idea of government, to fend for themselves. That's hardly any improvement over Good Masters.

[Mikkel]

Marrying Quent would require her to pull a Robb. He arrived the day before (?) her wedding to Hizdhar. She turned him down, treated him as an honoured guest and promised to try and help him.

Agreed. I'll make so secret of the fact I find plenty to criticize with Dany, but she handled the Quentyn affair about as well as could be expected, really. Which wasn't great, but then he put her (and himself) in a shitty position by arriving too late.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Here we go again, the never ending debate about guest right in Astapor

Yep.

Most Dany threads are just recycles of old ones sadly, and there is really no progress in analyzing the character as whole.

[danm_999]

Marrying Quent would require her to pull a Robb. He arrived the day before (?) her wedding to Hizdhar. She turned him down, treated him as an honoured guest and promised to try and help him.

The whole Quentyn/Hizdahr jazz is emblematic of the deeper problem that Daenerys never decided when/whether to stay in Meereen or go to Westeros.

[El Guapo]

What came after - the wholesale destruction of anyone unfortunate enough to not be poor or a slave (ie, wearing a tokar) - went way beyond anything defensible though.

There is no evidence that this has happened.

[Black Things]

Marrying Quent would require her to pull a Robb. He arrived the day before (?) her wedding to Hizdhar. She turned him down, treated him as an honoured guest and promised to try and help him.

Ok so let's see what is more important:

Marry Quentyn and actually get a foothold in Westeros (huge achievement)

Or

Stay loyal to some Essosi not half as important as Dorne and who can't do much for you in conquering Westeros.

She really has no sense or priority.

[Mikkel]

There is no evidence that this has happened.

It's in the book. Kill anyone who wears a tokar, except for the kids. She says this, quite specifically.

[SeanF]

Ok so let's see what is more important:

Marry Quentyn and actually get a foothold in Westeros (huge achievement)

Or

Stay loyal to some Essosi not half as important as Dorne and who can't do much for you in conquering Westeros.

She really has no sense or priority.

Abandoing Mereen to its fate to return to Westeros with Quentyn and a pair of knights would have been a daft move.

[ghosts in winterfell]

It's in the book. Kill anyone who wears a tokar, except for the kids. She says this, quite specifically.

Even then, the only kids that were off limits were the ones under 12 years old. It's odd that some of the posters in here are willing to excuse her mistakes since Dany herself is still young, but if she thinks children as young as 12 are old enough to be put to the sword then I think she's old enough to be held to full responsibility for all of her blunders.

[mormont]

It's in the book. Kill anyone who wears a tokar, except for the kids. She says this, quite specifically.

No, she doesn't. (For a start, the word 'kids' would be somewhat... anachronistic. ;))

What she quite specifically says is:

"Slay the Good Masters , slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see."

There is a difference between saying that everyone over 12 must die, and ordering that no-one under 12 must be harmed. Apart from anything else, there's a difference in the intent - even if the effect were the same. On the one hand, you have someone whose mindset is primarily concerned with including people on the list to die: on the other, someone whose mindset is concerned with ensuring children are spared. But that's a relatively minor point. The main point is that, taken as a whole, the above quote's sense is clearly one of seizing control of the city from the established powers (the slavers) - hence the inclusion of 'soldiers' - and less of intent to commit a massacre.

That's just my reading, of course. People are free to differ. But in the end, it's clear that many freeborn males did actually survive, so if it was a massacre, it was one that at some point was curtailed.

Good Masters are clearly human, and author does not deny them their humanity. Humans are capable of doing horrible, monstrous things and labelling them monsters (that are somehow inherently different than us, true humans) is just simple escapism. And stooping down to their level, with some 'eye for an eye' mentality as Dany is prone to do does not put anyone on a morally higher ground.

Yeah, I think there's no doubt that this was at least in part the point GRRM wanted to make.

Well, not doing any deal with them in the first place would be the honourable thing to do. But Dany does the practical thing, to buy the slave-warriors and then double crosses the slavers. In buying slaves to fight for her, she herself becomes part of slave trade, and while I don't blames her for being smart, it does not make her good. Or honourable.

I'd argue very strongly with this, on the other hand. Dany takes the course she does for many reasons, but my sense is that the foremost among these is that it is the only way she can free the Unsullied. After all, having acquired them, the first thing she does is declare they're free: the last thing she does is take them off to Westeros to fight for her, which is her ostensible reason for purchasing them. At no point is she participating in the slave trade - that is her entire point, in fact. When she tells the Good Master that 'a dragon is no slave', that's her making that point: that bit of theatre makes no sense, if in fact her intent was her own gain.

Also, is punishing slavers the most important value? I mean, I have nothing against it, but the here the collateral damage destroys the whole city and probably kills more slaves (by starvation, exposure, crime, etc) than Good Masters have managed in a while. If she would destroy them with some idea for reform, that's a different story. But she killed slavers for her own gain, and left people unprepared for freedom, with no economy or idea of government, to fend for themselves. That's hardly any improvement over Good Masters.

People do tend to bring this 'alternative economic plan' bit up a whole lot. Would you refuse to rescue a suicidal man from a ledge until you'd arranged a comprehensive plan of therapy? Refuse to rescue a drowning kitten until you'd found it a home and a vet to look after it?

'Fending for yourself' is just another way of saying 'freedom', in the end. Dany frees the slaves, and she even abandons her personal quest to try to help them deal with that, but all people can say is that she ought to have left them to suffer because she didn't have a fully-costed and -tested alternative economic blueprint ready to roll. That's a pretty bizarre world-view, to me.

[El Guapo]

It's in the book. Kill anyone who wears a tokar, except for the kids. She says this, quite specifically.

Yes quite specific to the people that were in the plaza. But no evidence that this order extended to everyone throughout the city.

[The Snow King]

I'd argue very strongly with this, on the other hand. Dany takes the course she does for many reasons, but my sense is that the foremost among these is that it is the only way she can free the Unsullied. After all, having acquired them, the first thing she does is declare they're free: the last thing she does is take them off to Westeros to fight for her, which is her ostensible reason for purchasing them. At no point is she participating in the slave trade - that is her entire point, in fact. When she tells the Good Master that 'a dragon is no slave', that's her making that point: that bit of theatre makes no sense, if in fact her intent was her own gain.

She doesn't take them to Westeros, because she did not go to Westeros. They become part of her campaign in Slavers Bay, though. And it's quite convenient for her that the elite warrior-slaves she just freed had the idea of freedom purged from their minds, isn't it?

People do tend to bring this 'alternative economic plan' bit up a whole lot. Would you refuse to rescue a suicidal man from a ledge until you'd arranged a comprehensive plan of therapy? Refuse to rescue a drowning kitten until you'd found it a home and a vet to look after it?

'Fending for yourself' is just another way of saying 'freedom', in the end. Dany frees the slaves, and she even abandons her personal quest to try to help them deal with that, but all people can say is that she ought to have left them to suffer because she didn't have a fully-costed and -tested alternative economic blueprint ready to roll. That's a pretty bizarre world-view, to me.

Those examples make no sense. Would you rescue a suicidal man from ledge if you knew he had terminal cancer, a week to live and a that in pain? Would you drown a dog to save a kitten?

It's not juts about leaving people to suffer, it's about amplifying the suffering many times, just for to feel righteous, to feel a saviour. Dany does not help the slaves, they are dying by the hundreds now. It is childish idea that you can just handwave the underlying issues, just kill the bad guy, and everything will get better. If you find considering matters before acting, thinking about consequences and how it will affect people bizarre, then so be it.

[Nictarion]

That the Quentyn affair would be mentioned in defense of Danaerys is just bizarre. Her handling of the situation was one of the most politically stupid acts in the series.

How so?

I'd say Doran sending Quentyn empty handed was the stupid part. And if he wouldn't have waited so damn long, she would have accepted. He should have sent Oberyn to Essos, instead of KL.