Do you view Daenerys as a dishonorable character?

[Chatty Duelist]

Well actually, abolition of slavery need not be bloody. The United Kingdom abolished slavery without so much as a hitch.

[SeanF]

All I can say is those idiots in Astapor allowed a 15 year old girl with 3 dog sized dragons to take control of their entire crop of unsullied. This after they spoke to her as if she was less than nothing, in her native language, and then after explaining to her and us the reader how they make unsullied.

This in my humble opinion is Dany's most amazing, heroic, epic, natural selection, Darwin Award Winning, thing, in the history of ever.

I am not even a Dany fanboy either, but that was fucking brilliant lol.

So epically translated on the TV show.

http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb453/cinemaholicdarling/graphics/unsulliedessay9.png

It's the "omg I just got caught screwing the neighbors cat look"

Most satisfying death in the whole damn book.

I loved the look on Missandei's face, as Dany started cursing Kraznys.

It said "Hoist with your own petard, shithead."

[Nictarion]

You mean a few chapters for just the first book. Hes not wrong.

His comment was she wasn't in any major characters thoughts until book five, so yes he was wrong.

I know you love to disagree with me just for the sake of it, but pick your battles.

[Nictarion]

And it was because of her having acquired an army (well, Viserys and his puppetmasters acquiring an army).

And her pregnancy.

[mormont]

Thanks for the input. While I agree with a lot of what you're saying I don't think the situations are entirely similar. There's zero evidence of these guys pausing to develop alternative economic models because in my opinion, there is not really a need.

Again, I have to disagree. Look at the example of Robb: an independent North/Riverlands kingdom is a huge change to the economy. All of a sudden, where you had free trade for three centuries, you have a hostile border. There are significant implications of that, not least in regard to the long winters - the North may no longer be able to bring in food from the South. In all those cases, at the very least, there's going to be enormous economic damage and disruption - we actually see this in AFFC and ADWD - but honestly, do you think any of these guys gave it a thought? No. At best, they put it aside as something to worry about once they'd won.

Most of those guys, quite frankly, would have acquired the Unsullied without a thought and moved on, leaving the place as it was. But even for those to whom it had occurred to do what Dany did, there's not a shred of evidence that any of them would first have insisted on sitting down to draw up an alternative regional economic development plan. Can anyone seriously imagine Robb Stark (or Jon Snow, or Ned, for that matter) looking at the suffering of the slaves and saying 'best not to do anything until I've done my research'? Not bloody likely, if you'll forgive my saying so.

In the case of Astapor she actually seems to think the freed slaves should be able to sort themselves out and form a workable society from virtually nothing just like that.

No, I don't think she does, actually. She acknowledges the huge challenge that it is to get the area back on its feet, and she does not shirk it. But, in the last analysis - this is not Dany's responsibility, or not hers alone, anyway. It is just as much up to the populace of Slaver's Bay to sort out their own lives.

Perhaps it's because English isn't my first language, but when I say quite specifically what I mean is that she is quite specific in who she wants killed: Anyone who is a Soldier, or wearing a tokar, or holding a whip.

Yup. And these are, not coincidentally, the people she needs defeated in order to take control of the city. And, as I say, the evidence is that many of these people survived - suggesting that once she had taken control, the fighting ceased.

Except for those younger than twelve. Which means that Dany considers the age of twelve the point where you're fully responsible for everything you do, and you're morally obligated to start a revolution to overthrow your society or die in the attempt.

No. All it means is, she didn't want anyone under 12 killed. The rest is just taking that one line and running with it much further than it actually goes, trying to stretch a one-foot rope over a six-foot gap, if you will.

[Mikkel]

Yup. And these are, not coincidentally, the people she needs defeated in order to take control of the city. And, as I say, the evidence is that many of these people survived - suggesting that once she had taken control, the fighting ceased.

No. All it means is, she didn't want anyone under 12 killed. The rest is just taking that one line and running with it much further than it actually goes, trying to stretch a one-foot rope over a six-foot gap, if you will.

Well I agree in so far as she probably didn't think her orders through, but that's not really a point in her favor in my opinion. Ordering the death of anyone who merely function in the society in which they've been brought up, as long as they're twelve or older, is a pretty drastic thing to do. She herself owned slaves at the ripe old age of fourteen or fifteen if I'm not much mistaken. If you don't consider twelve adult, then why set the cutoff point there? She could just as easily have said "nobody under sixteen".

The counter-argument that it gets progressively harder to determine what exact age someone is merely showcases the absurdity of age being the determining factor in who must be murdered.

[mormont]

Well I agree in so far as she probably didn't think her orders through

Then you're agreeing with something I didn't actually say, which I'm not sure really counts as agreeing. ;)

Ordering the death of anyone who merely function in the society in which they've been brought up, as long as they're twelve or older, is a pretty drastic thing to do.

Well, it was a drastic situation: there was never a violent seizure of power that wasn't. As I said previously, this was the only way Dany could free the Unsullied. The Good Masters were never going to meekly concede. She had to seize control, and that involved taking out those who might resist. That would include soldiers, slavers, and the Good Masters. Her proviso is aimed at making sure no children are caught up in that slaughter by mistake.

It's a proviso, by the way, that no other character in a similar situation has ever been seen to make. You can safely bet that the troops in the War of the Five Kings, or even Robert's Rebellion, were never ordered to spare children of any age.

She herself owned slaves at the ripe old age of fourteen or fifteen if I'm not much mistaken.

So, what, exactly? Again, Dany's orders are not a moral judgement but a necessary step in seizing power. The evidence is that they were used only for that, and that no pogrom or mass slaughter followed her taking control.

If you don't consider twelve adult, then why set the cutoff point there? She could just as easily have said "nobody under sixteen".

She could, but it's highly likely that males of that age would be offering violent resistance to her takeover. At 12, that's less likely.

[Nictarion]

he said REGULARY. She is not REGULARY and consistently an issue for important characters until book 5. In this regard he is utterly right and you misread his point completely.

She was a huge focal point between Robert and Ned. Does "regularly" mean she is the only topic of discussion in every chapter? I think its quite clear Robert saw how important she was going to be.

[Mikkel]

Then you're agreeing with something I didn't actually say, which I'm not sure really counts as agreeing. ;)

Well, it was a drastic situation: there was never a violent seizure of power that wasn't. As I said previously, this was the only way Dany could free the Unsullied. The Good Masters were never going to meekly concede. She had to seize control, and that involved taking out those who might resist. That would include soldiers, slavers, and the Good Masters. Her proviso is aimed at making sure no children are caught up in that slaughter by mistake.

It's a proviso, by the way, that no other character in a similar situation has ever been seen to make. You can safely bet that the troops in the War of the Five Kings, or even Robert's Rebellion, were never ordered to spare children of any age.

So, what, exactly? Again, Dany's orders are not a moral judgement but a necessary step in seizing power. The evidence is that they were used only for that, and that no pogrom or mass slaughter followed her taking control.

She could, but it's highly likely that males of that age would be offering violent resistance to her takeover. At 12, that's less likely.

My bad, I know you didn't say that - I misunderstood you, I suppose.

Anyway, do we then agree that what happened at Astapor was about getting an army for free, not an ideological crusade against slavery? That's my opinion anyway.

As for no other character adding that proviso - we don't know. I don't think we ever see any other sacking "as it happens", so we don't know the wording of the orders given. But we do know some (most?) commanders forbid rape, and some (eg Stannis) harshly punish those who violate those orders. Obviously some, like Tywin, don't care much as terror tactics are their favorite m.o.

[SeanF]

Anyway, do we then agree that what happened at Astapor was about getting an army for free, not an ideological crusade against slavery? That's my opinion anyway.

IMHO, she was quite sincere in her loathing of what she saw at Astapor. One can say that it was a fortunate coincidence that her behaviour got her an army for free, but one needs to look at the gamble she was taking. When she ordered the Unsullied to kill the Good Masters, she could not be certain that they would turn. Had her gamble failed, she would have been very slowly and painfully put to death with her followers (or at best kept alive as a sex slave). I'd suggest that she was well aware of this, too.

That's why her point of view is so joyful and triumphant as she carries out the massacre. She's relieved and exhilarated, like a soldier who's taken a city by storm (albeit, she sets limits on who can be massacred).

[SeanF]

As for no other character adding that proviso - we don't know. I don't think we ever see any other sacking "as it happens", so we don't know the wording of the orders given. But we do know some (most?) commanders forbid rape, and some (eg Stannis) harshly punish those who violate those orders. Obviously some, like Tywin, don't care much as terror tactics are their favorite m.o.

There are different types of Sack. This is one where the commander orders a massacre, and stipulates who may or may not be killed. The object of the Sack is an exemplary massacre, rather than rape or pillage.

Then you get the kind of Sack where the army just runs amok after taking a city by storm, after they've been given the option of surrendering on terms. The commander probably hasn't commanded a Sack, but they know very well it's going to happen, and there's nothing they can do to prevent it. The Sack of Meereen is along those lines. After a day or so of rape and pillage, Dany was gradually able to restore order. People who tried to resist got massacred , but there's no reason to believe that the killing was ordered from the top.

King's Landing was in a special league of awfulness. Tywin either ordered, or allowed, his army to turn on a city that had peacefully surrendered.

[Guess who's back]

:lmao: really?

Yes.

[Mikkel]

IMHO, she was quite sincere in her loathing of what she saw at Astapor. One can say that it was a fortunate coincidence that her behaviour got her an army for free, but one needs to look at the gamble she was taking. When she ordered the Unsullied to kill the Good Masters, she could not be certain that they would turn. Had her gamble failed, she would have been very slowly and painfully put to death with her followers (or at best kept alive as a sex slave). I'd suggest that she was well aware of this, too.

That's why her point of view is so joyful and triumphant as she carries out the massacre. She's relieved and exhilarated, like a soldier who's taken a city by storm (albeit, she sets limits on who can be massacred).

You know, that's a good point, and actually goes some way towards explaining, if not excusing, why she's reacting the way she is to ordering systematic mass murder (the alternative explanation being she's a complete psycho, but I don't think that's the case... not yet at least, heh!).

[Woman of War]

Could someone please explain to me what "honorable" or "dishonorable" is?

Can a deed be morally wrong, like killing an innocent, and yet be "honorable"?

Can a deed be the right thing to do in a situation and yet be "dishonorable"? Does it make a deed less right if it was "dishonorable"?

Why do people replace "right " or "wrong" by "honorable" and "dishonorable"?

Why not keep it simple and decide if a deed under given circumstances was the right thing to do or the wrong thing!

Honor, whose honor are we talking about btw, is not a moral category anymore though it may be in Westeros. So the topic "honor" can only be discussed on an in-story level, for us modern readers the very simple idea of right and wrong should be enough.

Jaime killing his king was "dishonorable"? Saving the city was the right thing to do!

An attempt to kill Hitler would have been "dishonorable" for a German citizen? It was the right thing to do.

Indeed, fuck honor!

[SeanF]

I think honour means keeping promises, honouring bargains, avenging insults and wrongs done to oneself, one's family, and one's retainers, and publicly adhering to one's society's moral code.

That may mean the same as doing good, but we've seen cases where the reverse was true.

Take the example of sacking cities, which we've been discussing. It's dishonourable to sack a city that has surrendered on terms, or which has offered no resistance. It's quite honourable to sack a city that has offered resistance, (and serves as a salutary example to anyone else who might be tempted to resist). We however, would regard it as morally wrong for modern soldiers to run amok in a city that they'd fought their way into.

Dany was certainly dishonourable, because she cheated the Good Masters. But, I think most readers would consider that she was morally right to do so.

[Hugo Sand]

I view her as an massively incompetent leader (way to leave Barristan the Bold to clean up your mess Dany) and a generally decent (albiet slightly mad) person.

But "dishonourable"? I think the very concept of honour means something different in a Dothraki or Slavers Bay environment than it does in Westeros. She's not in an environment where "honour" is a thing, the culture's completely different. It's a bit hard to say.

[Mikkel]

Could someone please explain to me what "honorable" or "dishonorable" is?

Can a deed be morally wrong, like killing an innocent, and yet be "honorable"?

Can a deed be the right thing to do in a situation and yet be "dishonorable"? Does it make a deed less right if it was "dishonorable"?

Why do people replace "right " or "wrong" by "honorable" and "dishonorable"?

Why not keep it simple and decide if a deed under given circumstances was the right thing to do or the wrong thing!

Honor, whose honor are we talking about btw, is not a moral category anymore though it may be in Westeros. So the topic "honor" can only be discussed on an in-story level, for us modern readers the very simple idea of right and wrong should be enough.

Jaime killing his king was "dishonorable"? Saving the city was the right thing to do!

An attempt to kill Hitler would have been "dishonorable" for a German citizen? It was the right thing to do.

Indeed, fuck honor!

I touched on this in one of my earlier posts in this thread, and the crux is that no matter what way you cut it, Dany was dishonorable in her dealings with the Good Masters - but that doesn't in and of itself make it wrong to do so.

Ned lying to save his daughters' life was dishonorable on multiple levels, but it was still the right thing to do (or would be, if it hadn't been for a heavy dosage of Joffrey).

[mormont]

Anyway, do we then agree that what happened at Astapor was about getting an army for free, not an ideological crusade against slavery?

No, and in fact I spent two posts earlier (IIRC) explaining why the evidence makes this conclusion frankly untenable. To repeat: if Astapor was only about getting an army for free, Dany's words to the Good Master make no sense, her decision to attack and then remain in Meereen makes no sense, her sudden shelving of the quest to regain the Iron Throne makes no sense, her feelings of responsibility towards the freed slaves make no sense, nothing, in fact, that follows Astapor makes any sense.

[Mikkel]

No, and in fact I spent two posts earlier (IIRC) explaining why the evidence makes this conclusion frankly untenable. To repeat: if Astapor was only about getting an army for free, Dany's words to the Good Master make no sense, her decision to attack and then remain in Meereen makes no sense, her sudden shelving of the quest to regain the Iron Throne makes no sense, her feelings of responsibility towards the freed slaves make no sense, nothing, in fact, that follows Astapor makes any sense.

Well, I choose to believe the whole thing came out of needing an army, but I won't dispute that along the way it became a fight against slavery. It would seem we disagree on when or if that became the overriding goal of her campaign though - and I do think witnessing the consequences of taking Astapor in many ways changed her campaign (IIRC she says or thinks as much when the decision to take/remain in Meereen is made).

One can speculate on what would have happened if Dany had had enough gold to purchase her army outright, rather than the price being the clearly unacceptable dragon, but nothing but fighting will come from that I reckon.

[butterbumps!]

I've seen Bumps's argument that Dany's primary point in the story is to disrupt the status quo. I'm iffy on it, precisely because I'm afraid it really does absolve her of a lot of terrible things, even though I know Bumps would argue that the premise rests on Dany being incompetent as a given. The fact that she's going to cause the deaths of untold people, on top of the already extreme body count directly at her feet (and not all of them were slavers; I'm also referring to every single free person who died in Astapor when she left it) makes it extremely hard for me to take the "status quo disruption" stance. I think it lets her off far too easily.

As for where he's taking her story, I've thought for a good couple of years now that it's really the ultimate fairy tale subversion: Exiled princess turns into a monster.

Well, it presupposes that formal, order-based ruling isn't something she's good at, as well as that it doesn't play to her strengths, nor is it something she personally desires.

But it doesn't allow us to "go easy" on her or "absolve" anything. Perhaps "easier" in comparison to the way she's discussed on the forum, which tends to portray her as worthless. There's a tendency to fixate on all her moral and administrative mishaps, to the complete exclusion of discussing her strengths, the fact that slavery will no longer be the same, the dimensions of social change, how badly massive social change is needed on both continents, and the separation of leadership from administration, and so forth. It's too easy to dwell on how immoral and destructive she is as pure negatives and all she is.

Revolutionaries can be really frightening, especially to those not being championed by said revolutionary. This role very much reflects the savior/ monster duality that's so much a part of her character.

This might not belong here as a full discussion, but after DwD, it looks like Varys belongs in something similar to that revolutionary camp as well, if we take his Enlightened Despot speech to Kevan as indicative of his true motives. I think there's a Blackfyre thing going on with Illyrio, but I have a hard time believing this is Varys' motivation after that speech. Looking at the rest of Varys' actions in the context of that speech, it seems he's been "cracking quite a few eggs" for the sake of progress-- that is, he seems to think there's something terribly wrong with the Westerosi system, is looking to tackle it by creating the perfect monarch, and cared enough about this progressive end to kick off a major war in order to destabilize the field to usher in the new system.

But I bring this up, because the notion of "creation from destruction" is something Varys is doing too, to the extent he manufactured a war to emerge, fabricated purposeful chaos, and seems to be seeking some sort of institutional or social progress. I think it's an important parallel because it gives an in-story framework of progressive change through chaos/ destruction-- where these things may be a pre-requisite for progress given the inertia of the status quo.

I considered this argument, but then rejected it. Based on that rationale, the Others should be seen as heros as they will surely bring change. Also, if I were sitting in the 14th Century and thinking about how to improve the lives of the commoners, I don't think I would have decided to unleash the Black Plague as means of raising the commoners wages.

And when you brought this up, I rejected it as a false comparison. Unlike the Black Death, we're talking about a figure with social change as an intentional goal-- a revolutionary figure rather than a simple force of nature. Dany's an agent of social change, but more precisely within that category, she's a revolutionary.