[Book Spoiler] Justice and Vengeance

[ovis alba]

Yeah I understand. She is trying to have a more just society after she gets there, I think she wanted to start on even ground. She hasn't continued killing since she started ruling. It's like that was just a way to get the playing field back to zero, then start ruling and changing things.

And to me that's just completly messed up. You can't just overthrow a society and start on "even ground" by using the same wrongdoings of that society against them and then asume everything will be forgotten. It's like killing people that don't agree with death sentence. If you want to claim random killing of people is bad, don't randomly kill people just because you think you have a better reason, it's as easy as that.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

Yeah I understand. She is trying to have a more just society after she gets there, I think she wanted to start on even ground. She hasn't continued killing since she started ruling. It's like that was just a way to get the playing field back to zero, then start ruling and changing things.

Attempting to match an atrocity with an atrocity may well level the scoreboard, but it does also risk painting the new regime as the same as the old regime. Instead of setting a better example, it risks sending the message that reprisals are A-OK.

[coatzin]

Is it justice? Jon clearly says in the episode that they must avenge Mormont, how is that justice? Shouldn't the mutineers be tried before the punishment is dealt.

What Jon is doing is not very much different from what Dany is doing.

they are deserters AND killed Lord Comander Mormont... so is Justice

[Suzanna Stormborn]

And to me that's just completly messed up. You can't just overthrow a society and start on "even ground" by using the same wrongdoings of that society against them and then asume everything will be forgotten. It's like killing people that don't agree with death sentence. If you want to claim random killing of people is bad, don't randomly kill people just because you think you have a better reason, it's as easy as that.

Well you are entitled to your own opinion, but Dany doesn't feel that way. She never claimed 'random killing people is bad'. She didnt like the masters crucifying slave children in order to taunt her, she just gave them back what they gave her. If killing people is what bothers you then you should be complaining about the slavers, not Dany. Or should they not be held responsible for their actions?

[MoIaF]

they are deserters AND killed Lord Comander Mormont... so is Justice

Yes, and the GM killed 163 random children, the only form of justice that could be dispensed was dispensed.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Attempting to match an atrocity with an atrocity may well level the scoreboard, but it does also risk painting the new regime as the same as the old regime. Instead of setting a better example, it risks sending the message that reprisals are A-OK.

I dont think her goal is to set a better example, her goal is to end slavery. So she killed some slavers who were taunting her with dead slave children. I really dont get the argument here.

[Widows_Blood]

Justice would be a swift execution. To the point and no dwelling on it. Anything that exceeds what is necessary (their death) is needlessly cruel and vindictive, since at that point you aren't interesting in serving fair justice, but satisfying your own want for vengeance and bloodshed.

Were talking about medieval era where eye for an eye justice was commonplace. If you steal, you lose a hand. If you rape, you are castrated. In this case, masters were crucified in the manner the children were crucified. To me the lines between justice and vengeance are often blurred. True justice is an act that rehabilitates and heals as much as it does punish. From my perspective, Dany's act (as much as I love her) was pure vengeance. There was no attempt at rehabilitation or healing, just retribution.

[ovis alba]

Well you are entitled to your own opinion, but Dany doesn't feel that way. She never claimed 'random killing people is bad'. She didnt like the masters crucifying slave children in order to taunt her, she just gave them back what they gave her. If killing people is what bothers you then you should be complaining about the slavers, not Dany. Or should they not be held responsible for their actions?

She gives them back what they gave her with the reason of "justice" which means she thinks it was "wrong". But then she "lowers herself" to the same moral standards.

And of course I would complain about the slavers, when it comes to killing people, but the thread is not about if killing people is bad (then Dany and the slavers would be pretty much at the same level now), it's about "justice".

And if you think something is "injustice" you should not claim it is "justice" when you do the same, because that is the very defintion of revenge but clearly not of justice.

[Widows_Blood]

Attempting to match an atrocity with an atrocity may well level the scoreboard, but it does also risk painting the new regime as the same as the old regime. Instead of setting a better example, it risks sending the message that reprisals are A-OK.

Exactly agree. All she is teaching the Mereenese nobles is that they should fear and distrust her. She should have tried to win them over with an olive branch, not an iron fist.

[MoIaF]

Were talking about medieval era where eye for an eye justice was commonplace. If you steal, you lose a hand. If you rape, you are castrated. In this case, masters were crucified in the manner the children were crucified. To me the lines between justice and vengeance are often blurred. True justice is an act that rehabilitates and heals as much as it does punish. From my perspective, Dany's act (as much as I love her) was pure vengeance. There was no attempt at rehabilitation or healing, just retribution.

Do you have any examples of true justice in ASOIAF?

[coatzin]

Yes, and the GM killed 163 random children, the only form of justice that could be dispensed was dispensed.

Maybe... do that do 163 random GM is what she considers justice... Barristan seemed to think differently, given his own experience I suppose

that is very different to the Jon situation... pay to desertion is death, thats the rule when they take their vows

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

I dont think her goal is to set a better example

Well she succeeded on that front.

Edit: So those 163 slavers were the ones who taunted her? OK

[MoIaF]

Maybe... do that do 163 random GM is what she considers justice... Barristan seemed to think differently, given his own experience I suppose

that is very different to the Jon situation... pay to desertion is death, thats the rule when they take their vows

No it really isn't. As discussed already above Jon is searching for justice as ell as revenge. The lines are very blurred and he even address the need for vengeance in his speech to the other men of the NM.

[Cas Stark]

Exactly agree. All she is teaching the Mereenese nobles is that they should fear and distrust her. She should have tried to win them over with an olive branch, not an iron fist.

Exactly. If you swoop and say 'your society is unjust, I'm taking over and fixing it"....then you need to be consistent in how you dispense justice in the new regime unless you burn it all down and start from scratch. The way to get the Meereen nobles at least open to the possibility of 'her way' was to show them that her way is better than their way. All she showed was power is power, they already know that.

[Widows_Blood]

Do you have any examples of true justice in ASOIAF?

No this is my lofty definition of justice. I was speaking more from a 21st century mindframe. ASOIAF justice is more closely linked with retribution and vengeance than serving any true definition of justice. I guess the only example I could maybe provide is Robb's execution of Rickard Karstark.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

She gives them back what they gave her with the reason of "justice" which means she thinks it was "wrong". But then she "lowers herself" to the same moral standards.

And of course I would complain about the slavers, when it comes to killing people, but the thread is not about if killing people is bad (then Dany and the slavers would be pretty much at the same level now), it's about "justice".

And if you think something is "injustice" you should not claim it is "justice" when you do the same, because that is the very defintion of revenge but clearly not of justice.

Agree to disagree, the GM's had it coming, same as the slavers in Astapor. i'm glad Dany killed them, 'she deserves her vengeance, and we deserve to die, but then again so does she'--Bud Kill Bill

Morality conversations do not really interest me in relation to these novels, no one is moral, almost everyone deserves to die. She has a cause and the GM's dont, she is the hero and they are not, they pissed her off and now they are paying for it.

[ovis alba]

Morality conversations do not really interest me in relation to these novels, no one is moral, almost everyone deserves to die. She has a cause and the GM's dont, she is the hero and they are not, they pissed her off and now they are paying for it.

Well the GMs had also a cause (Telling Dany to f*** off and leave them alone) and if you don't want to "judge" moral this is as good a reason as Dany's.

[MoIaF]

No this is my lofty definition of justice. I was speaking more from a 21st century mindframe. ASOIAF justice is more closely linked with retribution and vengeance than serving any true definition of justice. I guess the only example I could maybe provide is Robb's execution of Rickard Karstark.

Oh I see.

As to the bolder point I agree to an extent. In the period in which the novels place (sort of) the application of justice we see is commonplace. As I have stated in numerous occasions the lines are very blurred.

[Cas Stark]

Oh I see.

As to the bolder point I agree to an extent. In the period in which the novels place (sort of) the application of justice we see is commonplace. As I have stated in numerous occasions the lines are very blurred.

Maybe. But even in Westeros there is a direct relationship between guilt and punishment. They don't cut off your wife's hand if you steal the pig or randomly pick someone from the village and cut their hand off.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Well the GMs had also a cause (Telling Dany to f*** off and leave them alone) and if you don't want to "judge" moral this is as good a reason as Dany's.

They get no say due to the fact that they all own slaves and kill them whenever they feel like it. No one stands up for the slaves except her. Maybe if they had started negotiations with her in a different way none of that would have happened. To simplify; they started it.