Would Daenerys Make the Starks bend the knee if they help defeat the Others?

[Stannis's Lawyer]

To be honest, the usurper dogs were morally and ethically despicable. They sanctioned and rewarded the rape and death of Dany's sister in law, and her baby nephew's brains were dashed out on the wall and her young niece was slaughtered. Her father was stabbed in the back by his own Lannister KG.

We don't know what she feels about the descendants of these usurper's dogs because we have not seen her thinking about that. We will have an idea about that if and when she meets Tyrion. The remaining Starks will be her enemies or allies based on the current situation and dynamics that exist in Westeros when she gets there. She may make the Starks bend the knee like Aegon did to Torrhen as a means to ending hostilities and becoming Queen of the seven kingdoms.

How did Ned Stark "sanction and reward the rape and death of Dany's sister in law"?

[OldGimletEye]

To be honest, the usurper dogs were morally and ethically despicable. They sanctioned and rewarded the rape and death of Dany's sister in law, and her baby nephew's brains were dashed out on the wall and her young niece was slaughtered. Her father was stabbed in the back by his own Lannister KG.

And this would be just like Dany wouldn't it? To conflate and to lump to together a set of different issues into one large mass. The question of whether RR was justified isn't the same as the question of whether the actions taken after RR were justified. If you want to find fault with Tywin for ordering the murder of Elia's children, then fine. If you want to find fault with Robert's moral cowardice for not punishing Tywin, then fine. But just because Robert was wrong in not punishing Tywin for his actions doesn't mean that Robert was wrong in rebelling against Aerys who was morally despicable.

And again, you can't judge Ned for the murders of Elia's children. He had nothing to do with that.

ETA:

And Jaime was, in my view, justified in killing Aerys.

[Mrs_Darcy]

If anybody is just making shit up, it's you. I simply said that we don't really know what Dany's attitude towards the Stark children will be. I understand the assertion that Dany won't harm children, but there is a big question here about what Dany considers to be a "child". Both Jon and Sansa could be "adults" in Dany's eyes. Dany has never made any comments about the other Starks. Accordingly, there isn't any clear evidence in the record about how she'll feel about them. You're the one making solid inferences here, not me.

I know exactly what that order said. I am also aware of the lame defense of that order, which is that Dany didn't technically order the murder of children. But a plain reading of that order leaves the impression that thirteen year old boys wearing tokars were fair game to be killed. Why did Dany phrase the order the way she did? Was it just an oversight on her part? Maybe. Or did she phrase the order the way she did because she considered thirteen year old boys to morally culpable for slavery? I don't think the answer is clear here

I doubt thirteen year boys choose to be born into slaving families. And you have to wonder whether a thirteen year old could have developed a level of moral culpability to deserve a summary execution. It's true that in our eyes a usurper isn't as morally repulsive as a slaver. But, I have to wonder if Dany believes that. She believes that the "usuper dogs" are morally and ethically despicable and hence probably deserving of death. And Dany has always had problem with collective guilt and punishment. So you have to wonder whether she'll hold the Stark kids, whom she might consider to be adults, responsible for the actions of Ned.

This is actually one of the main problems I have with Daenerys:

She

• was born in Westeros, a country where slavery is forbidden by the laws and the religion of the country,

was raised by Westerosi, who were opposed to slavery,

spent a big part of her life in Braavos, a city that was founded by escaped slaves and therefore was opposed to slavery

and still thought at age 13 or 14 that selling children as sex-slaves to brothels was okay, when it gave her a chance to become ruler of Westeros, was waited on by slaves in Quarth at age 14 and wanted to buy a slave-army at age 15 .

If she applied her own rules to herself, she would be dead.

[Dicer]

How did Ned Stark "sanction and reward the rape and death of Dany's sister in law"?

Well, he was the hand of the very king who made Jaime Lannister his KG and Cersei Lannister his Queen. How do you think that looks to Dany? Ned may have fought with Robert about his agreement with Tywin's actions, but at the end of the day he continued his friendship with the man who looked past the rape and murder of women and babies.

And this would be just like Dany wouldn't it? To conflate and to lump to together a set of different issues into one large mass. The question of whether RR was justified isn't the same as the question of whether the actions taken after RR were justified. If you want to find fault with Tywin for ordering the murder of Elia's children, then fine. If you want to find fault with Robert's moral cowardice for not punishing Tywin, then fine. But just because Robert was wrong in not punishing Tywin for his actions doesn't mean that Robert was wrong in rebelling against Aerys who was morally despicable.

And again, you can't judge Ned for the murders of Elia's children. He had nothing to do with that.

ETA:

And Jaime was, in my view, justified in killing Aerys.

It may be easy for you to separate the two, but it's going to be hard for Dany. And what's more I don't think she has to separate the two. RR led to the death and destruction of her family and her own hard life. You want her to appreciate the people who did that to her? They rebelled, killed her family in morally and ethically despicable ways and forced her into exile. She rightly blames them for that.

Why in the world would Dany think that the RR was justified? Would Stannis think that war and rebellion against Robert by the Starks or Lannisters is right because his brother was a shitty king who spend his time drinking and whoring and bankrupting KL?

Whether Jaime was justified in stabbing a fleeing king in the back (When he had already taken care of the pyromancers and Aerys was no threat) is up for debate. The fact remains that he was KG who had taken an OATH to protect the man he just killed. He also did nothing to protect Rhaegar's family which was also his duty as KG. That's the ultimate immoral behavior in Westeros. Ned himself looks down on Jaime for that. Jaime is called Kingslayer for a reason.

And again, Ned continued to maintain his friendship with Robert.

So as far as Dany knows,

The Lannisters sanction the rape and murder of Elia and her children

Jaime Lannister kills her father in an underhanded manner and gets to be Robert's KG again

Cersei Lannister gets to marry Robert and become Queen

Ned Stark holds the North for Robert and later becomes his hand

Robert later sends an assassin to kill 13 yr old Dany

Why the hell should she think any differently of these folks?

[OldGimletEye]

Well, he was the hand of the very king who made Jaime Lannister his KG and Cersei Lannister his Queen. How do you think that looks to Dany? Ned may have fought with Robert about his agreement with Tywin's actions, but at the end of the day he continued his friendship with the man who looked past the rape and murder of women and babies.

It may be easy for you to separate the two, but it's going to be hard for Dany. And what's more I don't think she has to separate the two. RR led to the death and destruction of her family and her own hard life. You want her to appreciate the people who did that to her? They rebelled, killed her family in morally and ethically despicable ways and forced her into exile. She rightly blames them for that.

Why in the world would Dany think that the RR was justified? Would Stannis think that war and rebellion against Robert by the Starks or Lannisters is right because his brother was a shitty king who spend his time drinking and whoring and bankrupting KL?

Whether Jaime was justified in stabbing a fleeing king in the back (When he had already taken care of the pyromancers and Aerys was no threat) is up for debate. The fact remains that he was KG who had taken an OATH to protect the man he just killed. He also did nothing to protect Rhaegar's family which was also his duty as KG. That's the ultimate immoral behavior in Westeros. Ned himself looks down on Jaime for that. Jaime is called Kingslayer for a reason.

And again, Ned continued to maintain his friendship with Robert.

So as far as Dany knows,

The Lannisters sanction the rape and murder of Elia and her children

Jaime Lannister kills her father in an underhanded manner and gets to be Robert's KG again

Cersei Lannister gets to marry Robert and become Queen

Ned Stark holds the North for Robert and later becomes his hand

Robert later sends an assassin to kill 13 yr old Dany

Why the hell should she think any differently of these folks?

If Dany wants to blame somebody for the misfortune that befell her family, the first person she ought to start with is Aerys. It's Aerys who was primarily at fault. Not the Starks. Not the Baratheons nor even the Lannisters.

If Dany can't analytically separate out the various issues presented by RR, with the full set of facts before her, then the possibility of a conflict between her and the Starks( or Jon) may be quite high, to the chagrin of Dany's fans.

Dany herself says that a king is for delivering justice. I would agree. If Dany is unable to parse issues carefully, then, sorry, I can't just get behind the "Khalessi For Queen of Westeros" ticket. And I really don't give a shit how Dany "feels" about particular issues. I expect her to come to reasonable conclusions, based on the relevant set of information, if she want's to be a Queen.

Dany might never see RR as being justified. If that is the case, then it's quite likely she'll pursue vengeful policies against the houses that rebelled against her father. If that is the case, then I can only hope that she will suffer a massive military defeat. I do think RR was justified because Aerys broke the feudal contract. Of course, Dany may never see that RR was justified, much in the same way that Imelda Marcos probably never believed that her husband's removal from power was justified.

With regard to Ned. I get the fact that Ned's friendship with Robert was troubling. I would never say Ned was perfect. But, being friends with an asshole doesn't in my view warrant a death sentence. And let's not forget the fact that Ned had a couple of falling outs with Robert when Ned thought Robert was about to do or did something that was questionable.

With regard to Jaime. Isn't that what is kind of fucked up with Westeros' system of morality? This idea that an oath ought be obeyed under all circumstances? The fact of the matter is that there are occasions where oaths ought to be broken. And Ned quite frankly was wrong to judge Jaime for killing Aerys. I get the fact that many of Dany's fans would see Colonel Stauffenberg as being a bad guy, but I really can't get behind that notion. Sorry.

The bottom line here is that I'm not going to warm up to Dany because of the way she "feels". I attach no great weight to her personal opinions and her subjective point of view.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Yeah, but Dany is a person, that honestly does not know a lot of Ghiscari culture (even well into her ADWD arc). Additionally, people like Captain Groleo, who after decades of travelling the world to make money for Magister Illyrio should know more about Ghiscari religion, says that the tokar is the sign of freedmen not the sign of wealthy freedmen. If the tokar was a status-symbol in itself, there would be no need to adorn the fringes.

The tokar is a sign of freemen (nobly born slaveholding class) which are completely different from freedmen (freed slaves).

It's an incredibly important distinction

[marsyao]

Don't know the future, but Baratheon, Stark and Lannister are three houses Danny hates most, from her perspective, all of her misery was caused by these three houses, she has the very intention to bring them fire and blood

[A spoon of knife and fork]

However, her implementation of violence went beyond what was necessary, in my view, of taking control of Astapor. She simply could have told the Unsullied to take control of Astapor and to break all resistance to achieve that goal.

But such an order could easily lead to the deaths of small children, if an angry freed man took it upon themselves to say that a kid who fell

Over in front of them was "resisting". Which order actually leads to be death of fewer innocents during a chaotic sack?

It's definitely worth considering that she should have set the age floor higher but 14 seems consistent with how people in this world act ( that is to say way above their numerical age.

Well of course a man does. But, there is a serious question here of wether young boys ought to be held to the same level of culpability as a grown man.

I agree. In this case she chose to draw a line. I suspect her own age was her main motivator for where she drew it.

And for this reason, Jon must demand that Dany formally acknowledge that the rebel's actions were legal

Do you believe that Aerys being terrible and deserving to be removed means that all of the rebels actions are legal?

There's actually a pretty clean distinction here. Men ought to be judged for the actions they personally commit. Jon should not - not would he ever as a moral person - require Daenerys to admit that the exile of her and her brother and the murder of her family (other than aerys) were justified. At the same time it would be reasonable to ask that she not blame Jon, rick on, bran, Arya or Sansa Stark for the actions of Tywin Lannister (not IMO would she so I doubt it would come up).

Lest you think I believe Dany was justified, I actually don't - in particular I think the sacking of astapor was very poorly thought out and the aftermath shows that. The torturing of the innkeeps' daughter is sickening. I don't agree with this particular critique, though, as IMO it was better to set an age floor than say nothing at all. Maybe 13 is too young but from Danys own experience it doesn't seem Young since she'd birthed dragons by that age.

[El Guapo]

I agree. In this case she chose to draw a line. I suspect her own age was her main motivator for where she drew it.

Interestingly enough Jon uses the exact same age as a cutoff when he was recruiting wildings to serve on the Wall. I just think what is considered adulthood in this world is much lower than waht it would be in our world.

[Mrs_Darcy]

But such an order could easily lead to the deaths of small children, if an angry freed man took it upon themselves to say that a kid who fell

Over in front of them was "resisting". Which order actually leads to be death of fewer innocents during a chaotic sack?

It's definitely worth considering that she should have set the age floor higher but 14 seems consistent with how people in this world act ( that is to say way above their numerical age.

I agree. In this case she chose to draw a line. I suspect her own age was her main motivator for where she drew it.

Do you believe that Aerys being terrible and deserving to be removed means that all of the rebels actions are legal?

There's actually a pretty clean distinction here. Men ought to be judged for the actions they personally commit. Jon should not - not would he ever as a moral person - require Daenerys to admit that the exile of her and her brother and the murder of her family (other than aerys) were justified. At the same time it would be reasonable to ask that she not blame Jon, rick on, bran, Arya or Sansa Stark for the actions of Tywin Lannister (not IMO would she so I doubt it would come up).

Lest you think I believe Dany was justified, I actually don't - in particular I think the sacking of astapor was very poorly thought out and the aftermath shows that. The torturing of the innkeeps' daughter is sickening. I don't agree with this particular critique, though, as IMO it was better to set an age floor than say nothing at all. Maybe 13 is too young but from Danys own experience it doesn't seem Young since she'd birthed dragons by that age.

If her own age was the deciding factor for the cutoff point, then she should have set the bar higher, since Dany herself

• thought her selling children into sexual slavery was "the price of the Iron Throne", when she was at least 13
• wanted to buy a slave-army, when she was 14-15

[Stannis's Lawyer]

@A spoon of knife and fork

Reread. Dany said that a child under 12 should not be harmed, not 14.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

@A spoon of knife and fork

Reread. Dany said that a child under 12 should not be harmed, not 14.

Why do you think she chose 13 as the age of majority? The answer that makes sense to me is that is the age she was when she considered herself to be making adult decisions.

For the record that's not a very good criterion since people age at different rates. Maybe she should have taken her age and added 4 or something.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

If her own age was the deciding factor for the cutoff point, then she should have set the bar higher, since Dany herself

• thought her selling children into sexual slavery was "the price of the Iron Throne", when she was at least 13
• wanted to buy a slave-army, when she was 14-15

We know from her PoV that She thinks it's horrible when Jorah tells her this is the price of the iron throne and then she takes action to help the slaves (however misguided) but she didn't have much agency here.

She didn't want to buy a slave army in particular, and the reality of slavery is why she liberates them instead.

[Stannis's Lawyer]

Why do you think she chose 13 as the age of majority? The answer that makes sense to me is that is the age she was when she considered herself to be making adult decisions.

For the record that's not a very good criterion since people age at different rates. Maybe she should have taken her age and added 4 or something.

I think it's because she didn't want slavers who looked young to escape. But I agree, the age should have been 16. A few surviving slavers can't do any real harm.

An actual trial would have been much more preferable.

[UtherSnow]

I see Dany bending the knee to Rickon. It's a symbolic gesture counter re-enacting the famous scene from Stark Targaryen History.

One more thing. Drogo would also act in a similar fashion. That's all I'm saying at the moment.

Everything does have significance.

[Trogdor Targaryen]

I had no idea that Dany has any interest in fighting the others.

[Mrs_Darcy]

The tokar is a sign of freemen (nobly born slaveholding class) which are completely different from freedmen (freed slaves).

It's an incredibly important distinction

You are right, I accidently mixed freemen (freeborn men) and freedmen (freed slaves). That does not change my opinion, that all freeborn men were rich enough to own an slave and therefore could be called slavers. The slave-traders Dany negotiates the sale of the Unsullied with all wear tokars with adorned fringes to disclaim their status. If merely wearing a tokar would be a status-symbol in itself, there would be no need to disclaim status by adorning the fringes.

Kraznys turned back to his fellows. Once again they conferred among themselves. The translator had told Dany their names, but it was hard to keep them straight. Four of the men seemed to be named Grazdan, presumably after Grazdan the Great who had founded Old Ghis in the dawn of days. They all looked alike; thick fleshy men with amber skin, broad noses, dark eyes. Their wiry hair was black, or a dark red, or that queer mixture of red and black that was peculiar to Ghiscari. All wrapped themselves in tokars, a garment permitted only to freeborn men of Astapor. It was the fringe on the tokar that proclaimed a man’s status, Dany had been told by Captain Groleo. In this cool green room atop the pyramid, two of the slavers wore tokars fringed in silver, five had gold fringes, and one, the oldest Grazdan, displayed a fringe of fat white pearls that clacked together softly when he shifted in his seat or moved an arm

When Tyrion talks about Daenerys's actions and the mood in Volantis, Quavo Nogarys says the following about the reasons of Volantis for opposing her:

“The best calumnies are spiced with truth,” suggested Qavo, “but the girl’s true sin cannot be denied. This arrogant child has taken it upon herself to smash the slave trade, but that traffic was never confined to Slaver’s Bay. It was part of the sea of trade that spanned the world, and the dragon queen has clouded the water. Behind the Black Wall, lords of ancient blood sleep poorly, listening as their kitchen slaves sharpen their long knives. Slaves grow our food, clean our streets, teach our young. They guard our walls, row our galleys, fight our battles. And now when they look east, they see this young queen shining from afar, this breaker of chains. The Old Blood cannot suffer that. Poor men hate her too. Even the vilest beggar stands higher than a slave. This dragon queen would rob him of that consolation.”

Since in Volantis, there seem to be poor freeborn men and even freemen, who are beggars, I do not think, that the situation was different in Meereen or Astapor. If you look at the wikipedia-entry about togas, the thing, that probably inspired GRRM the most, then you will see, that the toga was also worn by poor men on special occasions.

[Mrs_Darcy]

We know from her PoV that She thinks it's horrible when Jorah tells her this is the price of the iron throne and then she takes action to help the slaves (however misguided) but she didn't have much agency here.

She didn't want to buy a slave army in particular, and the reality of slavery is why she liberates them instead.

But she still decided, that winning the Iron Throne was more important than not selling children into sex-slavery, or how do you interprete "this is the price for the Iron Throne"?

[OldGimletEye]

But such an order could easily lead to the deaths of small children, if an angry freed man took it upon themselves to say that a kid who fell

Over in front of them was "resisting". Which order actually leads to be death of fewer innocents during a chaotic sack?

Armed conflicts often or always lead to the loss of innocent life, even those most of us would consider as being justified. However, that does not relieve a commander of the responsibility of tailoring their orders appropriately, so that no more innocent life is lost than what is necessary.

It's definitely worth considering that she should have set the age floor higher but 14 seems consistent with how people in this world act ( that is to say way above their numerical age.

I don't particularly like the idea of using moral universalism on one hand to defend some of Dany's actions but then conveniently switching to moral relativism to defend her other actions. Also, I utterly disdain the notion of summary executions based on the notions of collective guilt. If Dany believes that certain 14 year old boys have committed atrocious crimes, then fine judge them individually. But don't just wipe them all out based on their association with a particular class.

Do you believe that Aerys being terrible and deserving to be removed means that all of the rebels actions are legal?

There's actually a pretty clean distinction here. Men ought to be judged for the actions they personally commit. Jon should not - not would he ever as a moral person - require Daenerys to admit that the exile of her and her brother and the murder of her family (other than aerys) were justified. At the same time it would be reasonable to ask that she not blame Jon, rick on, bran, Arya or Sansa Stark for the actions of Tywin Lannister (not IMO would she so I doubt it would come up).

Lest you think I believe Dany was justified, I actually don't - in particular I think the sacking of astapor was very poorly thought out and the aftermath shows that. The torturing of the innkeeps' daughter is sickening. I don't agree with this particular critique, though, as IMO it was better to set an age floor than say nothing at all. Maybe 13 is too young but from Danys own experience it doesn't seem Young since she'd birthed dragons by that age.

I believe the rebellion was justified because Aerys broke the feudal contract. A liege lord does owe his vassal certain obligations, just as a vassal owes the liege certain obligations. If the liege lord breaks his obligations, then vassal's obligation to the liege are terminated in my view.

Now, in Westeros it seems that the actual legal status of RR is a bit murky. I think it needs to be clarified because some rebellions are justified, unless you believe that a monarch should be able to wield absolute power in an arbitrary manner. If Dany doesn't acknowledge the legality of RR, then it potentially leaves House Stark in the lurch. Dany's acknowledgement of the legality of RR doesn't require her to admit to any personal wrongdoing.

Dany is, allegedly, supposed to be the great progressive hope of Westeros. Evidently, however, it's too much to ask of her that she, in her political thought, get beyond, even slightly, notions of divine right.

[Loyacano3]

This question is irrelevant, in my opinion. The last time the white walkers invaded Westeros, there’s not even clear evidence in the history of what transpired. It was even labeled as being a myth that they ever existed by the majority of the Westerosi, especially those in the South.

Isn’t it clear that utter destruction is an inevitable outcome in this series? That there won’t be many people, if any, left to write the histories of what will transpire once the Others finally do make their push? Why should it be any different this time?

It’s almost as if time is replaying itself. Could be in direct correlation with the endless battle between R’hollor and the “Other” god that Melisandre is always referring to. Time is not a constant, it’s a variable, already shown to be a weapon with Bran looking into the past.