Jump to content

Will Jon Connington Burn Down King's Landing?


Craving Peaches

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, James West said:

Arya joined a religion which thinks offering deaths to the gods is good.  Arya would send the city full of people as an offering to her new gods.  

Did you read my previous reply to another comment exactly like yours?

Aside from the reasons I already bothered to list, Arya would also not do this because the Faceless Men have already told her it is not for her to decide who lives and who dies. Arya doesn't even know about the wilfire. Daenerys is much more likely to kill everyone in King's Landing than Arya is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rondo said:

I think you will find the subject of Arya's mental illness has already been brought to the forum in an essay authored by me.

Lots of words, little to no evidence.

Arya is not insane. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. She is not meeting the psychiatric or legal requirements for insanity. Saying she is insane is ignoring what is written in the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Connington regrets not burning Stony Sept because by doing so, he could have achieved a specific and important goal: killing Robert and ending the rebellion.  He will only burn King's Landing if a similar situation arises, such as if Cersei is hiding from his army, and the townspeople are moving her from house to house to protect her.  That seems unlikely.  But at any rate, I don't see Connington burning the city just from anger or for spite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2022 at 6:43 PM, Hoffa said:

She must do something horrible.

Isn't she already, according to you, torturing children, elders and a psycopath? How can she be built up to "do something horrible" if she already did all those things as you say? (I'm not even gonna start discussing the books with you because if you read them you forgot most of what's written and I don't want to spend the night narrating them to you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Isn't she already, accodring to you, torturing children, elders and a psycopath? How can she be built up to "do something horrible" if she already did all those things as you say? (I'm not even gonna start discussing the books with you because if you read them you forgot most of what's written and I don't want to spend the night narrating them to you).

To be fair, Daenerys did have the Wineseller's daughter tortured, however it doesn't seem to be something she does often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

To be fair, Daenerys did have the Wineseller's daughter tortured, however it doesn't seem to be something she does often.

They weren 't children. They were suspects in the poison of two unsullied, as they were taken from the shop their dad owned and where the unsullied died. Plus, torture for information is not something unusual in ASOIAF universe and she is the only character on page who realises how futile torture is.

 

"If he is not the Harpy, he knows him. I can find the truth of that easy enough. Give me your leave to put Hizdahr to the question, and I will bring you a confession."
"No," she said. "I do not trust these confessions. You've brought me too many of them, all of them worthless." - ADWD, Daenerys V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

They weren 't children. They were suspects in the poison of two unsullied, as they were taken from the shop their dad owned and where the unullied died.

Yes, but it is not very likely that they were involved and it doesn't charge the fact that torture is immoral (yes I know everyone does it but that doesn't make it right).

3 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Plus, torture for information is not something unusual in ASOIAF universe and she is the only character on page who realises how futile torture is.

Then why does she have them tortured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes, but it is not very likely that they were involved

 

We can't know with certainty if they knew something or not, but who poisoned the unsullied had knowledge of their custom of drinking there and the means to poison their cups (since only them were poisoned) so it's very likely that them and their father, or at least their father, were helping the Sons of the Harpy
 

47 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

and it doesn't charge the fact that torture is immoral (yes I know everyone does it but that doesn't make it right).

 

Well, then Jeor Mormont is immoral too since he had tortured a wildling to death for confession (and Jon does not bat an eye hearing this) and Jon too is not above using torture since he considers torturing Janos with extreme cold, puting him in the ice cells (and if I remember right he does have someone in ice cells)

I do agree that torture is immoral but I don't see this worry with other good characters that engage with it.

 

47 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Then why does she have them tortured?

 

Firstly, she wanted them to be "questioned sweetly" and she changes her mind after hearing about Rylona Rhee's death (the freedmen's voice in her council) and she wanted the man to be "questioned sharply". Is Skahaz who suggests her that the daughters be questioned in front of their father so he can bring out more quickly a confession from the wineseller

 

Nine. The word was a dagger in her heart. Every night the shadow war was waged anew beneath the stepped pyramids of Meereen. Every morn the sun rose upon fresh corpses, with harpies drawn in blood on the bricks beside them. Any freedman who became too prosperous or too outspoken was marked for death. Nine in one night, though ... That frightened her.

"Tell me."

Grey Worm answered. "Your servants were set upon as they walked the bricks of Meereen to keep Your Grace's peace. All were well armed, with spears and shields and short swords. Two by two they walked, and two by two they died. Your servants Black Fist and Cetherys were slain by cross-bow bolts in Mazdhan's Maze. Your servants Mossador and Duran were crushed by falling stones beneath the river wall. Your servants Eladon Goldenhair and Loyal Spear were poisoned at a wineshop where they were accustomed to stop each night upon their rounds."

Mossador. Dany made a fist. Missandei and her brothers had been taken from their home on Naath by raiders from the Basilisk Isles and sold into slavery in Astapor. Young as she was, Missandei had shown such a gift for tongues that the Good Masters had made a scribe of her. Mossador and Marselen had not been so fortunate. They had been gelded and made into Unsullied. "Have any of the murderers been captured?"

"Your servants have arrested the owner of the wineshop and his daughters. They plead their ignorance and beg for mercy."

They all plead ignorance and beg for mercy. "Give them to the Shavepate. Skahaz, keep each apart from the others and put them to the question."

"It will be done, Your Worship. Would you have me question them sweetly, or sharply?"


"Sweetly, to begin. Hear what tales they tell and what names they give you. It may be they had no part in this." She hesitated. "Nine, the noble Reznak said. Who else?"

"Three freedmen, murdered in their homes," the Shavepate said.

"A moneylender, a cobbler, and the harpist Rylona Rhee. They cut her fingers off before they killed her."

The queen flinched. Rylona Rhee had played the harp as sweetly as the Maiden. When she had been a slave in Yunkai, she had played for every highborn family in the city. In Meereen she had become a leader amongst the Yunkish freedmen, their voice in Dany's councils. "We have no captives but this wineseller?"

"None, this one grieves to confess. We beg your pardon."

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon' s mercy. "Skahaz, I have changed my mind. Question the man sharply."

"I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him."


"Do as you think best, but bring me names." Her fury was a fire in her belly. "I will have no more Unsullied slaughtered. Grey Worm, pull your men back to their barracks. Henceforth let them guard my walls and gates and person. From this day, it shall be for Meereenese to keep the peace in Meereen. Skahaz, make me a new watch, made up in equal parts of shavepates and freedmen."

"As you command. How many men?"

"As many as you require."

Reznak mo Reznak gasped. "Magnificence, where is the coin to come from to pay wages for so many men?"

"From the pyramids. Call it a blood tax. I will have a hundred pieces of gold from every pyramid for each freedman that the Harpy's Sons have slain." - ADWD, Daenerys II

 

As you can see, she had them tortured because she did not want more of her men killed. She wanted answers, names, to find out who are behind these killings and I think this scene is ment to be contrasted with Cersei who deliberately tortures an innocent person (the Blue Bard) to frame Margery and gives a person to Quyburn's experiments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Firstly, she wanted them to be "questioned sweetly" and she changes her mind after hearing aboit Rylona Rhee's death (the freedmen's voice in her council) and she wanted the man to be "questioned sharply". Is the Shapevate who suggests her that the daughters be questioned in front of their father so he can bring out more quickly a confession from the wineseller

You claimed Daenerys was one of the few characters to realise torture is futile. If this were so, she would not have them tortured in the first place.

Torture is not a good way to find out whether people are innocent or guilty at all, because they will just start telling you whatever you want to hear to make the pain stop. All it does is 'confirm' what you already believe about the person. The only use I can see is extracting a confession from someone you either know is guilty or want found guilty. So in terms of Daenerys using this to find out information, I imagine it would be quite useless, just confirming what the shavepate wants to hear. And Daenerys herself points this out, yet she still allows them to be tortured just because she gets cross.

Now that you've gone over what she was doing, it actually sounds worse - having two girls, who she doesn't know are guilty or not, tortured in front of their father, who she also doesn't know is guilty or not. And she does this based on her anger over a murder which they were certainly innocent in - they couldn't be responsible because they were already in custody.

At least when Jon considered putting Janos in the ice cells, he knew he was guilty and was basing it on the pragmatic decision of what was best for the Watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

You claimed Daenerys was one of the few characters to realise torture is futile. If this were so, she would not have them tortured in the first place.

How can't she realise the futility of torture after seeing how useless it is? At least we get a line about that from her, a thought, whereas from the rest, nothing

 

"If he is not the Harpy, he knows him. I can find the truth of that easy enough. Give me your leave to put Hizdahr to the question, and I will bring you a confession."
"No," she said. "I do not trust these confessions. You've brought me too many of them, all of them worthless." - ADWD, Daenerys V

 

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Now that you've gone over what she was doing, it actually sounds worse - having two girls, who she doesn't know are guilty or not, tortured in front of their father, who she also doesn't know is guilty or not. And she does this based on her anger over a murder which they were certainly innocent in - they couldn't be responsible because they were already in custody.

 

They were brought along with their father. From where did you get they were in custody when the unsullied were poisoned?And as I said, who poisoned the unsullied knew their rutine and they had the opportunity to poison their cups so the wineselller and his daughters can perfectly be guilty of their murder.

 

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

At least when Jon considered putting Janos in the ice cells, he knew he was guilty and was basing it on the pragmatic decision of what was best for the Watch.

 

Yeah,yeah, Janos was a shitty person but you said that torture is immoral (to which I agree) yet you seem to exempt him from that because Janos was guilty so it seems you don't longer care about the use of the method (and as I said previously, if I remember right he does put someone in the ice cells).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2022 at 9:29 AM, The Sleeper said:

He wants to be more like Tywin.

My God, are people allowed to NOT have to try and emulate a dude who ordered Elia and the kids to be disposed of? 

Book Tywin had his moments, but I prefer show Tywin. 

On 10/20/2022 at 2:51 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

He refused to burn the town long ago.

He didn't refuse, he simply did not consider it as an option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

How can't she realise the futily of torture after seeing how useless it is? At least we get a line about that from her, a thought, whereas from the rest, nothing

She says that, and then still has people tortured. Despite knowing torture is futile she has people tortured. So then why is she having them tortured if she thinks it won't bring results because it's futile? To satisfy her own desire for vengeance?

6 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

They were brought along with their father. From where did you get they were in custody when the usullied were poisoned?

They were not in custody then. They were in custody when Rhyola Rhee was murdered. The anger over this murder is what causes Daenerys to have them tortured. But they couldn't have possibly been involved because they were already in custody.

They are in custody, Daenerys hears about murder, Daenerys has them tortured.

8 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Yeah,yeah, Janos was a shitty person but you said that torture is immoral (to which I agree) but you seem to exempt him from that because Janos was guilty so it seems you don't longer care about the use of the method (and as I said previously, if I remember right he does put someone in the ice cells).

I don't, I wrote 'At least' at the very start of that paragraph to make this clear. I never said I found it moral. Just that in Jon's case it was less immoral than Daenerys because he knew Slynt was guilty. And because he considered the decision based on the security of the Watch, not because he is angry and needs to take it out on someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

She says that, and then still has people tortured. Despite knowing torture is futile she has people tortured. So then why is she having them tortured if she thinks it won't bring results because it's futile? To satisfy her own desire for vengeance?

 

That is AFTER she lets the Shapevate to do as he thinks best. She tells him that all his confessions are worthless in ADWD Daenerys V and she let him to do as he thought best in ADWD Daenerys II and right before she tells Skahaz that she does not trust his confessions we learn that they captured some of the Sons and they brought up "too many names". He tells her that he is convinced Hizdhar is the Harpy because the murders stopped at his plead to which she tells him "If there is a Harpy."  She doubts there is a Harpy, a single enemy and that it would be pleasant if that was the case ( It would have been pleasant to think that all the deaths were the work of a single enemy who might be caught and killed, but Dany suspected that the truth was otherwise. My enemies are legion.) After that, she has no one tortured. Also worth noted that in ADWD Daenerys I we hear that she payed a ransom for information and after hearing it had no fruits, she raised the pay which still brought her nothing so her first choice is always the peaceful one.

 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

They were not in custody then. They were in custody when Rhyola Rhee was murdered. The anger over this murder is what causes Daenerys to have them tortured. But they couldn't have possibly been involved because they were already in custody.

They are in custody, Daenerys hears about murder, Daenerys has them tortured.

 

The death of Rylona Rhee is what makes her decide to "question them sharply" but they are not questioned for her death, but for the death of the two unsullied poisoned in their shop and who were the only people who were poisoned there. Finding out who put them to poison the unsullied leads to find out who is the Harpy, who leads the Sons of the Harpy, who butchers armed patrols (and knows their patterns) and freedmen "who became too outspoken" alike. Honestly, it baffles me that people are more enraged at her than at what is being done to those who want to live freely, to make a life of their own.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

And because he considered the decision based on the security of the Watch, not because he is angry and needs to take it out on someone.

 

Her anger is because the freedmen apparently can't live peacefuly since the Sons of the Harpy butcher those who rise "too high" and she does not take her anger at any shmuck who crosses her, but at three suspects of killing two of her men 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oana_Mika said:

That is AFTER she lets the Shapevate to do as he thinks best

If she thought it was futile, then why did she allow him to question them like that in the first place? Whether she says it before or after it's stupid. If she says it before, she's not following her own advice. If she says it after, then clearly she's been thinking about it for a while, so still why did she allow it? And if she came to that sudden realisation just after, why didn't she order the torture stopped? If she could now see it was futile, that would be the logical thing to do.

4 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Honestly, it baffles me that people are more enraged at her than at what is being done to those who want to live freely, to make a life of their own.

I'm not 'enraged' at anything, it's fictitious. There's nothing wrong with Daenerys punishing people who are actually involved, but she doesn't know whether these people are or not. She has them tortured anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

If she thought it was futile, then why did she allow him to question them like that in the first place? Whether she says it before or after it's stupid. If she says it before, she's not following her own advice. If she says it after, then clearly she's been thinking about it for a while, so still why did she allow it? And if she came to that sudden realisation just after, why didn't she order the torture stopped? If she could now see it was futile, that would be the logical thing to do.

You seem to have some trouble understanding that a person in a medieval world, where torture is a legitimate mean to obtain information, uses said method upon three suspects of a murder of two of her men as well as upon some of the Sons of the Harpy they catch and after that she realises that it's not a good method to obtain viable information so she does not engage with it anymore. What is so confusing or stupid about that?

 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm not 'enraged' at anything, it's fictitious. There's nothing wrong with Daenerys punishing people who are actually involved, but she doesn't know whether these people are or not. She has them tortured anyway.

 

She does not know with certainty, it's true, but you also can't say that they are 100% innocent. The poison happened at their shop, where the two unsullied had custom to go. No one else was poisoned and they were the only suspects found. It's more probable that them, or one of them (since they all three had a good chance at poisoning their cups) killed the unsullied, than someone from the outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

You seem to have some trouble understanding that a person in a medieval world, where torture is a legitimate mean to obtain information, uses said method upon three suspects of a murder of two of her men as well as upon some of the Sons of the Harpy they catch and after that she realises that it's not a good method to obtain viable information so she does not engage with it anymore. What is so confusing or stupid about that?

Because if Daenerys realises it's futile after ordering the Wineseller's daughters tortured, then she's accepting that whatever confession the Shavepate gets from them won't mean anything. But does she order it stopped? No. Even though she's realised it will serve no purpose by that point, she allows it to continue.

5 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

She does not know with certainty, it's true, but you also can't say that they are 100% innocent. The poison happened at their shop, where the two unsullied had custom to go. No one else was poisoned and they were the only suspects found. It's more probable that them, or one of them (since they all three had a good chance at poisoning their cups) killed the unsullied, than someone from the outside.

As I already explained, and as Daenerys herself hints at, torture of the Wineseller's Daughters is useless unless she already knows that they are guilty or doesn't care and just wants them to confess whatever. What will happen now is that they will cough up whatever names the Shavepate wants them to, regardless of legitimacy, and says they are guilty even if they are not.

Also, it is perfectly possibly that the manufacturer, or supplier of the wine, had it poisoned, not the Wineseller. It is also possible that a Son of the Harpy agent had the wine poisoned after learning the Unsullied frequent the shop.

Also, even if they are guilty, do they really deserved to be tortured? It's not just like they're torturing the Wineseller himself. His two daughters are being tortured in front of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Because if Daenerys realises it's futile after ordering the Wineseller's daughters tortured, then she's accepting that whatever confession the Shavepate gets from them won't mean anything. But does she order it stopped? No. Even though she's realised it will serve no purpose by that point, she allows it to continue.

 

She realised the futility of it AFTER the winserller's daughters got "questioned" in front of their father. I will copy paste what I edited in my previous response since you seem to have the odrer scrambled :

 

11 hours ago, Oana_Mika said:

That is AFTER she lets the Shapevate to do as he thinks best. She tells him that all his confessions are worthless in ADWD Daenerys V and she let him to do as he thought best in ADWD Daenerys II and right before she tells Skahaz that she does not trust his confessions we learn that they captured some of the Sons and they brought up "too many names". He tells her that he is convinced Hizdhar is the Harpy because the murders stopped at his plead to which she tells him "If there is a Harpy."  She doubts there is a Harpy, a single enemy and that it would be pleasant if that was the case ( It would have been pleasant to think that all the deaths were the work of a single enemy who might be caught and killed, but Dany suspected that the truth was otherwise. My enemies are legion.) After that, she has no one tortured. Also worth noted that in ADWD Daenerys I we hear that she payed a ransom for information and after hearing it had no fruits, she raised the pay which still brought her nothing so her first choice is always the peaceful one.

 

5 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Also, it is perfectly possibly that the manufacturer, or supplier of the wine, had it poisoned, not the Wineseller. It is also possible that a Son of the Harpy agent had the wine poisoned after learning the Unsullied frequent the shop.

Also, even if they are guilty, do they really deserved to be tortured? It's not just like they're torturing the Wineseller himself. His two daughters are being tortured in front of them. 

 

I repreat : only two people (the unsullied) were poisoned so the poison was not in the wine, it was in the cups the two unsullied drink of. Now you tell me , it's more probable that someone from the outside had a lucky chance at getting their cups unattended or that the winserller or one of his daughters (or maybe all of them knew about the poison) poisoned their cups when they ordered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...