Morally, what are the worst things Jon & Daenerys have done in the story?

[BlackLightning]

7 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The whole point is that unlike in Yunkai and Meereen, the elite slave masters are gone in this scenario. The ex-slaves will significantly outnumber the Freeborn so it would be suicidal for them to try and reinstate slavery. Also, the council would be better defended against something like that. Freeborn Astapori might actually be happy there is no more slavery/Good Masters because: they can sell their labour for more as free slave labour is no longer available, and there is a chance for actual social progression rather than the aristocratic Good Master families being in charge. Obviously this didn't happen in the original scenario, because a large chunk of the Freeborn were killed and I imagine the others did want some sort of revenge, and because the council could not defend itself and was overthrown by an (ex-slave) butcher who clearly had no ideas how to run Astapor, especially in terms of economics, beyond reinstating slavery but with different people enslaved.

Trying to reinstate slavery with the ex-slaves becoming the slaves again would not work because they massively outnumber everyone, and there is no remaining slaver aristocracy with lots of money and connections to back up the plan. Cleon's idea probably only worked because the people who weren't ex-slaves were a minority.

Right but killing the elite slave masters alone means that the overseers and soldiers of the city (i.e. people who play a big role in the enslavement of the masses) live on.

The situation that unfolded in the books is that an ex-slave made himself king, slaughtered the city's existing leadership, and enslaved the freeborn population of the city that HAD NOT been an overseer, soldier or slavemaster.

I don't think that executing the slavemasters alone would have cut it. Sure, the ex-slaves would have outnumbered the overseers and the soldiers but those two groups still had the wherewithal and the means (i.e. weaponry, experience) to re-enslave them.

There's a reason why most slave rebellions either failed (i.e. Nat Turner) or were short-lived successes that had severe long-term consequences (i.e. Haiti)

 

[csuszka1948]

BTW My largest problem with the idea of Dany becoming 'mad' or incredibly merciless, leaning into her 'violent impulses' is that the text simply doesn't show that Dany has such impulses.

 

Why I am saying that? Because if the author wants to show that 'Dany had violent impulses', we would have someone in her council call her out for it (they tend to criticize her pretty often) and advise her to practice restraint. We could see how ignoring these advices leads her down a bad road. The show ending of Dany is stupid, but at least it got this part right - her advisors (Jorah, Tyrion) constantly tried to advise Dany against her ruthless and violent methods (such as killing all Yunkai masters, attacking the Red Keep).

However, in the books we see the opposite taking place: it's Dany who often rejects the more violent suggestions of her advisors (Jorah, Daario, Shavepate, even Barristan to a degree), behaves softly (as Tyrion notices) and tries to avoid war and bloodshed when possible. From this, crafting a narrative that her violent impulses will lead her down a bad road doesn't work, when she seems to be the least violent person from everyone who surrounds her (in Essos).

You could say that it will still happen because she had dragons... but then this is just equivalent to saying that Dany was doomed to become a villain the moment she hatched dragons and that's not good storytelling. The 'absolute power corrupts' narrative also doesn't work because Bran will be the final King, and he will clearly be able to use the 'absolute power' he possesses (in another manner) in a responsible way.

(Even Jon seems overall more violent compared to his environment - he is punished for attacking Thorne in anger and Sam is horrified by what he forced Gilly to do.)

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

BTW My largest problem with the idea of Dany becoming 'mad' or incredibly merciless, leaning into her 'violent impulses' is that the text simply doesn't show that Dany has such impulses.

 

Why I am saying that? Because if the author wants to show that 'Dany had violent impulses', we would have someone in her council call her out for it (they tend to criticize her pretty often) and advise her to practice restraint. We could see how ignoring these advices leads her down a bad road. The show ending of Dany is stupid, but at least it got this part right - her advisors (Jorah, Tyrion) constantly tried to advise Dany against her ruthless and violent methods (such as killing all Yunkai masters, attacking the Red Keep).

However, in the books we see the opposite taking place: it's Dany who often rejects the more violent suggestions of her advisors (Jorah, Daario, Shavepate, even Barristan to a degree), behaves softly (as Tyrion notices) and tries to avoid war and bloodshed when possible. From this, crafting a narrative that her violent impulses will lead her down a bad road doesn't work, when she seems to be the least violent person from everyone who surrounds her (in Essos).

You could say that it will still happen because she had dragons... but then this is just equivalent to saying that Dany was doomed to become a villain the moment she hatched dragons and that's not good storytelling. The 'absolute power corrupts' narrative also doesn't work because Bran will be the final King, and he will clearly be able to use the 'absolute power' he possesses (in another manner) in a responsible way.

(Even Jon seems overall more violent compared to his environment - he is punished for attacking Thorne in anger and Sam is horrified by what he forced Gilly to do.)

The show undercut its message, for the advice given by Jorah and Tyrion was stupid.

[astarkchoice]

11 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

BTW My largest problem with the idea of Dany becoming 'mad' or incredibly merciless, leaning into her 'violent impulses' is that the text simply doesn't show that Dany has such impulses.

 

Why I am saying that? Because if the author wants to show that 'Dany had violent impulses', we would have someone in her council call her out for it (they tend to criticize her pretty often) and advise her to practice restraint. We could see how ignoring these advices leads her down a bad road. The show ending of Dany is stupid, but at least it got this part right - her advisors (Jorah, Tyrion) constantly tried to advise Dany against her ruthless and violent methods (such as killing all Yunkai masters, attacking the Red Keep).

However, in the books we see the opposite taking place: it's Dany who often rejects the more violent suggestions of her advisors (Jorah, Daario, Shavepate, even Barristan to a degree), behaves softly (as Tyrion notices) and tries to avoid war and bloodshed when possible. From this, crafting a narrative that her violent impulses will lead her down a bad road doesn't work, when she seems to be the least violent person from everyone who surrounds her (in Essos).

You could say that it will still happen because she had dragons... but then this is just equivalent to saying that Dany was doomed to become a villain the moment she hatched dragons and that's not good storytelling. The 'absolute power corrupts' narrative also doesn't work because Bran will be the final King, and he will clearly be able to use the 'absolute power' he possesses (in another manner) in a responsible way.

(Even Jon seems overall more violent compared to his environment - he is punished for attacking Thorne in anger and Sam is horrified by what he forced Gilly to do.)

I dunno dany has glimpses of a person that could be corrupted. She is utterly unshakeable in her long held dream of going 'home' and becomming queen whatever the cost even  stomaching drogos mass slave drive. At quarth when lost she refuses to give up on that and even risks her soul and mind drinking shade of the evening and going to the warlocks house! 

Then her slavers bay campaign we see when she thinks she is being just she can commit attrocities (the killing of mereens slave masters.at ransom) which asks how will she treat the usurpers inwesteros! She  blunders there force her to unhaply comprimise after comprimse...we see after her fever dream in the desert this weak period over....fire and blood indeed!!!

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 6/27/2023 at 3:40 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

Jon has nothing that I can think of except for the baby swap, which was quite bad, the baby was safe but it was wrong to tear him apart from his mother and also the little Aemon Battleborn from his only (Mance thought to be dead) relative. Jon killing his wards if their parents cause problems is perfectly acceptable in this society, as the clansmen chiefs let us know.

Agreed but would like to add his intentions were to save the babies life. Hard times call for hard decisions. 

 

On 6/27/2023 at 3:40 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

Oh perhaps also not marrying Val even though he has stolen her repeatedly. Poor girl is in expectance of it and the fool won't even understand. Tormund has the worst of it, dealing with Jon's foolishness in this matter for the second time.

When did he steal her repeatedly? 

On 6/27/2023 at 3:40 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

As for Dany, the list is quite comprehensive, off the top of my head:

-Slave owning (Dorea, Irri and Jhiqui)

-Employing a bloodmage

-Murdering her husband in a blood magic ritual, as well as the employed bloodmage(Rhaego was unintentional)

-murder of the Undying (I believe it's just self defense but can also be argued that it could've been avoided)

-Buying thousands of slaves (Unsullied)

-Fraud (is it the correct term?), she didn't pay for the slaves she bought

-Genocide of the Astapori populace

-Ordering the deaths of hundreds of innocent slaves, first in Astapor and then in battle against the Yunkish slave army

-Since she toppled down the government of Astapor and instating a governing council with her members of her own choosing, effectively making them a puppet state so  Astapor becoming a failed state and all the ill that befell what remains of the Astapori genocide survivors and the freed men are also on her shoulders. She also left her puppet government with no military to defend themselves from both outside and inside threats.

-Reinstating a milder form of slavery in Meereen and regular slavery in Yunkai and Astapor despite causing deaths of tens of thousands throughout her campaign that was supposedly against Slavery.

- Making money off of the slave trade in Meereen she has reinstated.

- They are free to leave, they have been freed, no longer slaves. They serve the queen just like any other vassal serves any other King or Queen. That they were former slaves is a point to the positive for Dany, IMO

- Why is employing a blood mage a bad thing?

- This is silly. She didn't kill her husband, a festered wound killed her husband. She tried to save him. 

- The slave buying is sort of sticky. She did agree to pay a price & then killed them instead which isn't very honorable. However, it's not very honorable to have the means to free a group of very poorly treated slaves & not do it. 

- These are just ruling mistakes she has made, nothing morally wrong, especially not in universe. She didn't purposely leave her government, she was removing her dragon so he didn't kill anyone. 

 

[csuszka1948]

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

I dunno dany has glimpses of a person that could be corrupted.

 

 

 

How?

If she is a person that could be easily corrupted, she had the perfect opportunity to become corrupted as the ruler of Meereen, but she didn't. She locked up her dragons because they killed a single child and paid the father back instead of silencing him as the Shavepate asked. She could have been a complete tyrant with three dragons, but she tried to treat everyone equally:

On the A Dance With Dragons cover, I put Daenerys at the top of the stairs of the meereenese pyramid. George told me that Daenerys wants equality for everyone, she wants to be at the same level as her people, so I had her climb down to keep it consistent. - Marco Simonetti

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

She is utterly unshakeable in her long held dream of going 'home' and becomming queen whatever the cost even  stomaching drogos mass slave drive.

 

 

 

Yes, she wants to go home and take back her family's Throne, not necessarily become queen, the latter only happens when she becomes the last Targaryen alive.

As for the mass slave drive, she tells herself that she should stomach it, but then orders it stopped. That said, in AGOT she isn't morally opposed to slavery, it's a mindset she starts to develop step by step.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

At quarth when lost she refuses to give up on that and even risks her soul and mind drinking shade of the evening and going to the warlocks house! 

 

 

 

She refuses to give in the temptation to stay, yes.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Then her slavers bay campaign we see when she thinks she is being just she can commit attrocities (the killing of mereens slave masters.at ransom) which asks how will she treat the usurpers inwesteros!

 

 

 

Why would she treat the nobles of Westeros the same way she treats the slavemasters? She treats the slavemasters in such way because they commit atrocities on the slaves, it's an injustice happening to other people.

Unless she plans to overthrow feudalism (and I don't think she does), she won't have such an antagonistic relationship with the nobles of Westeros. The only two that she despises are Ned and Tywin, she thinks they are responsible for the sack and death of her family, and they are dead.

4 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

She  blunders there force her to unhaply comprimise after comprimse...we see after her fever dream in the desert this weak period over....fire and blood indeed!!!

 

 

 

Yes, she became afraid of applying violence after Hazzea's death and gave in to the demands of slavers, she recognizes it was a mistake.

Edited July 14, 2023 by csuszka1948

[Corvo the Crow]

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Agreed but would like to add his intentions were to save the babies life. Hard times call for hard decisions.

True, his inteions were noble but morally it was a bad thing to do, especially considering things like:

he didn’t consult with or ask for permission from his closest living relative, Val.

he was putting another baby in harm’s way, Mel may not believe he did a baby swap when he tells or may even try to burn him without notifying him before

While taking him out of harm’s way in the Wall, he was doing so by putting him in another dangerous path. Travel has it’s own dangers from the baby getting ill to storms or pirates or any other things that don’t come to mind right now.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

When did he steal her repeatedly? 

Check my signature for Val Jon marriage, it should be in the first post, which is somewhat long I must admit. If you can’t find it there or it feels boring or whatever, let me know and I’ll make a brief post on this alone.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[Corvo the Crow]

11 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

If she is a person that could be easily corrupted, she had the perfect opportunity to become corrupted as the ruler of Meereen, but she didn't. She locked up her dragons because they killed a single child and paid the father back instead of silencing him as the Shavepate asked. She could have been a complete tyrant with three dragons, but she tried to treat everyone equally:

She is already corrupt. Let’s imagine a country and it’s government decides to ban, let’s say tobacco, claiming that their reasoning for this ban is tobacco is evil, bad for human health and then confiscate and destroy their product (free slaves), fine(or whatever the correct term) and punish them for their former involvement(letting slaves raid the houses of freeborn and killing slavers). That said government then decides to lift that ban,  tobacco is legal once again but only the head of state’s newly formed company is allowed to sell tobacco products (Dany allowing limited slavery and taxing it) and the head of state makes deals with the biggest tobacco company prior to ban(marriage to Hizdahr). The corrupt politician used their power as head of state to effectively remove all competition in that area to monopolize it. Not to mention the fact that they became the head of state through a coup(well invasion but w/e) in the first place and the government in question is a dictatorship.

Dany is as corrupt as a modern day politician can get.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[SeanF]

26 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

She is already corrupt. Let’s imagine a country and it’s government decides to ban, let’s say tobacco, claiming that their reasoning for this ban is tobacco is evil, bad for human health and then confiscate and destroy their product (free slaves), fine(or whatever the correct term) and punish them for their former involvement(letting slaves raid the houses of freeborn and killing slavers). That said government then decides to lift that ban,  tobacco is legal once again but only the head of state’s newly formed company is allowed to sell tobacco products (Dany allowing limited slavery and taxing it) and the head of state makes deals with the biggest tobacco company prior to ban(marriage to Hizdahr). The corrupt politician used their power as head of state to effectively remove all competition in that area to monopolize it. Not to mention the fact that they became the head of state through a coup(well invasion but w/e) in the first place and the government in question is a dictatorship.

Dany is as corrupt as a modern day politician can get.

Xaro complained that were no slaves for sale in Meereen, when he arrived.  There’s no State-run slave-trading monopoly.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 7/14/2023 at 11:37 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

True, his inteions were noble but morally it was a bad thing to do, especially considering things like:

he didn’t consult with or ask for permission from his closest living relative, Val.

he was putting another baby in harm’s way, Mel may not believe he did a baby swap when he tells or may even try to burn him without notifying him before

While taking him out of harm’s way in the Wall, he was doing so by putting him in another dangerous path. Travel has it’s own dangers from the baby getting ill to storms or pirates or any other things that don’t come to mind right now.

I agree things like not consulting his closing living relative isn't the best thing to do morally but it happens all the time in universe right? Those in authority get to broker marriages, make decisions about fostering their children, etc without any consultation from the parties involved if they so wish. 

I've always wondered how Jon planned to convince Mel it wasn't the right baby. If he somehow knows she will just believe him then he could have sent Gilly's baby with her, kept Mance's at the Wall & just told Mel it was the wrong baby. It's a bit of a silly plot, IMO. 

Travel definitely has it's own dangers though they aren't as sure to kill the babe as burning at the stake. 

[SeanF]

44 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

I agree things like not consulting his closing living relative isn't the best thing to do morally but it happens all the time in universe right? Those in authority get to broker marriages, make decisions about fostering their children, etc without any consultation from the parties involved if they so wish. 

I've always wondered how Jon planned to convince Mel it wasn't the right baby. If he somehow knows she will just believe him then he could have sent Gilly's baby with her, kept Mance's at the Wall & just told Mel it was the wrong baby. It's a bit of a silly plot, IMO. 

Travel definitely has it's own dangers though they aren't as sure to kill the babe as burning at the stake. 

From Mel's POV, it doesn't matter whose baby it is.  If a child sacrifice is required, she'll choose Gilly's baby.  IMHO, she'll sacrifice Monster as part of reviving Jon, and Jon will have to live with that.

[Corvo the Crow]

3 hours ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Travel definitely has it's own dangers though they aren't as sure to kill the babe as burning at the stake. 

Ah I wouldn’t worry about it, Mance is Rhaegar as you know it, except when he isn’t, then he is Arthur Dayne. If the baby was conceived when he was Rhaegar then he shouldn’t burn if he’s a true dragon and you know, he is named after Rhaegar’s favorite great great uncle so I guess he was.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 7/19/2023 at 11:12 AM, SeanF said:

From Mel's POV, it doesn't matter whose baby it is.  If a child sacrifice is required, she'll choose Gilly's baby.  IMHO, she'll sacrifice Monster as part of reviving Jon, and Jon will have to live with that.

But why all the babble about King's blood if she doesn't even need it? 

[SeanF]

34 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

But why all the babble about King's blood if she doesn't even need it? 

King’s blood is best, but the Lord of Light cherishes the sacrifice of the innocent.

[Craving Peaches]

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

King’s blood is best, but the Lord of Light cherishes the sacrifice of the innocent.

So Tommen would be the perfect sacrifice?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

So Tommen would be the perfect sacrifice?

Very much so.  But, he won’t live long enough to meet Mel.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 7/20/2023 at 12:57 PM, SeanF said:

King’s blood is best, but the Lord of Light cherishes the sacrifice of the innocent.

I suppose the baby is the youngest & most innocent but I don't think it helps the story much if Jon goes through this baby swap to protect the baby with King's blood just for Mel to say the baby without king's blood will do. Could happen, but I hope not.