She’s lucky she’s not a Stark!

[Elliott]

Right, the slavers killed 160 slave children at random without giving any thought to it, so she returned the same. An Eye for an Eye, so to speak, which I don't entirely have a problem with.

The expression “an eye for an eye†assumes you are punishing the individual who actually perpetrated the crime.

In the very literal sense, you mete out the punishment in accordance with the crime. The fellow who took someone else’s eye, loses an eye himself.

In Dany’s case, someone lost an eye, so she found some random guy and plucked his eye out.

OK maybe it wasn’t completely random, but she certainly made no effort to find the people actually responsible, or to assure herself to any extent that she wasn’t killing the wrong people. It was quite clear that she just wanted a body count, and that’s what she got.

Therefore, I think the proper expression is not "an eye for an eye", but, instead, “two wrongs don’t make a right.â€

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

EB:

So GRRM isn't making Dany properly complex because... Other-in-law defends her actions? That doesn't make any sense. I might as well conclude that GRRM paints Dany as evil because there are people who will bash her without the slightest provocation. Readers will react however they want; as is perfectly obvious from this very thread, readers don't necessarily read very closely.

[Roza Ahai]

It means no little boys will be castrated and made kill small babies; and no small children disemboweled/crucified alive AS PART OF NATURAL LAW OF THINGS - pretty clear meaning to me.

She did not ensure this. She left the city and other boys whose fathers she killed were castrated and sold.

She is simply 15 years old with too much power in her hands ( and all the burden of a prophecy - of which she has little idea). Remember , over last 300 years she is the only living being who was able to wake up dragon eggs and bring the dragons back just before the Long Night. Of course she is partially crazy - as all Targaryens before her. That is why I like JRRM and his characters so much - no hero of his is a true hero as in "black and white". She is lustful, pigheaded, stubborn, arrogant and intolerant - and that is what separates her from Mary Sue type which would have been gentle and thoughtful as well. Excuse me but I like my steak bloody and my Targs imperfect!

Heh, likely Jon will be her last stallion to mount ( one for love) and woe you - she is puuurfect for him as he needs a little domination from his wimmen.

She is sexually grew up enough for 15 years old girl. It is horibble when the girl (boy) is sexually advanced, with power, but is not responsible for her (his) behavior (Dany/Joffrey). Sexual level does not correspond with brains' development. Prophecy, probably is not related to her. I also like GRRM with the same reason. It is weird I don't like so much Jon, he is boring to me. I really enjoy Tyrions chapters and i have my own very short "hate list" which includes Dany, Joffrey ( unfortunately, he did not have his own POV ), Aerys , probably, because he was going to burn the whole city and that's why I don't find Jaime so awful, I actually like him because he is a cynical character. He did not cover his kingslaying act by beautiful words, "killing the tyrant" et cetera. Many readers hate Lysa and Robert Arren, but i am not among them.

[Dorotea]

I am against terrorizing people just simply because they belong to the higher classes. During massive killings without justice there is a high probability that innocent people might be murdered. I know that. My own family suffered during revolution. Having two horses could cause a death. It is terrible, maybe because i know it from the history of my family. Don't tell me that it was only one method to improve society by killing the members of my family without any choice and justice. I am from Russia. I learned the communist theory at the university named "marxism-leninism" and i am sick of those beautiful words about the happy communist society.

She did not "terrorize people because belonged to the higher class". She was killing slavers who institutionalized bloody castration and murder of children. And it was not some abstract theory of brighter tomorrow to her - she saw what she saw with her eyes and did what she did out of anger and sick heart. Period. And btw, Dany did not come to Astapour with clearly formed intention to "buy slaves" as you can recall. She was influenced by a man whom she trusted most at that moment.

As for your two horses as a cause of death, I am sorry for your grandparents but sh.t happens. Right now in Kenya they are burning children in churches for about similar reason - they happen to belong to a rival tribe. People tend to gang into groups, call them tribes , parties or classes all you like. And that is when things get nasty. And please stop dragging "communist theory" into discussing fantasy plot. I am eastern european by parentage myself and I am honestly sick of ppl popping up on every board out there parading their holier than thou liberal and democratic attitude with examples from personal history. We are discussing a book here for God's sake not condemning communism or neo-conservatism or trotskizm or any other ism out there.

[Dorotea]

She is sexually grew up enough for 15 years old girl. It is horibble when the girl (boy) is sexually advanced, with power, but is not responsible for her (his) behavior (Dany/Joffrey).

Firstly you are forcing our modern day definitions and habits on the Medieval and even Antiquity societies. They had different notion of age . A girl at 15 was considered ripe for marriage and Dany was married and became "sexually active" not on her own volution , but because she was basically sold to the man who can be compared closely to the Ghengiz Khan or Tamerlan of his time and age.

And how the heck can she be "responsible for her behavior" knowing her upbringing and circumstances? With a brother who basically molested her from the cradle and then sold to a man who from her PoW was basically a monster? She was lucky enough with Drogo but that was not by any means assured. Considering all of the above she turned out pretty decent person

As for Lannisters - all of the except Tyrion were damned lucky and spoiled as children, at least when compared to Daeneris. And what a "flower" had Cercei became. Cynicism might be a fun trait to observe from aside - but Jaime's and Cercei's main character flaw is their egocentrism and complete inability to feel empathy. And excuse me but I can never find a character that lacks empathy appealing ( though Jaime started to break out of his shell after he lost a hand - extreme physical suffering often does it they say.)

[Roza Ahai]

She was killing slavers who institutionalized bloody castration and murder of children.

All of them? All of those slavers institutionalized bloody castration and murder of children?

as not some abstract theory of brighter tomorrow to her - she saw what she saw with her eyes and did what she did out of anger and sick heart. Period. And btw, Dany did not come to Astapour with clearly formed intention to "buy slaves" as you can recall. She was influenced by a man whom she trusted most at that moment.

That man influenced her to kill all slavers? And taught her how to get Unsullied by cheating? Anger and sick heart are bad advisers when you have power and take decisions, especialy about peoples' lives.

And please stop dragging "communist theory" into discussing fantasy plot. I am eastern european by parentage myself and I am honestly sick of ppl popping up on every board out there parading their holier than thou liberal and democratic attitude with examples from personal history. We are discussing a book here for God's sake not condemning communism or neo-conservatism or trotskizm or any other ism out there.

Sorry, i took this as example just to explain how horibble it is when many people are murdered without justice. You told me that i live " in ivory tower", I just gave you my background that i never lived "in ivory tower".

I am not so liberal but i am against massive killings by the will of one person in real life or in fantasy plot. I explained many times that i don't like methods. I hope you will accept that i have a right for this opinion and ,please, don't be sick of it, PLEASE. As i understand GRRM tried to show moral aspect of the murder. If anybody has the ground for the murder does he has the right to kill many people because of this?

If you like Dany as she is, fine, great, it is your choice. Could you, please, forgive my English and my personal history!

Firstly you are forcing our modern day definitions and habits on the Medieval and even Antiquity societies.

OK. Medievil time, 13 years old girl was considered an adult. The same happens in the fantasy. Again, i just find Dany's methods horibble for me and i beleive that because she is a young, not matured person. She actually has time and chance to reconsider her attitude.

You are also applying modern definitions to the Antiquity society when you talk about how terrible is slavery and cutting off penises. Eunuch in ancient China was a common event, and slavery was one of the phases of society development. You don't like my liberal attitude to massive killings but you show modern liberal attitude to slavery, i mean you are horrified by slavery in ancient society, or i am wrong?

And how the heck can she be "responsible for her behavior" knowing her upbringing and circumstances? With a brother who basically molested her from the cradle and then sold to a man who from her PoW was basically a monster?

Oh. Her brother is responsible for her killings, not she herself. Tyrion killed his father, Cercei and circumstances are guilty, not Tyrion. Wow. Why Drogo is a monster? Because he "can be compared closely to the Ghengiz Khan or Tamerlan of his time and age"? Genghis Khans' wars can be explained by reasons. He conquered China because mongols were captured during notrh chinese , actually proto-manzhurian dynasty's expeditions to the steppe and used as slaves in China. You are against slavery, yes? He conquered Khorezm because his 300 merchants were killed and their goods has been taken by the city governor. When Genghis Khan asked for his head, he was denied, his ambassadors were killed and he proclaimed the war to Muhamed.

[Daemrion]

Just to add: Dany SHOULD be held to a higher level of responsibility, after all she is trying to claim to be a Queen. She's claiming that she's going to be a leader of the people, so I reckon that she should be held to a higher responsibility as a 'ruler' (say as opposed to our cynical knights Jaime, Sandor, and cynical dwarfman).

and I always wonder, how is it that Dany can be criticized for perceived moral lapses on the one hand and then criticized for always having the moral high ground on the other? How does a person manage to be both too idealistic and too self-serving at the same time?

I don't think that she's being criticized for always having the moral high ground per se, she's being criticized for having the perceived moral high ground as compared to the people that she is conquering because GRRM has portrayed them as evil.

But I don't think that is a thing that works, it seems that Dany's enemies are being deliberately made 'falsely' evil to prop her.

[Jaak]

To your earlier point about addressing the slavery problem from the supply side rather than the demand side, I think that the US war on drugs shows the futility of that approach. If there's enough profit to be made, someone will step in to meet the supply.

If there is enough profit. But with slaves, there isn´t. Slavery is profitable when and because slaves are cheap.

It's an even less efficient wrt the series setting; the slave-training and marketing nexus is conveniently centralised making it easier to take out quickly. The slave suppliers however, are the nomadic Dothraki who are formed into numerous khalasars that spread out and wander all over the entire continent. Much more difficult to track them down and stop them than to shut down the slave industry in it's urban core.

They do wonder why the Dothraki have not attacked and sacked the slaver cities. The answer is that they want someone to sell slaves to. Although the Dothraki might sack one and sell the slavers in the remaining two.

[Errant Bard]

So GRRM isn't making Dany properly complex because... Other-in-law defends her actions? That doesn't make any sense. I might as well conclude that GRRM paints Dany as evil because there are people who will bash her without the slightest provocation. Readers will react however they want; as is perfectly obvious from this very thread, readers don't necessarily read very closely.

Complexity isn't related. Aren't we talking about morality and how readers react to that? I don't understand your question.

I was only saying that whatever grey actions GRRM made her do, so far weren't really grey and that nothing she did has ever come back to bite her in the ass. Essentially, that she is held to a double standard compared to normal westeros, for the purpose of her growth, she's like easy mode Sansa.

On a separate point, what I argue in regard to this thread is that morality is relative, so a Dany can slaughter slavers and be considered good for it but Freys will be considered evil after slaughtering oathbreaking rebels. Motivation and PoV are key.

On another sperate point, Dany may be complex as a character, but her purpose is simple and her path is as straight as an arrow, with very visible power-up steps. Not as bad as Jon becoming Lord Commander though.

[Jaak]

Cynicism might be a fun trait to observe from aside - but Jaime's and Cercei's main character flaw is their egocentrism and complete inability to feel empathy. And excuse me but I can never find a character that lacks empathy appealing ( though Jaime started to break out of his shell after he lost a hand - extreme physical suffering often does it they say.)

Jaime lacked empathy? What about Brandon and Rickard? What about Rhaella and Qarlton?

[Guest Other-in-law]

Not to say I don't agree on the whole with your argument, since Ghis is obviously built to be a flatout evil stepping stone for Dany (GRRM made the guys rape the dog), but how do you know these precise details?

Which ones? We were directly told of the hideous and deliberately public torments of rebellious slaves. That the there was no reform movement in the ruling class? That's sort of a self-governing thing; if any was attempted (and failed) the agitators would have been killed, jailed, or exiled, all of which would have put them beyond the reach of Dany's purge. If they were jailed, I imagine it would have been noteworthy. If they were free and chose to continue living in a slave city, it suggests that they had accommodated themselves to the horrors and were able to accept them.

On a separate point, what I argue in regard to this thread is that morality is relative, so a Dany can slaughter slavers and be considered good for it but Freys will be considered evil after slaughtering oathbreaking rebels. Motivation and PoV are key.

Well of course morality is relative. It cannot literally be picked and placed a scales or measured with a micrometer. The process of judging it is dependent on the priorities and biases of the observer, but that doesn't mean that one can't defend their reasoning with vigor and attempt to persuade others to view things the same way.

For your examples, I think that there is a qualitative difference between Robb and the Good Masters, both in their actions and motives. No doubt some or many children died as a result of Robb's warmaking, but that was hardly his purpose and he probably tried to avoid it as much as possible. Certainly not like the sadistic murdering done on the massive scale that the slavers did...for centuries. And that's even holding him accountable for an actual moral charge, not a legal technicality like oathbreaking. I, for one, am not particularly overawed with that whole honour and law approach to morality, since laws are a creature of power and as such are often wicked.

To the influence of POV, I'm sure there's an effect, but I doubt it's so irresistible as you seem to be suggesting. Theon Greyjoy had a POV and he willingly chose to murder two small boys in order to prevent a situation in which he would suffer personal embarrassment. Inexcusable. Jaime is a much more mixed bag. Were I Stannis, I'd have him beheaded for the attempted murder of Bran but I'd also raise a statue to honour him for saving the population of KL with his admirable act of kingslaying. Breaking oaths doesn't enter into it at all for me. And way back in aGoT, long before he had a POV, I never shared Ned's horror for...oh noes!...sitting on the iron throne. Who cares about that?

[Dorotea]

All of them? All of those slavers institutionalized bloody castration and murder of children?

Yes. Or were there any indication of a political opposition inside the slaver cities? Any sort of "underground", quietly working to abolish slavery, castrations as well as pups and babies routine slaughter? All the 12 year old from slaver families were raised on the profit from institutionalized mutilation and murder. That was as much a part of their culture as slave trade in XVIII century Russia and Americas. If you are referring to the cities other than Astapour , I don't buy this since their 'cultural differences' were no more than specialization for the sake of higher profits.

Oh. Her brother is responsible for her killings, not she herself.

"Her behavior" was meant to refer to her sexual alertness and premature development at age 15 that disgusted you so much, nothing more. Viseris and Drogo ARE responsible for that at least.

[Jaak]

To listen to you one might start questioning the validity of such institutions as law enforcement.

What justifies the institutions of law enforcement is that there is law.

In other words, the main thing that justifies actual use of force is that threat of force did not work by itself and actual use of force is needed to follow up the threat of force.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Dany was going to buy slaves. Nobody from her companions did not know that she was going to fight the slavers. Slavers also did not have any idea about that, otherwise they would be prepared or just simply not to come to negotiations .

So she surprised them. Too bad for them. Reminds me of a line from the movie Unforgiven about shooting an unarmed man (paraphrased): "Well, maybe he should have armed himself before he went and decorated his establishment with my friend."

I am against terrorizing people just simply because they belong to the higher classes.

Good thing that Dany had a far better reason for actions than that. I continue to be amazed at how you just wave away the slaver's responsibility for their actions.

Dany wanted to get the Unsullied. She got them. The Unsullied are her profit.

Since she freed them, the prophet was not guaranteed.

Dany not only got the Unsullied using her children, but also started to live in the palace of the slavers. Or she rejected of it?

Of course not, quit playing with strawmen. She did not create those Unsullied by murdering 10,000 children. They did. The fact that they did was clearly a huge part of her decision to destroy them. They killed the innocent for the sole purpose of profit; she killed the guilty primarily to punish them, and additionally profited from it tactically. I'm pretty sure wearing perfumes and silks was not a factor in her decision.

[Dorotea]

What justifies the institutions of law enforcement is that there is law.

In other words, the main thing that justifies actual use of force is that threat of force did not work by itself and actual use of force is needed to follow up the threat of force.

Which was exactly the case in Dany's attack on the slaver cities. She was intent on changing the law that allowed for slavery, castrations, murder and mass mutilations. When threat was sufficient she did not use force.

[Dorotea]

You are also applying modern definitions to the Antiquity society when you talk about how terrible is slavery and cutting off penises. Eunuch in ancient China was a common event, and slavery was one of the phases of society development. You don't like my liberal attitude to massive killings but you show modern liberal attitude to slavery, i mean you are horrified by slavery in ancient society, or i am wrong?

What I believe is that the humanity is gradually evolving towards gentler more humane state of order. We did abolish slavery and torture of PoW's - (or at least we pretend that we did. )But the only way to keep the human race from reverting back to their old-fashioned habits is enforcement of protection for the weak and disabled. I do not approve of mass murders - yet I think that there are cases when use of brutal force is inevitable. I do agree that Dany's actions were rash and ill-thought out. She is headstrong and has a tendency to flares of temper - which is nherited Targaryen trait. But she is not intentionally and habitually cruel and at least she tries to be a good ruler and has consciousness - which is way more than can be said about many other men and women of power in the Westerous.

Once again, my point was only that a 'good character' in my book is many dimensional and empathic, not perfectly rounded paragon of thoughtfulness and valor.

[L'Sana]

It would be understandable for characters in the series to feel that way...maybe. Barristan Selmy is generally considered to be extremely honourable, and the Good Masters were really pissing him off. Regardless, there's no excuse for readers to feel that way, tacitly defending the atrocities of the slavers.

Why should the reader not be disturbed by the way things were done? Why does it have to be either "You should cheer that Dany betrayed her hosts and committed mass murder during a negotiation?" or "You condone slavery and the murder of infants?" Does this also mean that anyone who wasn't thrilled about the Red Wedding thinks it was perfectly fine for Robb to break his promise to Lord Frey?

The slavers (well, most of them anyway, perhaps not the 13 yr. olds) deserved what they got, but the way in which it happened was more than a little disturbing. Dany came as a customer. The slavers operated with her in good faith. She repaid that good faith by burning, killing, and looting. However evil her "partners" in the negotiation might have been, that leaves me disturbed. It's like what Jaime did with Aerys: you can agree that Aerys needed to go and still be bothered by the fact that he was murdered by someone who swore to protect him. There are plenty of places in the book where a "good" result is achieved by means that leave at least some readers feeling revolted.

Dany did not intend to kill all those 13-17 children, she intended to save all the babies that were to be slaughtered by the Unsullied still in training. Remember her decision to sell Drogon came AFTER she was refused the sale of those U. who have not received their spiked helms yet. She was particularly adamant about them - and the only way to get them was to buy all others and assure slavers she was just an overeager customer. When they refused her she could not give up and the killing ensued.

I don't think you can give Dany much credit here. She needed to buy all of the Unsullied not out of consideration for the infants or the puppies that they might yet slaughter, but because in order for her plan to work, she needed all of the Unsullied to be hers; the Good Masters couldn't have any units still loyal to them that would have fought back.

[Chalkobob]

Well, as far as killing the slavers goes, they had it coming. She did it underhandedly and dishonestly of course, but as one Eddard Stark showed us, in the game of thrones honesty is a fast way to become a head shorter. So really, I don't dislike Dany for this. I just can't get over the fact that she would bring an army of Dothraki over to Westeros (which the khal openly stated his intentions of causing death, rape, and slavery) and than pretend to be the responsible queen... Causing that much chaos to the lands she has an oath to protect just so she can rule, is far more selfish than anything Cercei has done (which has also caused a lot of killing, but not as MUCH rape as dothraki, and no slavery), and Cercei has the excuse of having kids to look out for, Dany doesn't. In spite of all this I didn't mind her until she burnt that sheep woman alive for the crime of assassinating the khal who attacked her peaceful civilization, had his men indulge in raping them, and than take their children as slaves. Is that supposed to be justice?

She is a hypocrite in two ways. One loving Khal Drogo, possibly the biggest acquirer of slaves that we have heard about thus far, and than hating the other slavers. Two hating Robert Baratheon for usurping the iron throne, while she runs around usurping the free cities.

As people also pointed out the Mary Sue plot devices make her chapters have no tension and predictable, although that's just sloppy writing and in no way makes her character more hate able.

And of course her smug sense of superiority and entitlement she caries with her rubs me the wrong way. She is asking for a humbling. I would be pleasantly surprised if GRRM decided to kill her off soon, who would see that coming? But that won't happen (until the very end perhaps) because she is the "Keanu Reeves" of this story.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Why should the reader not be disturbed by the way things were done? Why does it have to be either "You should cheer that Dany betrayed her hosts and committed mass murder during a negotiation?" or "You condone slavery and the murder of infants?"

My response was to the question of which was worse, not an all or nothing choice between them. And the atrocities of the slavers were unquestionably worse, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To me the issue of deception is as a trivial nitpick compared to the monstrous actions of the Good Masters.

It's like what Jaime did with Aerys: you can agree that Aerys needed to go and still be bothered by the fact that he was murdered by someone who swore to protect him.

I'm not disturbed by it, not even remotely. The pretty words are insignificant in comparison to the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

I don't think you can give Dany much credit here. She needed to buy all of the Unsullied not out of consideration for the infants or the puppies that they might yet slaughter, but because in order for her plan to work, she needed all of the Unsullied to be hers; the Good Masters couldn't have any units still loyal to them that would have fought back.

You're missing what the plan was by that point. The plan turned into the destruction of the Astapori slave industry. So no, that's not giving her too much credit. If her only goal was to obtain some soldiers, she could have just paid for the thousand or two that she could afford and move on. If she needed more, she could have taken their advice and used the ones she had to sack some cities and sell their inhabitants into slavery to make money to by more Unsullied. The only reason she needed all of them was to stop the slavers.

[L'Sana]

My response was to the question of which was worse, not an all or nothing choice between them. And the atrocities of the slavers were unquestionably worse, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To me the issue of deception is as a trivial nitpick compared to the monstrous actions of the Good Masters.

Your comment was "There's no excuse for readers to feel that way [uneasy about the less than honorable behavior], tacitly defending the atrocities of the slavers." That certainly implies that any hesitation on our part about the morality of Dany's actions is equivalent to endorsing what the Good Masters did. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize, but your words certainly lent themselves to that interpretation.

I'm not disturbed by it, not even remotely. The pretty words are insignificant in comparison to the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

I should have clarified that I meant mostly the way I felt in the first and second books, before we learned about Aerys's plan to destroy King's Landing.

And those "pretty words" are not insignificant. Oaths are what make the feudal system work. Lords care for their vassals because of the oaths those vassals have taken to obey the Lord's orders. The vassals in turn obey because their lords have made oaths to them. If it becomes a common belief that oaths, "pretty words," don't matter, then Westeros falls apart.