Mirri Maz Duur Appreciation Topic

[FuzzyJAM]

Fair enough, but you specifically stated that Drogo wouldn't have gone on a "murderous rampage" if not for Dany.

Where?

A nice Dany-bashing thread in disguise. MMD is very different in the books than the show, as are lots of characters. Regardless she killed a child which was alive, I'm sure Dany comments on feeling Rhaego in her womb. I feel little sympathy for her to be honest, her death isn't very pleasant but it's far from a rare exception in the series. There are many more worthy characters who deserve my pity.

No disguise here. Dany is the clear villain at the end of GoT. It's honestly not up for debate, unless you think encouraging and approving of conquest and murder is somehow morally acceptable or justified in the context of "Well, they need supplies to. . .uh. . .go and do the same thing somewhere else." I think Dany develops into a much more sympathetic character by the end of the series (so far), and could see her as being a worthy ruler at some point, though she's still very far off. However, that's not what this topic is about - it's about Mirri and her interactions with Dany, which happens near the end of GoT and not in Qarth or Astapor or Mereen. Any later development of Dany into a better person cannot reasonably be factored in.

Again, Rhaego is the one thing I have issues with regarding Mirri. As others have pointed out, it's not 1/10th as simple as "murdering a child" - we don't know if it's intentional, we don't know the extent to which Mirri can read the future, we don't know if Rhaego ever truly lived. Mirri potentially did something very wrong (to Rhaego - his parents deserved any pain they received, especially considering what they wanted for their son), but we run into a fundamental moral problem in a world with magic and prophecy: we simply cannot know so many things. As for feeling movement in her womb, Dany also feels movement in her eggs which appears to not happen or be pure magic - as such, it's entirely reasonable to regard Mirri's explanation for Rhaego as the correct one.

And I have not seen a single episode of the show. I'm basing this purely off of the books. If someone wants to talk about the show they can, but I won't be joining in.

[The Storm Queen]

Or she was suicidal.

Isn´t this a likely option? Just try to imagine, you are a healer and a priestress for a loving God that empathizes the worth of life and growth. Then barbarians come to your place, kill all of those people you have healed or help to deliver, rape you several times, destroy your home...what remains for MMD apart from revenge? Not terribly much, I suppose....

[FuzzyJAM]

Isn´t this a likely option? Just try to imagine, you are a healer and a priestress for a loving God that empathizes the worth of life and growth. Then barbarians come to your place, kill all of those people you have healed or help to deliver, rape you several times, destroy your home...what remains for MMD apart from revenge? Not terribly much, I suppose....

Speaking from experience, not caring whether you live or die is somewhat different from being suicidal. It's a fairly well recognised point of distinction in psychiatry. They're connected, obviously, but I think Mirri would fall into the former but not so much the latter.

I do think it's important to note that Mirri tries (or very much appears to, I'll allow people different interpretations) to heal Drogo. That's pretty amazing, to be honest - I don't know how many could try to heal a man after he'd done what Drogo had to her. She isn't simply bent on revenge, I'd say - Drogo and Dany simply give it to her; Mirri barely has to give them any rope because they're so eager to hang themselves.

[Milcov]

No disguise here. Dany is the clear villain at the end of GoT. It's honestly not up for debate, unless you think encouraging and approving of conquest and murder is somehow morally acceptable or justified in the context of "Well, they need supplies to. . .uh. . .go and do the same thing somewhere else." I think Dany develops into a much more sympathetic character by the end of the series (so far), and could see her as being a worthy ruler at some point, though she's still very far off. However, that's not what this topic is about - it's about Mirri and her interactions with Dany, which happens near the end of GoT and not in Qarth or Astapor or Mereen. Any later development of Dany into a better person cannot reasonably be factored in.

Again, Rhaego is the one thing I have issues with regarding Mirri. As others have pointed out, it's not 1/10th as simple as "murdering a child" - we don't know if it's intentional, we don't know the extent to which Mirri can read the future, we don't know if Rhaego ever truly lived. Mirri potentially did something very wrong (to Rhaego - his parents deserved any pain they received, especially considering what they wanted for their son), but we run into a fundamental moral problem in a world with magic and prophecy: we simply cannot know so many things. As for feeling movement in her womb, Dany also feels movement in her eggs which appears to not happen or be pure magic - as such, it's entirely reasonable to regard Mirri's explanation for Rhaego as the correct one.

And I have not seen a single episode of the show. I'm basing this purely off of the books. If someone wants to talk about the show they can, but I won't be joining in.

That's absolute rubbish. Dany isn't the clear villain by the end of AGOT, like most of the characters she is understandably going to conquer. The only outright villains in the series are Gregor and Joffrey, maybe Viserys and Qyburn among others. It's understandable why Dany is angry and to say she's a total villain purely because of burning MMD and condoning the conquer (but not the rape) of the Lhazareen is outright ridiculous.

And will people stop denying MMD killed Rhaego, you're grasping at (non-existant) straws. It's in all the appendices as Rhaego being slain by MMD and it's made very clear in AGOT that MMD slays her, whether it was planned from the start of the Dothraki attack (doubtful), from her being chosen to heal Drogo (up for debate) or after Drogo ignored her basic advice (almost certainly). She without a doubt murdered Rhaego, you can like her if you want but some of the praise in here is as ridiculous as some of the criticism of Dany.

[FuzzyJAM]

I'm confused. You actually think that conquering innocent peoples in order to get supplies to conquer a different people is acceptable practise and not clear villainy? Well, OK, guess we have a very different set of morals.

The appendices also say that Joffrey is Robert's son, call Dany the sole surviving Targaryen heir, say Aegon is dead (which he may be, of course, but it's fair to assume WoW will say he isn't. . .), etc., etc.. They are no more unbiased or omnipotent than any other part of the books - they are based on character interpretations and understanding, nothing more.

[Independent George]

What I find interesting is that MMD basically did what Robert planned to do. She knew that Rhaego would grow up to be a conqueror, and so she killed him while she still had the opportunity.

[oba]

Where?

Here:

The reason Drogo goes on his murderous rampage is in preparation for his invasion of Westeros, which she has urged him to.

That's what you wrote and what I originally responded to. If it's not what you meant to say, fine, but when someone says that the reason X did Y is because of A urging him to, it's tough not to draw an implication from that statement.

In any event, I'll also repeat that the text makes it clear that not only was Drogo's "murderous rampage" business as usual for his and other khalasars but MMD's town would have been pillaged whether or not Dany even existed considering that Ogo's khalasar was already in the process of doing this before Drogo & co. even arrived on the scene.

No disguise here. Dany is the clear villain at the end of GoT.

I respect your opinion, but I don't think this is "clear" by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, Dany's guilty of willful blindness when it comes to the "price" of pursuing a claim to the Iron Throne. That doesn't, though, make her a clear villain any more than it makes "clear villains" out of any of the other contenders for power. Stannis could have just remained on Dragonstone. Renly didn't have to claim the throne for himself, either. Robb didn't have to call his banners and lead the northern forces south. All 3 did so knowing their actions would cost many innocents their lives. Are they clear villains, too?

[FuzzyJAM]

You quote me saying Drogo went on his murderous rampage in preparation for his invasion of Westeros (which is true) and that Dany urged him into it (which is also true). That does not mean that Drogo would not have a harmed anyone without Dany urging him to it, it simply means what I stated. I didn't "specifically state" what you're claiming - in order to argue that, you have to actually quote me saying it. If you want to infer things incorrectly, even after I've corrected you and clarified what I meant (because I can understand the misinterpretation), which is well within the literal meaning of what I wrote, then I don't know what to say.

In regards the rest of your post, most certainly, Robb, Renly and Stannis are greys.

Robb is the palest, in that he is actually in a defensive war at first, and secedes (apparently at the wish of his people, and at least at the wish of his lords) after a clear breach of feudal contract when he (correctly) believes his father to have been wrongfully murdered by the king. Perhaps he was not as keen on peace as he should have been, but he is the only "king" to actually reach out to the others, wishing for alliances and peace. He does not want to conquer anyone, he wishes to defend those who have proclaimed him as their king.

Between Renly and Stannis, it's debatable. Both have at least some sort of justification for the war they are bringing. Stannis believes his claim is just (much like Dany), but more than that he believes (to some extent) that he is doing this for the greater good. It's hard to tell how much he believes what Melisandre says, and of course a messiah complex doesn't give you the right to do what you like, but it is at least some form of justification beyond "Hurr durr, it's mine!" Renly, on the other hand, clearly believes (correctly) that Lannister rule will be terrible for the country. He is not purely self-serving; he wanted a Baratheon-Tyrell alliance long before he claimed kingship, he wanted to try to take control of Joffrey out of the Lannister's hands at Robert's death. He claims kingship when it appears no other course is open. He wishes to rule because he thinks he will be a good ruler, not because he is power mad.

You can, of course, argue the morality of all three - whether they are paler or darker, the reasonableness of of their beliefs and actions - but they are not clear villains.

How is Dany different? Because her war (at least at this point) has nothing to do with any enemies. She encourages and supports bringing war to a defenceless people with absolutely ZERO justification, either real or imagined, beyond the fact that she wants what they have; namely money, gold and people to take into slavery.

[wolverine]

The person MMD hurt the most was the one whom had shown her compassion. The one who was attempting to make changes in how the Dothraki treated conquered peoples and was in a position to actually have influence.

So...what did she really accomplish. She killed the leader of a Dothraki horde and his unborn child. Pretty sure they are still a horde that will be conquering, raping, and killing innocents in the future. They may be several smaller hordes but they will go on as before. She removed the one person who could actually start to change some of the practices MMD so despised by the Dothraki. Yes, Drogo's army may be nothing like it was before his death, but Dany moves on with her same goals and nonethless gains her own army.

[butterbumps!]

The person MMD hurt the most was the one whom had shown her compassion. The one who was attempting to make changes in how the Dothraki treated conquered peoples and was in a position to actually have influence.

So...what did she really accomplish. She killed the leader of a Dothraki horde and his unborn child. Pretty sure they are still a horde that will be conquering, raping, and killing innocents in the future. They may be several smaller hordes but they will go on as before. She removed the one person who could actually start to change some of the practices MMD so despised by the Dothraki. Yes, Drogo's army may be nothing like it was before his death, but Dany moves on with her same goals and nonethless gains her own army.

Sort of. We know that Dany would have turned a blind eye to the rape and pillage of whomever as long as it got her an army and resources to take Westeros (and yes, Drogo rapes and pillages anyway, but Dany explicitly has the most problem with this only when it does not pertain to winning a crown). And that's only speaking of the people in Essos. Dany is more than fine with the thought of Drogo's khalasar being the force used in Westeros to win the throne. Although not from the same sadistic motivations, this is in effect the same as 30k Gregor Cleganes rampaging throughout Westeros. I realize that one must crack a few eggs sometimes, and that comparing brutalities of war is kind of like comparing the wetness of water, but the fact is that with Dany comes the promise of death and destruction, on either continent. And yes, there's the opposition, who believes that the death and destruction is already there and Dany will use her death and destruction to conquer the existing death and destruction (not adding to it, mind you), but I don't happen to think that's the case. So no, I'm not sure I think Dany would have negotiated or influenced Dothraki culture at that point into something more peaceful and sustainable.

[Castel]

The person MMD hurt the most was the one whom had shown her compassion. The one who was attempting to make changes in how the Dothraki treated conquered peoples and was in a position to actually have influence.

So...what did she really accomplish. She killed the leader of a Dothraki horde and his unborn child. Pretty sure they are still a horde that will be conquering, raping, and killing innocents in the future. They may be several smaller hordes but they will go on as before. She removed the one person who could actually start to change some of the practices MMD so despised by the Dothraki. Yes, Drogo's army may be nothing like it was before his death, but Dany moves on with her same goals and nonethless gains her own army.

And yet Dany was carrying a child that was the complete opposite of that. And what did she achieve? She stopped the birth of Rhaego, who was supposed to be even worse than Drogo. Imagine if Drogo conquered Westeros you think he would sit still? Imagine Dothraki with siege equipment and no fear of the sea. Now have nightmares.Dany reforming the Dothraki was not a good thing in the long run.She basically took away any power this radical woman had by removing her pieces. And Drogo himself held together a pretty large khalasar, and not to mention helped continue the slaughter of her people. And you overestimate MMD, how the hell is she supposed to kill off an entire khalasar, she did the best she could with the weapons she had.

Her plan didn't work out, but because that was due to unforeseeable things I can let it go.

I love how she's supposed to be grateful for being saved and made into a slave after seeing her life's work destroyed and pissed on.

Robb is the palest, in that he is actually in a defensive war at first, and secedes (apparently at the wish of his people, and at least at the wish of his lords) after a clear breach of feudal contract when he (correctly) believes his father to have been wrongfully murdered by the king. Perhaps he was not as keen on peace as he should have been, but he is the only "king" to actually reach out to the others, wishing for alliances and peace. He does not want to conquer anyone, he wishes to defend those who have proclaimed him as their king.

Except that his father was a traitor to said king and Robb himself went out of his way to protect said traitor.

[FuzzyJAM]

Except that his father was a traitor to said king and Robb himself went out of his way to protect said traitor.

That's the accusation brought upon his father, but Robb (entirely correctly) deduces that this is a nonsense. False confession achieved through torture and blackmail does not make someone a genuine criminal.

Eddard is not a traitor and I find it hard to believe Robb even entertained the idea that he was.

[Milcov]

I'm confused. You actually think that conquering innocent peoples in order to get supplies to conquer a different people is acceptable practise and not clear villainy? Well, OK, guess we have a very different set of morals.

The appendices also say that Joffrey is Robert's son, call Dany the sole surviving Targaryen heir, say Aegon is dead (which he may be, of course, but it's fair to assume WoW will say he isn't. . .), etc., etc.. They are no more unbiased or omnipotent than any other part of the books - they are based on character interpretations and understanding, nothing more.

In that case everyone in ASOIAF is a villain. To paraphrase Jorah, all said innocent peoples want is to be left alone, that includes from Robb, Stannis, Joffrey, Renly, Dany, Drogo, Tywin, hell even Davos. They conquered the Lhazareen to get supplies, however Dany seems to approach it that this is a necessary evil, and she certainly attempts to stop the worst acts of the Dothraki. Dany did what she had to do while trying to minimise the evils that came of it, that IMO deserves praise.

We have more evidence for MMD killing Rhaego than not, denying it is the best example of clutching at straws and insane Dany hating I've seen on here, it's up there with those who hate her for Daario.

[Milcov]

That's the accusation brought upon his father, but Robb (entirely correctly) deduces that this is a nonsense. False confession achieved through torture and blackmail does not make someone a genuine criminal.

Eddard is not a traitor and I find it hard to believe Robb even entertained the idea that he was.

Well Eddard was going to remove Joffrey from the throne for Stannis, correctly but Joffrey and Cersei took the correct course of action in imprisoning him before he could do so. Executing him was stupid but technically the correct thing to do as well, Stannis almost certainly would have executed him in Joffrey's position. In fact out of the Kings I think only Renly would have pardoned him.

Robb didn't care if his father was a traitor or not, it's about house honour. Robb wouldn't let his fathers execution pass. Look at what Eddard did in that situation, despite the fact Brandon certainly brought his death upon himself.

[Castel]

That's the accusation brought upon his father, but Robb (entirely correctly) deduces that this is a nonsense. False confession achieved through torture and blackmail does not make someone a genuine criminal.

Eddard is not a traitor and I find it hard to believe Robb even entertained the idea that he was.

Well Eddard was going to remove Joffrey from the throne for Stannis, correctly but Joffrey and Cersei took the correct course of action in imprisoning him before he could do so. Executing him was stupid but technically the correct thing to do as well, Stannis almost certainly would have executed him in Joffrey's position. In fact out of the Kings I think only Renly would have pardoned him.

Robb didn't care if his father was a traitor or not, it's about house honour. Robb wouldn't let his fathers execution pass. Look at what Eddard did in that situation, despite the fact Brandon certainly brought his death upon himself.

Robb had no idea what happened at all. Eddard was imprisoned, then next thing they knew he was dead, he has no grounds to claim duress. Honor? I don't think it had anything to do with honor, no doubt people try to claim so when they want to go off and start wars. His father confessed to his crime, in front of gods and men, he didn't look harmed, if anyone told Robb that, and Joff had every right to have his head. Robb continued fighting out of pride.

In that case everyone in ASOIAF is a villain. To paraphrase Jorah, all said innocent peoples want is to be left alone, that includes from Robb, Stannis, Joffrey, Renly, Dany, Drogo, Tywin, hell even Davos. They conquered the Lhazareen to get supplies, however Dany seems to approach it that this is a necessary evil, and she certainly attempts to stop the worst acts of the Dothraki. Dany did what she had to do while trying to minimise the evils that came of it, that IMO deserves praise.

We have more evidence for MMD killing Rhaego than not, denying it is the best example of clutching at straws and insane Dany hating I've seen on here, it's up there with those who hate her for Daario.

Please provide examples of said evidence.

[oba]

You quote me saying Drogo went on his murderous rampage in preparation for his invasion of Westeros (which is true) and that Dany urged him into it (which is also true).

I'm saying that Drogo's "murderous rampage" is business as usual for Drogo's khalasar and that trying to pretend that this represented a dramatic change of course because of Dany's "urging" is not accurate. I don't know how I can say this any more plainly. Drogo's khalasar interrupted another khalasar engaging in the exact same activity. Did Ogo also have a khaleesi "urging" him on his "murderous rampage"?

In regards the rest of your post, most certainly, Robb, Renly and Stannis are greys.

Robb is the palest, in that he is actually in a defensive war at first, and secedes (apparently at the wish of his people, and at least at the wish of his lords) after a clear breach of feudal contract when he (correctly) believes his father to have been wrongfully murdered by the king.

The wishes of Robb's people had nothing to do with it. It was at the urging of his lords, and Ned was an admitted traitor.

I think it's a tremendous stretch to call Robb's war defensive. He certainly had his reasons for marching south, but the territory he was charged to defend was not attacked.

Perhaps he was not as keen on peace as he should have been, but he is the only "king" to actually reach out to the others, wishing for alliances and peace. He does not want to conquer anyone, he wishes to defend those who have proclaimed him as their king.

He doesn't want to conquer anyone, but that certainly didn't stop him from recognizing that continuing to prosecute the war meant taking a lot of castles in the west and bringing death and destruction to a lot of innocents, meanwhile leaving the people he was supposedly defending in an extremely vulnerable position. And while plunder wasn't Robb's main goal, there's certainly no evidence that his forces didn't do their fair share of plundering when they went west. Again, that's what war entails and it doesn't make Robb a "villain".

Between Renly and Stannis, it's debatable. Both have at least some sort of justification for the war they are bringing. Stannis believes his claim is just (much like Dany), but more than that he believes (to some extent) that he is doing this for the greater good. It's hard to tell how much he believes what Melisandre says, and of course a messiah complex doesn't give you the right to do what you like, but it is at least some form of justification beyond "Hurr durr, it's mine!"

Stannis is perfectly willing to do whatever it takes, not because he feels he's the best suited to be king but because he feels it's his "right". He makes this quite clear. To Stannis, whatever it takes includes hiring pirates and sellswords, burning men for defending their religion, etc.

Renly, on the other hand, clearly believes (correctly) that Lannister rule will be terrible for the country. He is not purely self-serving; he wanted a Baratheon-Tyrell alliance long before he claimed kingship, he wanted to try to take control of Joffrey out of the Lannister's hands at Robert's death. He claims kingship when it appears no other course is open.

Renly had plenty of other courses of action besides claiming the throne for himself. I don't think it makes him a villain, but I can't pretend that self-interest and a desire to be king didn't rank extremely high on his list of priorities. He proclaimed himself a king, accepted the Tyrell alliance, assembled an army, and marched from Highgarden on his way to King's Landing knowing that this would cost many, many innocents their lives (not to mention part of his strategy involved a severe food shortage in King's Landing, harming more innocents). How was all of this the only course of action open to him?

You can, of course, argue the morality of all three - whether they are paler or darker, the reasonableness of of their beliefs and actions - but they are not clear villains.

They're not clear villains, but neither is Daenerys.

[Milcov]

Please provide examples of said evidence.

Besides the appendices.

Dany comments that Rhaego was alive before she went into the tent and that she felt him. After the blood magic Rhaego is born still and horribly deformed (presumably from MMD's magic)

MMD then says something along the way "such is the way of things", "only death can pay for life" unless you sincerely believe that the horses death was all that MMD required. In which case I'm wasting my time.

[PatrickStormborn]

Mirri Maz Duur killed Rhaego, an innocent child, and brought about the return of dragons to the world -- which are a much, MUCH greater threat than Rhaego ever would have been. Furthermore, it appears that Daenerys is actually the stallion who mounts the world, making her sacrifice of Rhaego even more futile.

So yeah. She's no hero; she thought she could subvert a prophecy and it blew up in her face.

[FuzzyJAM]

I'm saying that Drogo's "murderous rampage" is business as usual for Drogo's khalasar and that trying to pretend that this represented a dramatic change of course because of Dany's "urging" is not accurate. I don't know how I can say this any more plainly. Drogo's khalasar interrupted another khalasar engaging in the exact same activity. Did Ogo also have a khaleesi "urging" him on his "murderous rampage"?

Good thing I've not once said this, but have recognised what you say her as utterly correct.

You misinterpreted something I said (understandably, I can see where your inference comes even if it was not correct or what I actually said) and I have since clarified in a perfectly polite manner. I don't see why this continues to be an issue.

As for Mirri being responsible for the death of Rhaego, you can only blame her for that if she somehow saw the future. If she can see the future, perhaps she truly did know what Rhaego would be like, in which case she's utterly justified. To argue that she is responsible for orchestrating Rhaego's death (by somehow knowing her express commands and warnings would go unheeded) is to argue that she knows the future. To then argue that she can't have known what Rhaego was like is to be obtuse. Either she has the supernatural ability to deliberately kill Rhaego in a rather tangential way, in which case we must accept she could well have been utterly justified thanks to her supernatural foresight, or she doesn't have the supernatural ability to deliberately kill Rhaego, in which case no blame rests with her.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

In regards Robb, I have never thought he even entertained the idea that his father was a genuine traitor or justly imprisoned and killed. Perhaps I am wrong, we never have his PoV, but I think he knew his father well enough to (correctly) think he would never commit treason. But yes, that's open to interpretation. As I've already said (and this is true of Robb, Stannis, and Renly) they are all shades of grey, you can argue whether they are paler or darker. The key difference is that there is at least potentially some justification for the direct suffering they bring. No such thing can be said for Dany, unless you think taking a war to people because you want what they have is morally acceptable.

[Mumatil]

You're ignoring the fact that the child is not, in fact, a child. It's a strange monster thing.

Mirri says it had never lived, and I see no reason to think that's wrong. How can you harm something that does not live?

Whose to say her blood magic hadn't malformed the child?

I don't blame her for what she did, she lost her whole home to a Khalasar. Maybe misdirecting it on others.

But that doesn't mean she did not cause it.