What is Dany's long-term plan for Westeros...

[David C. Hunter]

That would mean not clicking on any Dany thread ever, since pretty much all of them, no matter the initial topic, turn into Dany-dislike thread very quickly. This one is a good example - it started with a reasonable question but in the first few pages half the replies replies were "she's insane", "she doesn't know squat about anything" and "she's a a silly girl who has no clue".

Well to be fair, the initial OP was destined to turn into a Dany hater thread because it asked the question does Dany have a plan? Us Dany haters will eat that up all day. No she doesnt have a plan because she is willfully ignorant

[QuaitheTheShadow]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Dany's sense of justice. She issued a blanket decree to execute 163 great masters at (seemingly) random. This wasn't justice, it was vengence. I cheered in my head a little when I read it, but that's because the great masters were written as evil up until then, and I hadn't really considered in depth what she was doing. There was no justice here.

I'm amazed at how many people feel sorry for those masters. It was both vengeance and justice or as close to justice as was possible given Dany's constraints. Stannis is willing to roast anyone who denies his claim and let the wildlings starve and most people could careless. Dany put to death the leaders of a slaver city who'd spend the past two chapters impaling children on spikes and all the sudden she has no moral compass? No one else in Westeros or Essos would have cared at all about the deaths of a few hundred slaves.

Could you provide a little context on how you see her "fire and blood side".

I see this as fire and blood is her fate. The world needs her to deliver fire and blood to some enemy. She wants to bring about peace but fate requires her to do violence. That's why she can't spend her time planting trees (though she can pave the way for others to). A tragic hero.

To those that think monarchy is blanket wrong, I would disagree. It is an option for rulership that has advantages and disadvantages. I would argue that Democracy sacrifices timely response for, hopefully, better decision making, where monarchy does the reverse, timely response for potentially worse decision making. But, there are going to be a plethora of examples contradicting and supporting that.

Our world has pretty much decided that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits which is why only a handful of countries are still ruled by a monarch. A monarch gets their power by divine mandate. Most educated people would fail to see that as a rational basis to be chosen as ruler.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

I'm very confused here. Robb took the title King in the North. Obviously he wanted Winterfell. He still claims it as his own when he's talking with Roose after it was sacked. I don't think anyone's said he didn't want it. He definitely wasn't seeking the Iron Throne. He did leave support up North. The Ironborn just happened to use a surprise element and Theon broke his fathers orders and took Winterfell because he knew it's secrets. Ramsay was also his support, Ramsay turned out to be a traitor. No one can know all the traitors in their midst.

Yeah I misread a post. I agree he always claimed the North (and Riverlands, and he wanted to claim the Vale) I dont have the book on me, but Balon said in the "North there are old men, cripples and children". Ned told Cat in Kingslanding, "It may come to war, keep Theon close". The Greyjoys were going to invade regardless. And Ramsay is many things, but not a traitor. Lady Hornwood's husband and sons died, fighting the Stark war, Robb should have kept a son at home. Those lands were up for anybody, Wyman tried to sweet talk her. Ramsay has other methods (he is a raper) when they got married he still served the Starks and got arrested (as Reek) for rape and murder (not treason) He then freed the Greyjoys in the name of the Boltons, (sworn to house Stark). After the RW the Stark nation stopped existing.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

No, Dany's reign in Mereen has been pretty crappy, but hasn't that been the point though? Dany needs training in the Game of Thrones. Reading her exchanges with Hizdahr, the Green Grace, Daario and the Dornish delegation is next to painful. She's trying, but failing quite badly. Contrast her impression of Brown Ben Plumm with Tyrion's and they are miles and miles apart. Dany considers him friendly and trustworthy and Tyrion sees him for the cold calculating person he is.

I think this is a huge point that we don't get often enough. For the majority of Dany's plot line, hers is the only POV we have. If we get an impression of someone, good or bad, it's her perception and it's all that we have to go on. Because of that, our views of people like Plumm — who, like you said, Tyrion saw right through but Dany did not — are skewed and we might not even know that they're skewed. Or to use the Green Grace as another example, Dany thinks about how valuable and peaceful and wise she is, when, if you connect the dots, she almost has to be the Harpy or know who the Harpy is. Later on, after Dany's left, her council sends the Grace to meet with the Yunkai forces and at least one (the Shavepate?) mutters that she could very well join up with them, suggesting that maybe, other people in the city have gotten a sense of who the Grace really is. But not Dany.

One passage in particular that struck me was Quentyn's memory of fighting the sortie in Astapor and seeing the city. The same basic information is relayed to Dany later, but she — and we, through her — never has to see it firsthand. Whereas Quentyn does see it, and describes it. It's a firsthand account of the consequences of Dany's actions that, without a different POV, we'd never have.

[eyeheartsansa]

I see this as fire and blood is her fate. The world needs her to deliver fire and blood to some enemy. She wants to bring about peace but fate requires her to do violence. That's why she can't spend her time planting trees (though she can pave the way for others to). A tragic hero.

I think that's a good summary.

[GreenDream]

How she will reconcile her vision of a peaceful, happy Westeros, with her 'Fire and Blood' side... is her central conflict and the outcome is anyone's guess.

I agree with a lot of what you said. Dany is a grey character. She has good and bad. Part of me sympathathises with her/ part of me dislikes her/ part of me can't wait to see how all this is going to come together.

I liked the part in DWD where Barristan is telling Dany that Eddard was honorable and a good man, and she said that he was still a usurper's dog, that it didn't matter which dog in the pack actually kills the child, they are all responsible. Then Dany reflects that Drogon killed that little girl, and Dany was responsible for that. That he was a monster, and if he was a monster, then she was too.

[danm_999]

It can be argued that Dany's 'naivety' when it comes to all things Westerosi is actually a plus because she is coming in with a fresh perspective. Some hiring managers would rather have someone inexperienced so they can be trained with a clean slate, rather than having to unlearn old tricks that no longer apply. Likewise some politicians distinguish themselves as being "outsiders" as opposed to their 'insider' opponents who are supposedly corrupted by The System.

Yeah and 99% of the time managers hire and voters elect someone with a proven track record, a steady hand and a good plan. Not to mention being hired into a 21st century office or elected in a 21st century democracy means no one is trying to kill you. Bad analogy.

sense of justice, compassion, and general regard for the well being of peasants/women/children, are more important than how well she understands the mechanics of the Westeros game.

Have you been reading the books? They're basically a lecture in how holding onto stubborn notions of honour, respect and empathy get you carved up by people willing to do whatever it takes to seize power!

This is what advisors are for. She is very much a visionary, and, best case scenario, she will have Tyrion to help with the more practical things.

And if she dismisses Tyrion's advice, like she's dismissed the advice of every advisor she's had so far?

How she will reconcile her vision of a peaceful, happy Westeros, with her 'Fire and Blood' side... is her central conflict and the outcome is anyone's guess.

I can't remember a single instance where she imagines a peaceful happy Westeros. She envisions it as under her control, not a nirvana of stability.

[danm_999]

I'm amazed at how many people feel sorry for those masters. It was both vengeance and justice or as close to justice as was possible given Dany's constraints. Stannis is willing to roast anyone who denies his claim and let the wildlings starve and most people could careless. Dany put to death the leaders of a slaver city who'd spend the past two chapters impaling children on spikes and all the sudden she has no moral compass? No one else in Westeros or Essos would have cared at all about the deaths of a few hundred slaves.

Because people in Westeros and Essos have a crappy moral compass. Why are you surprised when 21st century readers are aghast that Dany murders 163 people? People have a problem with it because it's an arbitrary exercise of power.

163 children were murdered. That's bad. So Dany decides a nebulous group of Mereen's elite need to die as compensation, without asking any important questions like are the people I'm executing responsible or even involved in the slave trade, am I sure these are the masters and not random Mereenese my soldiers have scooped up, or do I need a trial to make sure I'm executing the right people?

It was summary execution of people who hadn't been identified as responsible for the crime. It was wrong.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Have you been reading the books? They're basically a lecture in how holding onto stubborn notions of honour, respect and empathy get you carved up by people willing to do whatever it takes to seize power!

Then we are reading some depressing ass books. In fiction, especially fantasy, good prevails

And if she dismisses Tyrion's advice, like she's dismissed the advice of every advisor she's had so far?

What!! She has taken Jorah's advice countless times. She has taken Selmy's advice as well.

I can't remember a single instance where she imagines a peaceful happy Westeros. She envisions it as under her control, not a nirvana of stability.

I don't remember Dany envisioning Westeros ever.

[Thunderfist]

I'm amazed at how many people feel sorry for those masters. It was both vengeance and justice or as close to justice as was possible given Dany's constraints. Stannis is willing to roast anyone who denies his claim and let the wildlings starve and most people could careless. Dany put to death the leaders of a slaver city who'd spend the past two chapters impaling children on spikes and all the sudden she has no moral compass? No one else in Westeros or Essos would have cared at all about the deaths of a few hundred slaves.

I think the problem is that Dany had no way of knowing if the 163 she killed were the actual Masters who were responsible for the killing of the 163 children. For all we know, Hizdahr might have been responsible for the killing of the children, and Dany married him

[Dr. Pepper]

Yeah I misread a post. I agree he always claimed the North (and Riverlands, and he wanted to claim the Vale) I dont have the book on me, but Balon said in the "North there are old men, cripples and children". Ned told Cat in Kingslanding, "It may come to war, keep Theon close". The Greyjoys were going to invade regardless. And Ramsay is many things, but not a traitor. Lady Hornwood's husband and sons died, fighting the Stark war, Robb should have kept a son at home. Those lands were up for anybody, Wyman tried to sweet talk her. Ramsay has other methods (he is a raper) when they got married he still served the Starks and got arrested (as Reek) for rape and murder (not treason) He then freed the Greyjoys in the name of the Boltons, (sworn to house Stark). After the RW the Stark nation stopped existing.

Yes, the Greyjoys were going to invade regardless, but Robb did not take all his bannermen. It was also the Hornwood's call to decide whether or not they wanted the heir to remain at home, not Robb's. Ramsay is definitely a traitor. Roose left him as castellan of the Dreadfort, which is sworn to House Stark. Ramsay's treason happened the moment he cut Ser Rodrick down and razed Winterfell.

Ok, my hijack of the thread is done. I want to make sure we keep this mostly about Dany.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

And Ramsay is many things, but not a traitor. Lady Hornwood's husband and sons died, fighting the Stark war, Robb should have kept a son at home. Those lands were up for anybody, Wyman tried to sweet talk her. Ramsay has other methods (he is a raper) when they got married he still served the Starks and got arrested (as Reek) for rape and murder (not treason) He then freed the Greyjoys in the name of the Boltons, (sworn to house Stark). After the RW the Stark nation stopped existing.

Are you ... completely forgetting the part where Ramsay turned on the northern forces, too, when he took Winterfell? Rodrik Cassel and Tallhart and Cerwyn, the guys he should have allied with, if he were, as you claim, "not a traitor"? And he was murdering the Starks' people in Winterfell, too. "Not traitor," right? And the Hornwood lands may have been "up for anybody." But that doesn't excuse a forced marriage and murder-by-starvation. The matter of the Hornwood succession should've been up to Lady Hornwood and the Starks as the house's overlords.

ETA: Sorry to hijack the thread, but this needed a response.

[danm_999]

Then we are reading some depressing ass books. In fiction, especially fantasy, good prevails

I think that's kind of the point. Well liked characters get killed, and GRRM has promised a bittersweet ending.

What!! She has taken Jorah's advice countless times. She has taken Selmy's advice as well.

Well actually, she doesn't. She usually dismisses Jorah's belligerent advice, and in fact they have a big falling out over the fact that he tells her not to trust anyone, which she sees as fairly cynical. Jorah and Barristan also counsel her to return to Westeros, but she flatly ignores that advice.

I don't remember Dany envisioning Westeros ever.

Except as something that's her birthright, yeah.

[danm_999]

Our world has pretty much decided that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits which is why only a handful of countries are still ruled by a monarch. A monarch gets their power by divine mandate. Most educated people would fail to see that as a rational basis to be chosen as ruler.

Actually (I was surprised to find this out the other day myself) roughly a quarter of all countries in the world still use monarchies.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm amazed at how many people feel sorry for those masters. It was both vengeance and justice or as close to justice as was possible given Dany's constraints. Stannis is willing to roast anyone who denies his claim and let the wildlings starve and most people could careless. Dany put to death the leaders of a slaver city who'd spend the past two chapters impaling children on spikes and all the sudden she has no moral compass? No one else in Westeros or Essos would have cared at all about the deaths of a few hundred slaves.

Do you know they were masters? Did Dany? Do you know they were precisely the people who killed those children? Does Dany? Do you know if Hizdahr was the one who had those children killed? Does Dany?

Also, it's couldn't care less. Saying "could care less" implies that someone actually does care.

The issue isn't that she crucified people to prove that crucifying people is wrong, not entirely. The issue is that SHE DOES NOT KNOW, nor will she probably ever know, that the people she had killed were actually the ones responsible for killing the children. She tells the nobles she wants 163 people and she gets them. Were they actually guilty? Who the hell knows.

Say she goes to Westeros and demands three Lannister bannermen in exchange for Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys. She ends up hanging Lyle Crakehall, Addam Marbrand and Gawen Westerling. Was justice done? I mean, Lannister bannermen killed her family members, and she killed three Lannister bannermen. So she must have punished the guilty parties. Right?

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Because people in Westeros and Essos have a crappy moral compass. Why are you surprised when 21st century readers are aghast that Dany murders 163 people? People have a problem with it because it's an arbitrary exercise of power.

163 children were murdered. That's bad. So Dany decides a nebulous group of Mereen's elite need to die as compensation, without asking any important questions like are the people I'm executing responsible or even involved in the slave trade, am I sure these are the masters and not random Mereenese my soldiers have scooped up, or do I need a trial to make sure I'm executing the right people?

It was summary execution of people who hadn't been identified as responsible for the crime. It was wrong.

It shows her moral compass is better than nearly everyone else in Essos and Westeros. It's not perfect though, agreed.

I've seen many people argue that she executed the wrong people but there's no evidence for that. The slaves were freed already, they had no need to hide in a pyramid full of nobility.

I don't think putting them on trial was feasible. She gave Yunkai a free pass on it's sacking and look where that got her. By the 'code' of the times when a city is conquered its people are butchered, enslaved, and raped. She made sure no one was raped and butchered a tiny slice of the nobility. By the standard of the times, that's very very lenient. If she'd done less, everyone would have seen her as weak.

Actually (I was surprised to find this out the other day myself) roughly a quarter of all countries in the world still use monarchies.

Like England and Japan? They aren't actually ruled by the monarch. Counties like Saudi Arabia are.

Were they actually guilty? Who the hell knows.

Are all Frey's guilty? Do you think it matters to anyone in Westeros?

I'm comparing her to other people in her world, not modern sensibilities. She's more just than anyone else we've seen rule.

[Dr. Pepper]

I'm amazed at how many people feel sorry for those masters. It was both vengeance and justice or as close to justice as was possible given Dany's constraints. Stannis is willing to roast anyone who denies his claim and let the wildlings starve and most people could careless. Dany put to death the leaders of a slaver city who'd spend the past two chapters impaling children on spikes and all the sudden she has no moral compass? No one else in Westeros or Essos would have cared at all about the deaths of a few hundred slaves.

For my 21st century sensibilities, the act was appalling. It was like a seeing that a child had been killed by a CEO and then going out and rounding up the first CEO I could find, not questioning whether they did it or not and sentencing them to die as vengeance for the child. For all of the disgusting nature of burning people, at the very least I can say that so far Stannis has only burned those who've actually committed crimes (treason, cannibalism, inciting a war against the wall that protects the realm) and once the wildling rebellion against the wall was put down, he allowed them through the wall where Jon took on the responsibility of getting them fed.

[danm_999]

The issue isn't that she crucified people to prove that crucifying people is wrong, not entirely. The issue is that SHE DOES NOT KNOW, nor will she probably ever know, that the people she had killed were actually the ones responsible for killing the children. She tells the nobles she wants 163 people and she gets them. Were they actually guilty? Who the hell knows.

Precisely.

Maybe if she had Ned Stark's sense of justice, that she herself had to actually perform the execution, her conscience might have forced her to ask discerning questions like; is the person I'm executing in any way related to the crime I'm convicting them for?

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Stannis has only burned those who've actually committed crimes (treason, cannibalism, inciting a war against the wall that protects the realm) and once the wildling rebellion against the wall was put down, he allowed them through the wall where Jon took on the responsibility of getting them fed.

Stannis will execute anyone who doesn't accept his claim. He was fine with letting every wildling die if they didn't bend the knee. What are the wildlings guilty of other than not wanting to die?

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Maybe if she had Ned Stark's sense of justice, that she herself had to actually perform the execution, her conscience might have forced her to ask discerning questions like; is the person I'm executing in any way related to the crime I'm convicting them for?

Ned Stark could very well have killed every noble in Mereen. What are they to him?