Daenerys and Torture

[The BlackBear]

Ser Gregor, Ser Amory, and Vargo Hoat are depraved, even by the standards of the most brutal soldiers in Westeros, and their followers are total scum. So, I imagine they inflicted a special kind or horror on the Riverlands.

They were kept because they were specially nasty by Tywin. But the Northmen/Riverlanders rape left right and centre, burn and pillage too. Remember the hanging of whores for sleeping with 'Lions'? Boltons lovely rape dispenser? Soldiers do the same no matter what side they're on. Robb may not approve, but the same will happen all over.

[ab aeterno]

They were kept because they were specially nasty by Tywin. But the Northmen/Riverlanders rape left right and centre, burn and pillage too. Remember the hanging of whores for sleeping with 'Lions'? Boltons lovely rape dispenser? Soldiers do the same no matter what side they're on. Robb may not approve, but the same will happen all over.

Except possibly Stannis' men, because IIRC we're told that he gelds them for it.

Edited for spelling

[SeanF]

As I said, atrocities were committed by the Northmen, but even Jaime recognises that Vargo Hoat's men are in a special league of their own, and all he can say about Ser Gregor's is that they weren't quite as vile and violent as the Brave Companions.

[Valyrian Spoon]

Robb Stark beheaded one of his most loyal bannermen (Karstark) who killed 2 Lannister (!!!) hostages. I wouldn't say that that means he commits atrocities similar to those in the Riverlands.

You could argue that Robb killed Karstark for endangering the safety of his sisters who he assumes are both Lannister hostages. Also, allowing Karstark to live after he killed hostages under his protection would have made him look weak.

Those hostages weren't commoners either.

[Arland]

Ser Rodrik goes after Ramsay, when he hears about what he did to Lady Hornwood. But he kills him (in reality Reek) on the spot because he finds him violating the corpse of a woman he's just murdered. From what we learn in ADWD, we can surmise that this woman was the victim of one of Ramsay's "amusements".

Exactly my point. They were coming for Ramsey anyhow. They could be as morally outraged as they pleased since it cost them nothing.

I am not saying Starks didn't give a damn about morality, but they still had to be practical about it, and make sacrifices. Exactly as Dany had to do. Starks preferred to turn the blind eye to what was going with Boltons as long as Roose kept it sufficiently quiet, so Starks could dismiss it as "mere rumors" .

I think one thing that ASOIF shows is that you cannot do something meaningful without getting yourself "dirty" to some extant...and the issue is how you do it, walking on the brink, without falling.

[SeanF]

The Boltons have a sinister reputation, but the Starks are certainly not aware of Roose's rape of the miller's wife, or Ramsay's "amusements."

If Ned, or his father, had become aware of these things, punishment would have been meted out. I don't think Roose would have lost his life, or lands, or been gelded, for raping a miller's wife, but I imagine he would have been fined very heavily. I think that Ramsay would have been executed for his behaviour.

[Winterfellian]

This is one of my biggest probems with Dany so I just want to point something:

- This is not the first time: The incident when she inmediately changes her mind is the first time we see it first hand. Much later in the book we are explicitely told in one of her later chapters that she continues to employ the shavepate. She even thinks to herself that the questioning is bringing in too many confessions yet they are nowhere near to stop the Harpy Sons and yet she still doesn't stop the shavepate. Like Hizdhar said himself a few days with the shavepate will have you confessing anything and this is the case here. None of this "confessions" brought her any close to the Harpy yet she still allowed it even after acknowledging this. I find this very condemnable.

I think part of the reason she finds it so easy to authorize the use of torture is because she has never been down there to see for herself the suffering of those people she's giving to the Shavepate. If the ruler who hides behind a paid executioner quickly forgets what death is the same applies for the rules hiding behind a torturer.

[franko99]

In fairness, I think her hatred of slavery is quite sincere. A lot of people only come to view something as being wrong once they experience it at first hand, rather than in abstract terms. And, what she discovers in Astapor sickens her.

Yeah, right, you're telling me she spend a year or so with the dothraki, who are famous for taking slaves (and we know she knows how dothrakis work), but she only came to see what it is when suddenly freeing slaves became a good "business oportunity" to her.

In other words, slavery is right when you use it to finance your future campaing on westeros. Slavery is wrong when it gets in your way to get an army.

[SeanF]

Yeah, right, you're telling me she spend a year or so with the dothraki, who are famous for taking slaves (and we know she knows how dothrakis work), but she only came to see what it is when suddenly freeing slaves became a good "business oportunity" to her.

In other words, slavery is right when you use it to finance your future campaing on westeros. Slavery is wrong when it gets in your way to get an army.

When Dany weds Drogo, she is 13. She spends the following months concentrating on staying alive, and gradually becomes besotted with Drogo. Her experience of slavery is interacting with Irri, Jhiqi, and Doreah, who are well-treated, whom she likes, and who like her. Is she naive in not realising how awful slavery can be? Of course. Would other young teenagers be similarly naive? Very likely

[SeanF]

This is one of my biggest probems with Dany so I just want to point something:

- This is not the first time: The incident when she inmediately changes her mind is the first time we see it first hand. Much later in the book we are explicitely told in one of her later chapters that she continues to employ the shavepate. She even thinks to herself that the questioning is bringing in too many confessions yet they are nowhere near to stop the Harpy Sons and yet she still doesn't stop the shavepate. Like Hizdhar said himself a few days with the shavepate will have you confessing anything and this is the case here. None of this "confessions" brought her any close to the Harpy yet she still allowed it even after acknowledging this. I find this very condemnable.

I think part of the reason she finds it so easy to authorize the use of torture is because she has never been down there to see for herself the suffering of those people she's giving to the hsavepate. If the ruler who hides behind a piad executioner quickly forgets what death is the same applies for the rules hiding behind a torturer.

Well spotted. Can you cite the specific page?

[PatrickStormborn]

This is one of my biggest probems with Dany so I just want to point something:

- This is not the first time: The incident when she inmediately changes her mind is the first time we see it first hand. Much later in the book we are explicitely told in one of her later chapters that she continues to employ the shavepate. She even thinks to herself that the questioning is bringing in too many confessions yet they are nowhere near to stop the Harpy Sons and yet she still doesn't stop the shavepate. Like Hizdhar said himself a few days with the shavepate will have you confessing anything and this is the case here. None of this "confessions" brought her any close to the Harpy yet she still allowed it even after acknowledging this. I find this very condemnable.

I think part of the reason she finds it so easy to authorize the use of torture is because she has never been down there to see for herself the suffering of those people she's giving to the hsavepate. If the ruler who hides behind a piad executioner quickly forgets what death is the same applies for the rules hiding behind a torturer.

Actually, she DOES stop it. She tells the Shavepate that he's providing too many false names, and that's the last we hear of any sharp questioning.

ETA: And, from what I can tell, most of the "sharp questioning" is done on Sons of the Harpy, so it is no different from the likes of the Baratheons, Qhorin Halfhand, etc.

Yeah, right, you're telling me she spend a year or so with the dothraki, who are famous for taking slaves (and we know she knows how dothrakis work), but she only came to see what it is when suddenly freeing slaves became a good "business oportunity" to her.

In other words, slavery is right when you use it to finance your future campaing on westeros. Slavery is wrong when it gets in your way to get an army.

Dany frees the slaves in her khalasar back in AGoT, so she didn't suddenly decide on a whim to end slavery.

[franko99]

When Dany weds Drogo, she is 13. She spends the following months concentrating on staying alive, and gradually becomes besotted with Drogo. Her experience of slavery is interacting with Irri, Jhiqi, and Doreah, who are well-treated, whom she likes, and who like her. Is she naive in not realising how awful slavery can be? Of course. Would other young teenagers be similarly naive? Very likely

I'm talking about later, when Drogo attacks the Lamb People, Dany witnesess all sort fo atrocities, yet she didn't complain, she saw at fist hand how dothraki take slaves and murder innocent people yet all she says is "it's the price for the Iron Throne". She did complain about dothraki raping womans, I admit it, but she never said anything about the slaves

[SeanF]

I'm talking about later, when Drogo attacks the Lamb People, Dany witnesess all sort fo atrocities, yet she didn't complain, she saw at fist hand how dothraki take slaves and murder innocent people yet all she says is "it's the price for the Iron Throne". She did complain about dothraki raping womans, I admit it, but she never said anything about the slaves

A moral sense is something that most people only develop gradually, and she's just 14 at the time. She is appalled by the mass rape, and tries to prevent it. That's to her credit. I think though, that she should be criticised (or praised) for her actions once she's actually in charge of people. I see nothing hypocritical or self-serving about her attitude towards slavery. She can certainly be criticised for the atrocities she's committed in her campaign to end slavery.

[Geldora]

Regarding to "Starks not torture" - it depends on definition of torture. Sure, Cleagen, Hoat, Ramsey and the man Dany ordered to find the clues - they tortured people even in medieval sens of this word: knife, fire etc

BUT

Jon kept Karstark in cold cameras, and Jon itself was in cold camera before he bacame LC. Isn't it a torture??? Moreover, Jon was thinking about cold camera as a way to teach Karstark. It looks like other Starks used the same technique during their winters (maybe not Ned, but Starks before him? other northmans?), as Arren used their camera as a soft torture too.

[Winterfellian]

Well spotted. Can you cite the specific page?

This is the quote from ADWD:

The Brazen Beasts have taken dozens of the Harpy's Sons, and those who had survived their capture had yielded names when question sharply...too many names it seemed to her.

There is no more detail related to these "Harpy's son" How were they picked? Was it a ver thorough process or were many of this people like the wineseller and his daughters who were probably at the wrong place in the wrong time. Neither Dany nor her advisers never bothered to check.

Actually, she DOES stop it. She tells the Shavepate that he's providing too many false names, and that's the last we hear of any sharp questioning.

ETA: And, from what I can tell, most of the "sharp questioning" is done on Sons of the Harpy, so it is no different from the likes of the Baratheons, Qhorin Halfhand, etc.

She does stop them, but after how long? After all, she was the one who told the Shavepate to bring her names no matter how were the suspects questioned. Her actions are still there. My original post was in response to some some other post I saw on the thread stating that the wineseller and his daughters were the only time she authorizes torture and thus an isolated incident. It is not the case. The Shavepate continued with his questioning long after that.

I posted above that there is no evidence on how where this Harpy's sons selected (I could be wrong though!) but this doesn't make this any better. To be honest I don't condone Qhorin or any other for the use of torture so am not about to condone it on Dany. There are many characters or families like the Starks, Tullys or even Arryns that seem to be above using this methods.

ETA: Nobody forced Dany or the others to use torture as no one forces ths Starks not to. Is a choice they made themselves

[SeanF]

This is the quote from ADWD:

There is no more detail related to these "Harpy's son" How were they picked? Was it a ver thorough process or were many of this people like the wineseller and his daughters who were probably at the wrong place in the wrong time. Neither Dany nor her advisers never bothered to check.

She does stop them, but after how long? After all, she was the one who told the Shavepate to bring her names no matter how were the suspects questioned. Her actions are still there. My original post was in response to some some other post I saw on the thread stating that the wineseller and his daughters were the only time she authorizes torture and thus an isolated incident. It is not the case. The Shavepate continued with his questioning long after that.

I posted above that there is no evidence on how where this Harpy's sons selected (I could be wrong though!) but this doesn't make this any better. To be honest I don't condone Qhorin or any other for the use of torture so am not about to condone it on Dany. There are many characters or families like the Starks, Tullys or even Arryns that seem to be above using this methods.

We can surmise, I think, that many of the people being tortured really are the terrorists, but at the same time, they're just naming anyone to end their pain. And in all likelihood, innocent people are getting dragged in for "sharp questioning" too. There's no doubt that torture can yield valuable intelligence, and equally no doubt that people will say anything to end their torment, thereby implicating the innocent.

[Chaircat Meow]

I posted above that there is no evidence on how where this Harpy's sons selected (I could be wrong though!) but this doesn't make this any better. To be honest I don't condone Qhorin or any other for the use of torture so am not about to condone it on Dany. There are many characters or families like the Starks, Tullys or even Arryns that seem to be above using this methods.

ETA: Nobody forced Dany or the others to use torture as no one forces ths Starks not to. Is a choice they made themselves

It might be significant that no one else has been shown ruling in anything like the circumstances Dany is, in DwD, with regards to an insurgency. I wouldn't be so sure that Robb or Jon wouldn't authorize some use of torture, if their soldiers were being murdered. I am pretty sure they wouldn't consent to have a man's daughter tortured in from of him though.

[Winterfellian]

I wouldn't be so sure that Robb or Jon wouldn't authorize some use of torture, if their soldiers were being murdered. I am pretty sure they wouldn't consent to have a man's daughter tortured in from of him though.

I can't say about Robb, but one of the things I have seen Jon being criticized for is for including the Weeper in the general amnisty he gave the wildings. As we know, the Weeper is responsible for torturing Jon's own men and yet he was willing to include him in the general pardon and let him enter the realm and be safe from the Others even if it meant having to keep an eye on him.

However I think if both Robb or Jon were to authorize torture they will most likely be at least present to see it because of their Stark raising. Indeed when Karstark was held in the ice cells Jon went to see him a few times. Dany I feel is more confortable with ordering torture because he doesn't have to see it for herself and face the consequence her decision has on the victims.

[Chaircat Meow]

I can't say about Robb, but one of the things I have seen Jon being criticized for is for including the Weeper in the general amnisty he gave the wildings. As we know, the Weeper is responsible for torturing Jon's own men and yet he was willing to include him in the general pardon and let him enter the realm and be safe from the Others even if it meant having to keep an eye on him.

I didn't mean they'd use it for revenge but rather if they thought it was a good way to find out the identity of concealed assailants. And that is, afterall, the specific problem Dany has with the Harpy. I can't see why that would apply to letting the Weeper cross the Wall. I actually can't say what they would do, but it wouldn't really surprise me, because I do just tend to think westeros as a whole will not have quite the same revulsion at torture as we do.

[sarah.jenice]

I think that ordering the cold-blooded murder of a child really would be a moral event horizon for Dany.

Taking adult hostages would have made more sense, given that I'm pretty sure that she could never bring herself to give such an order.

If Dany were to give such an order, then I would take that as a sign that she really was just a carbon copy of her father, and that she'd descended into real evil.

I don't see how her taking child hostages is so appalling for Dany when it seems to be pretty common practice in this world. Balon Greyjoy rebelled against the Iron Throne and Ned got Theon as a hostage when he was a child. It is stated multiple times that Ned would have beheaded Theon if Balon rebelled again (and since it is Ned, he would have done it personally).

In Dance, Jon takes hostages from the Wildlings - 100 boys between the ages of eight and sixteen. This dialogue shows a lot about how the North and the Starks felt about this. They were not above killing children to keep their liege lords in line:

A Dance with Dragons - Jon Pg. 714

"My blood price he called it," said Jon Snow, "but he will pay." "Aye, and why not?" Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. "Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell demanded boys of us, but they were hostages, and none of them worse for it." "None but them whose sire displeased the Kings o' Winter," said The Norrey. "Those came home shorter by a head. So you tell me boy...if these wildling friends o' yours prove false, do you have the belly to do what needs to be done?" Ask Janos Slynt. "Tormund Giantsbane knows better than to try me. I may seem a green boy in your eyes, Lord Norrey, but I am still a son of Eddard Stark."

So according to Jon, a son of Eddard Stark would not flinch when it comes to beheading a child whose father's loyalty is in question. I am not pointing this out because I want to prove the Starks are bad people. I just think people are being too hard on Dany. This is the world they live in. A world where torture is some times necessary and where even noble, honorable lords kill innocent children to pay for the sins of their fathers. And to Dany's credit, she couldn't bring herself to kill the children she takes in. Jon Snow makes it clear that he will.

I agree with another posters who said he don't know how Jon or Robb or even Ned would have acted if they faced what Dany does. This gorilla warfare with murder in the shadows isn't something they are used to and I don't know the best way to face it. Dany got herself into a very bad situation in Meereen. She can't see that she isn't wanted and that nothing she does will ever fix their hatred of her.