Daenerys and Torture

[Kosh Naranek]

I think there was something about roumors that Boltons still had flaying room in their castle.

While I definitely was saddened by Dany;s choice to allow "sharp" questioning of winesellers daughter, I think there is a still a huge distance between her and slavers level. She is still far above then and above most of other lords in Westros.

I am not trying to fight, but curious. Better than most of the Lords of Westeros? Based on what?

We know that the Boltons flay people, and Tywin employs mercenaries and the Mountain. I am not sure that the entirety of the nobility of Westeros deserved to be painted with such a broad brush.

[tze]

While I definitely was saddened by Dany;s choice to allow "sharp" questioning of winesellers daughter, I think there is a still a huge distance between her and slavers level. She is still far above then and above most of other lords in Westros.

How would people feel about the torture of the wineseller's daughters if it's later revealed that those daughters were, for example, 5 or 8 years old rather than, say, 25 or 28 years old? That Dany thoughtlessly permitted the torture of children? Because it seems like most people are just assuming the wineseller's daughters were adults----but notice how, when Dany gave the order allowing the Shavepate to torture the wineseller's daughters, she never bothered asking anyone how old those daughters were. We know the Shavepate seems to have no trouble harming children (given that he wants the child hostages killed), and he never tells Dany anything at all about these daughters, certainly not their ages. That could easily be consistent with him wanting to hide the fact that they're actually children for fear that he wouldn't be permitted to torture them otherwise.

I'm not saying they necessarily were children, but the fact that nobody tells Dany either way, and she allows the Shavepate to torture them without first getting that information, has some very disturbing implications for what Dany's been unthinkingly permitting to be done in her name in Meereen.

[E-Ro]

Very good point tze, we dont know how old they were. I am not going to go all omg dany tortures babies for fun! But, its very possible they were childrene she ordered to be tortured.

[PatrickStormborn]

I find it unlikely that the wineseller's daughters were children. Firstly they were arrested, which suggests that they're not children, and secondly why would Reznak not say anything? Later that same chapter he says that the Great Masters "fear for their children", and it's clear by this point that he's pro-slavers. So why would he not mention their ages?

The fact that they were arrested seems to imply that they were present at the murder. As it was in the middle of the night, I think it's safe to assume that they weren't particularly young.

[tze]

I find it unlikely that the wineseller's daughters were children. Firstly they were arrested, which suggests that they're not children,

Children can absolutely be arrested.

and secondly why would Reznak not say anything? Later that same chapter he says that the Great Masters "fear for their children", and it's clear by this point that he's pro-slavers. So why would he not mention their ages?

This was a wineseller, not one of the Great Masters. Reznak has no reason to speak up for Meereenese smallfolk. And if anything, if Reznak is secretly working against Dany, then allowing Dany to inadvertently permit the torture of children can only help the propaganda of the anti-Dany forces operating in Meereen.

And the very fact that the Great Masters "are afraid for their children", given that Dany very publicly freaked out when she saw children crucified, heavily implies that the Great Masters have some reason to think their children are in danger. If the Shavepate has tortured children in Dany's name, that would explain the Great Masters' fears.

The fact that they were arrested seems to imply that they were present at the murder. As it was in the middle of the night, I think it's safe to assume that they weren't particularly young.

That makes no sense. It's not exactly unheard-of for 1) young children to work in their father's place of business, and 2) for owners of businesses to live near (or even above) their place of business. If the daughters were near their father in the middle of the night, that heavily implies they were living with him, which could very easily mean they're children.

[Arland]

We know the Shavepate seems to have no trouble harming children (given that he wants the child hostages killed),

Exactly the same as Ned Stark with regard to Theon.As was discussed at length above, a willingness to hurt child hostage doesn't say a lot about a willingness of a person to torture children And Dany's unwillingness to hurt children was well known. She could quite safely assume that if Shavepate was about to "ask sharply" a child he would mention that to her, (especially considering the fact that he asked for her directions in the first place).

And 5 or 8 years old children are supposed to be asleep at night in THEIR BEDS. I also don't know lots of small children who can hide something facing investigation carried by someone like Shavepate even if done "sweetly".

I am not saying that Dany couldn't be fooled by Shavepate, but I don't find her assumption that he was not talking about small children unreasonable.

There are simply too many assumptions layed out against Dany. People assume that "asking sharply" is a worst kind of medieval torture, as opossed to yelling and few punches in the gut. I am not saying that it is not, but we don't know it... It is wrong either way against an apparently innocent person in my book (or could it be that a wine seller daughter was in league with Harpies and prompted them about the presense of unsullied - we simply don't know), but I feel that sometimes people who don't like Dany in first place try to twist and exaggerate it .

In general I find this line of argument based on modern ideas of criminal procedure and oversight lacking. We are talking about a society that even has no presumption of innocence. - I am not saying we should not hold characters accountable to a general ideas of morality, but nit picking procedure here is out of place.

[PatrickStormborn]

Children can absolutely be arrested.

I don't see why the Shavepate would arrest, for example, two children under ten years old and not tell that to Daenerys. If they were children, it would have been told immediately.

And the very fact that the Great Masters "are afraid for their children", given that Dany very publicly freaked out when she saw children crucified, heavily implies that the Great Masters have some reason to think their children are in danger. If the Shavepate has tortured children in Dany's name, that would explain the Great Masters' fears.

The Great Masters fear for their children because Dany wants to make them hostages, and they hear that the Shavepate would feed a child to a dragon after every murder.

That makes no sense. It's not exactly unheard-of for 1) young children to work in their father's place of business, and 2) for owners of businesses to live near (or even above) their place of business. If the daughters were near their father in the middle of the night, that heavily implies they were living with him, which could very easily mean they're children.

Well personally I find it unrealistic to expect two children to be working in a wineshop in the middle of the night, but whatever.

There's a reason the wineseller's daughters are assumed to be adults. Ignoring this evidence just to offer another reason to criticise Dany (that isn't even in the books?) shows how weak your argument is.

[danm_999]

I don't see why the Shavepate would arrest, for example, two children under ten years old and not tell that to Daenerys.

Because he knows about her reluctance to hurt children, and wants to keep his options open in getting the information from the wineseller.

[Cruella]

Well, I frankly don't see the difference between somebody torturing me when I am 9 or when I am 12. Of course, I am in minority that don't see children as necessarily more sacrosant than other innocent human beings. That question somewhat interested me since childhood, and I found that I am not any more willing to be killed or hurt as I grow older, it seems equally horrible to me now as it was then, to tell the truth. Is it an idea that these older girls would be more likely to be guilty of something they did in their young life, that would make it more okay for them to be tortured in front of their father?

[Field of Asphodel]

Well, I frankly don't see the difference between somebody torturing me when I am 9 or when I am 12. Of course, I am in minority that don't see children as necessarily more sacrosant than other innocent human beings. That question somewhat interested me since childhood, and I found that I am not any more willing to be killed or hurt as I grow older, it seems equally horrible to me now as it was then, to tell the truth. Is it an idea that these older girls would be more likely to be guilty of something they did in their young life, that would make it more okay for them to be tortured in front of their father?

Children receive special consideration because they are more vulnerable, physically, mentally, and emotionally, than adults. Adults have more ways to cope with hardship than children.

[SeanF]

Exactly the same as Ned Stark with regard to Theon.As was discussed at length above, a willingness to hurt child hostage doesn't say a lot about a willingness of a person to torture children And Dany's unwillingness to hurt children was well known. She could quite safely assume that if Shavepate was about to "ask sharply" a child he would mention that to her, (especially considering the fact that he asked for her directions in the first place).

And 5 or 8 years old children are supposed to be asleep at night in THEIR BEDS. I also don't know lots of small children who can hide something facing investigation carried by someone like Shavepate even if done "sweetly".

I am not saying that Dany couldn't be fooled by Shavepate, but I don't find her assumption that he was not talking about small children unreasonable.

There are simply too many assumptions layed out against Dany. People assume that "asking sharply" is a worst kind of medieval torture, as opossed to yelling and few punches in the gut. I am not saying that it is not, but we don't know it... It is wrong either way against an apparently innocent person in my book (or could it be that a wine seller daughter was in league with Harpies and prompted them about the presense of unsullied - we simply don't know), but I feel that sometimes people who don't like Dany in first place try to twist and exaggerate it .

In general I find this line of argument based on modern ideas of criminal procedure and oversight lacking. We are talking about a society that even has no presumption of innocence. - I am not saying we should not hold characters accountable to a general ideas of morality, but nit picking procedure here is out of place.

All fair points, which is why I asked at the outset if Daenerys was being judged too harshly.

"Question sharply" has always been a euphemism for using violence against a suspect, but we don't know what degree of violence is being used here. It could mean slapping them, pulling their hair, whipping them, or sticking them in a nasty cell for a few days, until they talk.

Or it could mean using hot irons, boiling water, racking, removal of teeth, nails, hair and other body parts, rats (the Tickler's favourite technique in the HBO series) , sexual degradation etc. The former prorbably wouldn't even be considered torture in Mereen.

We know from the text that lots of Sons of the Harpy have been captured, and we should waste no sympathy on them; they want to reinstitute slavery, they chop Rhilona Rhee's fingers off before murdering her, and rape three freedwomen before murdering them. We also know that Daenerys considers most of the confessions to be worthless, suggesting that lots of innocent people have been caught up as well.

Daenerys does not descend to the level of the slavers. She doesn't throw the Great Masters' children into bear-pits, for example. She does try to reconcile with them, whereas someone like Tywin (and in all likelihood, Tyrion and Jaime) would massacre them without a qualm.

And, very few governments, even in modern times, faced with an insurgency like the Sons of the Harpy, will emerge with entirely clean hands.

[Cruella]

Well, a Hound and Jaime Lannister do have more ways to cope with pain than Tommen, but I certainly did not grow thicker skin relating to TORTURE from 9 to 12 or from 12 to 17 (or now, for that matter). In both cases I'd get screaming and shitting myself. it's easier to kill a child but even Shavepate would know to apply different degrees. At this degree of horribleness, it's a little ridiculous IMO to wonder if a person is 9 or 12, it's like comparing gregor clegane with bloody mummers, sure there are differences but both are so absolutely horrible that morally, it's basically the same horror.

Question sharply" has always been a euphemism for using violence against a suspect, but we don't know what degree of violence is being used here. It could mean slapping them, pulling their hair, whipping them, or sticking them in a nasty cell for a few days, until they talk.

It is a good point, and something I thought about, so I wondered why Dany did not specify? I'd certainly want to make sure, if such drastic measures are allowed, that the torture is as minimal as possible. I doubt that sticking somebody in nasty cell is even seen as torture, though.

[SeanF]

It is a good point, and something I thought about, so I wondered why Dany did not specify? I'd certainly want to make sure, if such drastic measures are allowed, that the torture is as minimal as possible. I doubt that sticking somebody in nasty cell is even seen as torture, though.

Her internal comment about letting them have the "dragon's mercy" is a bit disturbing.

[Mithras]

It was “The things I do for love” moment of Dany, which equated her to Jaime.

In addition, we first handedly witnessed the torture of the Blue Bard. Absolutely innocent people were accused by him in his excruciating pain which resulted in their arrest and one of them (Hamish the Harper) died as a result of this false accusation. The rest are still kept by Qyburn in the dungeons.

By the way, Cersei was “Ned” enough to go down and see her dirty work done, whereas Dany was even lower than her in this sense.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I dont understand the Shavepate working for her to begin with. IN the opening DwD chapter. he is just there already giving her advice, he is the leader of the rebellion against the harpy, but who told Dany that? Skahaz himself? Why should she trust any of these people at her court in Meereen, as far as I can tell none of them have good intentions.

Skahaz is constantly war-mongering, constantly upset when Dany chooses not to torture or kill people. And happy when she does. This guy is gross, clearly has his own agenda, clearly wants Dany to wipe out the ruling class of Meereen, but only because it would benefit him personally and would get rid of competitors and enemies for him.

She has just been faced with having 9 of her people brutally murdered when they were being peaceful, non-violent patrollers of the city. They are not raping, harassing, pillaging, in short they are not doing any of the gross things we are so used to seeing from armies and soldiers in Westeros. Half of what gets said to Brienne, in her POV's, by all the men is beyond terrible and repulsive, but none of that is happening from Dany's unsullied in Meereen. They are very well behaved, yet they are getting murdered every single night for no reason except to fuck with Dany and make her mad.

How many murders of her own people should she suffer before she takes some action to stop it?

It would be nuts to think that she overreacted, as it is the first time she has reacted at all, how many more of her people should be murdered before she retaliated in any way?

If anyone thinks she was too harsh I would like to hear how exactly she should have handled it, given the time and historical period they live in?

Also, one thing I think is overlooked often in this discussion....Isn't it possible that the wineseller and or his daughters were involved with Harpy in these murders?? Obviously the unsullied went to this store often, and who else would know that besides the proprietor of the establishment? I think it is more than reasonable to assume they were in on it. And Dany was right to suspect them. torture is how people in the middle ages got answers, so I really dont see the point in faulting her for doing what anyone would do back then. Yes it is terrible to think about, but 9 of her people had just been murdered. She would be weak to not react. And she is not the one torturing, Skahaz is. Did Dany raise Skahaz? Did Dany teach him his torturing techniques? Or did he learn them in the city he lives in and grew up in? He is also just behaving normally for Meereen. He is not the first or the last person to 'question sharply'. Plus she is not 'questioning sharply' for personal gain or greed, like Gregor and Raff and co. SHe is doing it to find out answers to save other peoples lives. she is doing it to prevent more death.

Once again, this is something that is brought up constantly on the forum, but is never mentioned again in the books at all. if it were meant to be such a big deal, then characters in the books would bring it up more. She wants answers as to why her people are being murdered and this is how you get answers in the time period they live in, there is no polygraph, there is no Veritaserum, no Sodium Pentathol. She must have answers.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I actually think this, not the cruifixions, is her worst act. Torturing a man's daughters out of angry spite, knowing there probably won't be any solid intel out of it, is utterly despicable.

The Shavepate is clearly using her and her cause to settle old political scores and gain his own power. If she took the time to learn about the politics of the city, she'd figure that out. As it is, a brutal person gets free reign to torture under her simply because he's "on her side."

Does it not dawn on her that if she thinks it's OK to punish this man's daughters for what their father may have done, the Baratheons were in their rights to punish her for what Aerys did? The utter lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

Also breathtaking: the whitewashing used to to excuse and gloss over this. It was an evil act. Deal with it.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Where is the evidence that the wineseller and his daughters were not in on the murder of Dany's men and, in fact, knew nothing? They were all there when it happened.

My point is, would 'questioning them sharply' be ok if we knew they were responsible for the murder of these men?

Why is murder ok, but torturing to find out who the murderers are is not ok?

IMO both are terrible, but that is the world they live in.

[WSmith84]

The thing is, if Daenerys is authorising the use of torture, she absolutely has to be there for it. For one, if you've authorised it, you better see it, otherwise you're a bloody coward. Second, the Shavepate clearly enjoys what he does and shows little regard for the lives of those he tortures and probably doesn't care a great deal whether they are guilty or not. Daenerys needs to be on hand to: decide who exactly is tortured, decide how are they tortured, decide at what point to give up and declare innocence or guilt, reign the Shavepate in if he gets carried away and risks killing his prisoner(s), and of course to decide whether a prisoner is worth torturing at all. If she isn't prepared to do that, she shouldn't even bother to have them tortured.

There is also the fact that torture is generally a crap way to gain information, because you get so much false information from prisoners who just want the pain to stop. Torture is only effective if: you know the person you're torturing has a specific piece of information and that piece of information is relatively easy to verify. Torturing people in the vague hope that you get useful information is just pointless

On to the wineshop owner. Unsullied died drinking at his establishment and he and his two daughters were arrested. Daenerys allows the Shavepate to torture the daughters (of whatever age) to find out the truth from the owner. Thing is, regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty, he's going to confess. Unless he cares nothing for his daughters, watching them being tortured will eventually make him confess, regardless of guilt. Maybe all three were guilty, maybe they were all innocent, maybe 1 or 2 of them were guilty. The point is we don't know and torturing them will not find you the answer. At least if Daenerys had overseen the torture, she could have listened to their claims of innocence and judged, or listened to their inevitable confessions and judged whether it was truth or simply to stop the pain. But she wouldn't even do that. It's despicable, frankly.

As to the argument that Daenerys didn't make Skahaz behave the way he is, so what? She allows him to do it. She gives him the authority. If she wants a different man as her torturer, find a different man. She bares full responsibility for his actions, because she ordered and authorised them.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The thing is, if Daenerys is authorising the use of torture, she absolutely has to be there for it. For one, if you've authorised it, you better see it, otherwise you're a bloody coward. Second, the Shavepate clearly enjoys what he does and shows little regard for the lives of those he tortures and probably doesn't care a great deal whether they are guilty or not. Daenerys needs to be on hand to: decide who exactly is tortured, decide how are they tortured, decide at what point to give up and declare innocence or guilt, reign the Shavepate in if he gets carried away and risks killing his prisoner(s), and of course to decide whether a prisoner is worth torturing at all. If she isn't prepared to do that, she shouldn't even bother to have them tortured.

There is also the fact that torture is generally a crap way to gain information, because you get so much false information from prisoners who just want the pain to stop. Torture is only effective if: you know the person you're torturing has a specific piece of information and that piece of information is relatively easy to verify. Torturing people in the vague hope that you get useful information is just pointless

On to the wineshop owner. Unsullied died drinking at his establishment and he and his two daughters were arrested. Daenerys allows the Shavepate to torture the daughters (of whatever age) to find out the truth from the owner. Thing is, regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty, he's going to confess. Unless he cares nothing for his daughters, watching them being tortured will eventually make him confess, regardless of guilt. Maybe all three were guilty, maybe they were all innocent, maybe 1 or 2 of them were guilty. The point is we don't know and torturing them will not find you the answer. At least if Daenerys had overseen the torture, she could have listened to their claims of innocence and judged, or listened to their inevitable confessions and judged whether it was truth or simply to stop the pain. But she wouldn't even do that. It's despicable, frankly.

As to the argument that Daenerys didn't make Skahaz behave the way he is, so what? She allows him to do it. She gives him the authority. If she wants a different man as her torturer, find a different man. She bares full responsibility for his actions, because she ordered and authorised them.

So you are saying what she did wrong was to not be present in the dungeon while the questioning was happening? or that it was wrong no matter what? How many Queens spend time in the dungeons supervising every task they give others? If she had gone down to watch, we would currently be discussing how she is a sick sadist who looooves watching people get tortured for pleasure only..

How many more of her people should she allow to be murdered before having a reaction? 10, 50, 300?

[Mladen]

Also, one thing I think is overlooked often in this discussion....Isn't it possible that the wineseller and or his daughters were involved with Harpy in these murders?? Obviously the unsullied went to this store often, and who else would know that besides the proprietor of the establishment? I think it is more than reasonable to assume they were in on it. And Dany was right to suspect them. torture is how people in the middle ages got answers, so I really dont see the point in faulting her for doing what anyone would do back then. Yes it is terrible to think about, but 9 of her people had just been murdered. She would be weak to not react. And she is not the one torturing, Skahaz is. Did Dany raise Skahaz? Did Dany teach him his torturing techniques? Or did he learn them in the city he lives in and grew up in? He is also just behaving normally for Meereen. He is not the first or the last person to 'question sharply'. Plus she is not 'questioning sharply' for personal gain or greed, like Gregor and Raff and co. SHe is doing it to find out answers to save other peoples lives. she is doing it to prevent more death.

Bolded part: I agree. Can we now please stop demonizing Ramsay and Boltons?

Where is the evidence that the wineseller and his daughters were not in on the murder of Dany's men and, in fact, knew nothing? They were all there when it happened.

Answer me this: Where is the proof that they knew something and were involved in that?