Is Dany actually the ANTAGONIST?

[ab aeterno]

For the thread is Long and full of Stannis.

*Bows* So say we all.

You know what? Dany being an antagonist to the protagonists on Westeros is an awesome idea.

We would be sympathetic to everyone involved. Dany wouldnt even be a Villain Protagonist because of how she was already set up. But having her go up against the Westerosi crew would be a lot of fun and a pretty cool emotional rollercoaster.

Agreed.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

That's one aspect.

You could also say that Stannis executed some starving footsoldiers who did no harm anybody and merely wanted to survive, (doing something probably half his host was doing at the time and something Stannis himself considered at the time of the siege) and merely had the bad luck of being caught.

Well Dany executed people who kept others as slave. The might not have been directly invovled in the child crucification, but they were certainly guilty of that much. They were also prisoners of war and killing prisoners of war seems a common practice. Other parties have done that without stating any particular reason. Of course there's hypocrisy in that as well, as Dany herself has de facto enjoyed the service of slaves while staying with Illyria and she once teamed up Jorah who was also once complicit in the slave trade etc., but I've already allowed that both Stannis and Dany are a bit hypocritical.

Either way it's simple,

The men Stannis killed did eat dead bodies.

The men Dany killed may not have killed the slave children.

They both used inhumane forms of capitol punishment.

Your argument is the one using 'mental acrobatics'.

So does Dany.

I didn't say Dany's reasoning behind her actions doesn't affect her moral compromise. I have actually argued the opposite. I just pointed it out with Stannis, since you used the burning example.

Stannis effectively made Mel's burnings worthless when he did not take her to the Battle of Blackwater.

For the record, I'm not arguing Dany vs. Stannis, therefore it's a little annoying when you turn every comment I make about Stannis into a comparison against Dany. :unsure:

[Florina Laufeyson]

*Bows* So say we all.

Agreed.

So whats the problem? If it would be pretty cool (and it would be) for Dany to face off against the Westeros crew regardless, why are people getting hella defensive about it? O_o If GRRM went that route, but made Dany still be sympathetic and a POV, yeah im not seeing the problem. That would make for a really interesting story right there.

[NotSoSilentSister]

I dont think mel would have saved him from the incredible luck of the lannister tyrell alliance.

Well, then allying with the religious fanatic who likes burning people and participating in her sham you don't even believe in yourself wasn't really worth it, was it?

No, but at least he is consistent. He does what he believes is the right thing, but is consistent about it. Dany vacillates.

Is he? See the Mel thing.

And they would not exist in our world either, if not for the truly courageous people who dared question the moral conventions of their time and fought for progress. We wouldn't have a civil rights movement without them, we still would have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, etc.

Doing the right thing is fairly easy when you are in line with the moral conventions of your time.

Defying the moral conventions of your time takes quite a bit more courage and personal integrity.

[ab aeterno]

So whats the problem? If it would be pretty cool (and it would be) for Dany to face off against the Westeros crew regardless, why are people getting hella defensive about it? O_o If GRRM went that route, but made Dany still be sympathetic and a POV, yeah im not seeing the problem. That would make for a really interesting story right there.

*Shrugs*

[ab aeterno]

Is he? See the Mel thing.

Consistent in following the law, yes.

And they would not exist in our world either, if not for the truly courageous people who dared question the moral conventions of their time and fought for progress. We wouldn't have a civil rights movement without them, we still would have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, etc.

Well, this is partially true, of course, but utterly irrelevant to this discussion. We would still have democracy, universal suffrage etc. without human rights because they predate the concept of human rights. The same is true for slavery. Having said that, I didn't argue against human rights, I argued that the people of SB don't know that what they are doing is wrong and there is no universal framework against slavery in Essos.

Doing the right thing is fairly easy when you are in line with the moral conventions of your time.

Defying the moral conventions of your time takes quite a bit more courage and personal integrity.

Is Dany defying the moral framework? Of Essos, perhaps, but not of Westeros.

[butterbumps!]

I get your arguing against the execution method. You're 100% right. I am against capital punishment in real life.

But that said, there is HUGE difference between executing people guilty of a crime and a random number of people who may or may not be guilty. Guilt a very important consideration when comparing executions.

If you want to say burning people fucking horrible, then I'm all for it. If you want to claim that it is equal to crucifixion, I'm OK with that. But I draw the line when you say burning people guilty of capital crimes is the same as crucifying people who may or may not be guilty.

My argument is that the use of torture of any kind in the punishment of crimes removes any moral highground of the person who commands the torture. Flaying, burning alive, scaphiasming, crucifying anyone regardless of what they've done is wrong. This is my point, and Stannis does not get to stand on higher ground for the fact that his men were verifiably guilty of the crime.

I firmly believe that torture negates whatever rightness or justification someone has. I get that all of the issues with the 163, and understand how the punishment of Stannis men is an example of justice in that they committed known crimes. But Stannis really lowers himself here in his method of execution in service to a despicable cause.

[devilrob6]

That's one way to look at it. But accordance with laws is not the be-all and end-all of all moral judgment. I don't want to Godwin this, but...let's just say obeying the law doesn't necessarily make you a good person.

Another way to look at it is that Stannis killed people for something that did not harm anybody, while Dany killed people for violating human rights.

Dany killed people that lived in the same city as people that violated human rights, some of which might indeed have been guilty (and deserving their punishment) and some of which might have been innocent. It's the last part that makes the difference.

[E-Ro]

Well, then allying with the religious fanatic who likes burning people and participating in her sham you don't even believe in yourself wasn't really worth it, was it?

She took renly out and got him 20,000 men in the process, not to shabby I would say. Anyway, I dont like mel much, but I dont think allying with her was a mistake, allowing her to have so much influence over his men was.

Also I defended dany earlier in the thread, so I dont think im being a hypocrite at all. You said I antagonised dany in this thread and that is not true.

[Ribupr]

So whats the problem? If it would be pretty cool (and it would be) for Dany to face off against the Westeros crew regardless, why are people getting hella defensive about it? O_o If GRRM went that route, but made Dany still be sympathetic and a POV, yeah im not seeing the problem. That would make for a really interesting story right there.

I see it as genius. If the final battles (not including the others) are with characters you have been with for years. And the character with the most "plot armor" in Dany ends up turning to the other side, so to speak. It would be a good twist, and something not done in literature yet that I know of.

Don't say star wars people

[NotSoSilentSister]

Either way it's simple,

The men Stannis killed did eat dead bodies.

The men Dany killed may not have killed the slave children.

They both used inhumane forms of capitol punishment.

Your argument is the one using 'mental acrobatics'.

The mental acrobatics are the ones necessary to insist that accordance with existing laws is the only criterion necessary for moral judgment.

[ab aeterno]

My argument is that the use of torture of any kind in the punishment of crimes removes any moral highground of the person who commands the torture. Flaying, burning alive, scaphiasming, crucifying anyone regardless of what they've done is wrong. This is my point, and Stannis does not get to stand on higher ground for the fact that his men were verifiably guilty of the crime.

I firmly believe that torture negates whatever rightness or justification someone has. I get that all of the issues with the 163, and understand how the punishment of Stannis men is an example of justice in that they committed known crimes. But Stannis really lowers himself here in his method of execution in service to a despicable cause.

:agree: I agree, only I would say that the fact that they knew that they would be punished for what they did is a slight mitigating factor, but it doesn't change anything. It is technically preferable, I would argue.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Dany killed people that lived in the same city as people that violated human rights, some of which might indeed have been guilty (and deserving their punishment) and some of which might have been innocent. It's the last part that makes the difference.

They were all keeping slaves. The violation of human rights doesn't just start with the crucification.

[ab aeterno]

The mental acrobatics are the ones necessary to insist that accordance with existing laws is the only criterion necessary for moral judgment.

The understanding in Westeros is largely that immoral things are illegal. Having said that, I'll reiterate that Stannis only claims to follow the law, not some indefinite morality. Even so, I'd say that the burnings are the only immoral things that he does.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Well, this is partially true, of course, but utterly irrelevant to this discussion. We would still have democracy, universal suffrage etc. without human rights because they predate the concept of human rights. The same is true for slavery.

Don't get hung up on the term "human rights". My point is that we wouldn't have all those neat things without people like Dany who dared fight for the rights of people even at a time when does rights were not considered part of the moral framework of any given socieity.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

That's one way to look at it. But accordance with laws is not the be-all and end-all of all moral judgment. I don't want to Godwin this, but...let's just say obeying the law doesn't necessarily make you a good person.

Another way to look at it is that Stannis killed people for something that did not harm anybody, while Dany killed people for violating human rights.

The people Stannis killed were certainly harming the order within his army.

Okay, lets say Stannis let the guys eating the dead body go free...after all it was just a dead body and they were hungry...right?

Other men in the army see this and say, "Dudes, we can eat the dead, Yay! We won't starve to death." Then, they run out of dead bodies. What's stopping them from secretly killing people, walking away for a while, going back and saying, "He was dead when I found him, can I eat him now?"

Stannis knows from being involved in a siege and contemplating eating the dead how dangerous his current situation can get. He knows, as a man with high standards and a love for duty that once considered eating the dead, that his men--that may not share his love for duty and standards--are seriously considering it as well. And he knows how that could break down his army physically, mentally, and morally.

Stannis is not a hypocrite, he used his past experience to make a hard decision. The toughest deterrent to any crime is death. You can disagree with the method, but the punishment was quite understandable.

For the thread is Long and full of Stannis.

It wasn't intentional. ^_^

[ab aeterno]

Don't get hung up on the term "human rights". My point is that we wouldn't have all those neat things without people like Dany who dared fight for the rights of people even at a time when does rights were not considered part of the moral framework of any given socieity.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. More often than not these were natural processes that built up over time. There were those who bumped them along from time to time, but generally these things evolved, they weren't brought in by force or sudden change in most cases.

[Ribupr]

Stannis burns people who deserve it. People who break the law or fight against him.

Dany killed slavers that may not have done anything. Slaving is legal and it is a normalcy to them, so why should they (all) be punished without proof of the actual evil acts some of the slavers did. Did Dany have the right to do that because she conquered the city? YES. But it can't be compared to Stannis.

[Arkantos]

I wonder if Dany would've freed the Unsullied, and by consequence all the slaves, if she were able to afford them, looked like she came up with it as a way of keeping her dragons and the army.

[NotSoSilentSister]

For me, that's not clear at all! To the contrary, everything in the books (but Jon's cautious and as yet, fruitless attempt to communicate through the wights) has been pointing to an existential conflict between Others and humans. It could well be the Others view themselves as the heroes of their sides, but nevertheless they still aim to eradicate the human population and turn Westeros into an eternal winter landscape. Since we are humans and the POV's are humans, that makes them the major villains, regardless of what their motives and possible justifications are.

GRRM has done a lot of work to give his human villains/antagonists/grey characters believable self-justification and motives, though, which is why he can claim that the main battle is fought within a person's heart and his books demonstrate that. But I don't think this should even be extended to all the human villains who are cardboard characters (Ramsay, Gregor, Bloody Mummers,...), let alone to the Others who are like a destructive force of nature from a human POV.

In my opinion, in the end it will come down to Others vs humans anyway. Even if by that time it may be seen as mere background for the human dramas that preceed and follow the struggle.I

I agree. I do think that Dany will take a turn for the worse in the next book, that it will look like the destructive side in her is winning out. She will try to conquer Westeros and it won't be pretty and people will hate her.

But I'm not convinced that this will be the end of her character arc.

I think that there will absolutely be a War for Dawn (having it as this looming threat in the background over all these novels only to reveal that it's just another sidequest for Jon on his way to the Iron Throne would be rather strange too, wouldn't it?) and more than ample opportunity for Dany to redeem herself.

I either see her dying heroically in the final battle against the Others or survivng and relinquishing the Iron Throne of her own free will.

(That's actually the same prediction I would make about Stannis).