Is Dany actually the ANTAGONIST?

[Table8]

Ice and Fire. I tend to assume that The Others represent Ice and Dragons represent Fire. In my short time here, everyone agrees the Others are the villains. But what makes dragons so great? And we know who brought the dragons back...

I'm thinking the OP meant villain instead of antagonist. This book is filled with grays, but the climax to the story still needs to be good vs evil IMO, in order to give a satisfying end. The Others are definitely bad. Despite the perspectives of certain people, Dany has done a lot of good, and certainly GRRM presents her as having good intentions. But a queen with dragons will basically be enslaving her people since no one can easily defeat them. It was only because of the game changing Dragons that the 7 kingdoms were ever unified in the first place.

Dany is good, but she has unleashed evil.

[Quiet Isle]

Agree on this 100%. Just because the guy came from half way across the world, bearing a parchment that talks of a "marriage contract", is Dany supposed to leave everything and go with him to Dorne? It would have been a totally different case if he had a navy at his back or say 1000 spears just to show off Dorne's strength! But How in seven hells is she supposed to trust this guy on his word?

About the same as she's going to embrace Victarion and/or Euron. Not.

[Wouter]

The topic pretty much speaks for itself, but I was wondering what others thought of this theory/thought

For myself, I always believed Jon (after I pieced together R+L=J) and Dany would eventually come together and save the realm from the Others, but after a re-read, I find myself thinking FUCK NO.

Reasons...

1.) GRRM would soooo pull this shit. Making Dany into the antagonist when (for many) people believed she would be the "savior." Also, I do think Jon is destined to be the protagonist, and when he said there would be another Dance of the Dragons, it kind of confirmed it...ish. Just it might not be Dany vs Faegon, but MAYBE Jon vs Dany.

I think GRRM would pull it off, no problem (Dany and Jon saving the world, that is). Both have been painted as messianic figures to some degree, and the Undying vision of the blue rose in the wall of ice (with the sweet smell) is pointing towards a non-antagonistic relationship between Jon (the object of the vision) and Dany. Considering both have very good reasons to fight the Others and Jon would welcome the help of dragons (just as he welcomed the coming of Stannis, with relatively more meagre means of support, though still crucial for the problem at hand) it would also be the logical development. This may be true even if Dany would maintain an antagonistic stance towards the Starks in general, up to the point she comes into contact with Jon (any overt antagonism is not likely to survive a Jon-Dany cooperation anyway). The vision also implies that Dany will like Jon (though not necessarily the other way round).

THE antagonist, as has been written by many on this thread, has to be the Others anyway. In a series where all the human POV's tend to be antagonistic toward many other POV's to a greater or lesser degree, everybody is protagonist and antagonist depending on the POV at hand (and which family/group/interests the reader sympatises with). The Others however, are an enemy to everybody else and will likely require some form of cooperation, even between human groups which hate each others guts, to defeat.

2.) Dany has gotten more morally dark as the series went on.

I disagree. Dany was capable of administering cruel death penalties from AGOT on (not only Mirri Maz Duur, also the wineseller who tried to poison her) and she has maintained this form. It's just that the provocations that prompt the retaliation have escalated - Astapor with its unsullied "training" and Meereen with its 163 crucified children arguably got a proportional response if you compare those crimes' to what the wineseller and Mirri attempted or did.

3.) She doesn't listen to anyone about anything, unless it is something she wants to hear. She is impulsive and is becoming a little sadist with the torture shit in ADWD (and YES...it IS torture).

There is only the one time that Dany didn't want to listen to Barristan. The rest of the time, she listens to advisors constantly; Jorah, Barristan, Missandei, the Unsullied leaders, Daario, The Green Grace and the Shavepate. The latter is actually very interesting, considering you complain on the one hand that Dany didn't listen to advisor, and on the other hand the fact that she let the Shavepate talk her into the torture of the wineseller's daughters makes her sadistic, according to you.

Dany is impulsive and she can be cruel when she is, sure. But as mentioned above, she did this right from the start (dragged the wineseller behind her horse until he died, and beyond). In ADWD, I see no evidence she is enjoying hurting others. She has to be talked into the torturing of the wineseller by her advisor, and she only agrees because she becomes impulsive when angry because a relative of Missandei was killed (and if we can believe her advisor - which you say she should - then the wineseller was likely responsible for that as he was in the perfect position to poison them). Even with the "wise masters" that she had crucified, her reaction at the end of ASOS ("I did it for the children. It was just") as she allows the bodies to be taking down shows someone trying to convince herself, not someone enjoying the pain that was caused. Dany's anger is red-hot (as Jorah also found out), but she doesn't seem to have any sadistic tendencies.

4.) As the story progresses, you can see her father in her more and more.

From what we know of Aerys, I'm not seeing him in Dany at all.

5.) Someone pointed out in another thread that you never see Dany's actions outside of her own head. I bet from another POV, a lot of the things she has done would give a better idea of who she actually is. The Quentyn chapter in ADWD is one instance I can recall off-hand.

This dude has come half-way around the world with offerings of help/friendship/courtship, and she treats him like shit. Really??? These are some of the things I noticed that tell me she heading down Antag Road.

She refused him, but with decent reasons. Other than that, she showed him every courtesy.

name='Ribupr' timestamp='1355927771' post='3924133']

Agree? Disagree? Proofs?

I don't doubt that Dany will be antagonistic to a lot of people in Westeros, possibly including some of the Starks, but we knew that from the first few lines of her first chapter in AGOT. Hell, Robert wanted her killed as early as that book, so the antagonism between the Baratheon "regime" and Dany was defined early and sharply. The fact that there are relatively sympathetic POV's at odds with each other, was and is the great draw of ASOIAF for me.

And with the advisors that Dany will be picking up (starting with Barristan, but surely also going to include Tyrion), I don't think she will go on an ill-advised total revenge campaign against Starks, Arryns and Tullys, unless those actively oppose her coming.

[JamesD2020]

I agree that shes young and troubled but I think the only way to survive in this GRRM world is to be slightly ruthless. Theres always going to be someone or something that doesn't agree with your policies, just look at the slavers... In order to structure chaos to order shes going to have to let loose and start ramping things up. She might actually benefit from her crazy bloodline to get through it all and than onto the nitty n gritty details of saving the world (if she is truly one to save it).

Dany is still a character in transition. She is young and immature, and has taken on a role with numerous responsibilites and tremendous pressure. The end of Dance finds her at a real crossroads. Given her family history and her traumatic childhood, it wouldn't be surprising to see her turning to the dark side. GRRM likes grey characters, and Dany starts off pretty innocent. She's got plenty of blood on her hands now, even though her intentions are generally good. It will be interesting to see what lessons she takes away from the Mereen experience. We see her pretty conflicted about her more morally ambiguous policy decisions. Now that she is apparently discovering or deciding who she really is, maybe we'll see her becoming more ruthless, especially now that she's a dragon rider like her conqueror ancestors. If she is the next Aegon the Conqueror, she'll be viewed as a villain by most of Westeros, but not all. The people of the riverlands certainly preffered Aegon to Harren. So her reception in Westeros will probably depend on who is running it and how badly they're doing it when she gets there. I don't think GRRM will ever paint her as a completely good or evil character, it's just not his style.

[franko99]

Agree on this 100%. Just because the guy came from half way across the world, bearing a parchment that talks of a "marriage contract", is Dany supposed to leave everything and go with him to Dorne? It would have been a totally different case if he had a navy at his back or say 1000 spears just to show off Dorne's strength! But How in seven hells is she supposed to trust this guy on his word?

Re Quentyn: he arrived sans ships, sans army sans anything on the eve of her marriage and demanded that she honour an agreement that did not mention her at all. She welcomed him, treated him as an honoured guest and promised him that her marriage need not end his hopes and reminded him that the dragon has three heads. She did everything she could short of marrying him so could we please stop saying that she dumped poor Quent for Daario?

But the reason he came without ships or an army is because its suppossed to be a secret plan, no one in Westeros should know about it, movilizing mens or a fleet would ruin that. And Doran was expecting him to return marry to Dany, he's not supporting the Targs because they're cool and he loves them, but because he want a Targaryen AND MARTELL rulling the seven kingdoms as a royal familiy again, no other option would be acceptable.

But of course I'm not blaming Dany for Quentyn's death, the boy die because his own stupidity.

Do you have the same sense of justification for the 163 slavers Dany crucified?

Is not the same, Stannis had to kill those mens, to set an example, he needs to make it clear he will not allow such act, and since he's following the Red God, he has to burn it, his people ask him for some sacrifice

Dany on the other hand cricifix the slavers for pure vengance.

[Kanon]

Is not the same, Stannis had to kill those mens, to set an example, he needs to make it clear he will not allow such act.

This is the exact reason that Dany uses to justify the crucifixion.

[butterbumps!]

Is not the same, Stannis had to kill those mens, to set an example, he needs to make it clear he will not allow such act, and since he's following the Red God, he has to burn it, his people ask him for some sacrifice

Dany on the other hand cricifix the slavers for pure vengance.

late to the party on this, but I don't believe it's quantifiably different to torture men to send a message than to be super pissed while setting an example.

[Arkantos]

This is the exact reason that Dany uses to justify the crucifixion.

Stannis punished men for their crimes, Dany punished people for the crimes of others.

[Winter's Knight]

Is not the same, Stannis had to kill those mens, to set an example, he needs to make it clear he will not allow such act, and since he's following the Red God, he has to burn it, his people ask him for some sacrifice

Dany on the other hand cricifix the slavers for pure vengance.

Dany crucified the slavers to show that the life of each slave child was equal to that of a Great Master. And in this instance, I hold vengeance to be no shameful motive.

Stannis punished men for their crimes, Dany punished people for the crimes of others.

The men she crucified were slavers of the Great Houses of Meereen. These men were not innocent, they had the blood of countless slaves on their hands.

[franko99]

This is the exact reason that Dany uses to justify the crucifixion.

Stannis burns people who are guilty of the crime, Dany randomly cruxifix people.

After Stannis burn the mens, no other act of cannibalism occurs. If the point was to scare the slavers. well the sons of the harpy didn't get it :P

[bardstark]

in the words of klaus daimler (willem dafoe in the life aquatic),

"i get what you're saying, but i think you misunderstand the guy."

dany isn't the antagonist. she's just fucking incompetent, unstable and going towards mad. and her only function is to get magic back in the world, IMO. she says she is the dragon, but does not know what it means. she knows the words, but can't hear the music.

i hope she isn't AAR, or ends up on the IT. She scares me, in a lot of ways. Her wantonness with Daario, her odd ideas of Westerosi mores WHEN SHE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF SLAVERS BAY. she just is a terrible ruler, if those dragons weren't born, no one would give her any thought. it is targs like dany, viserys and her father that give them a bad name.

she really is still a little girl, even tho she fakes the queenliness. Jorah thinks she is like Rhaegar. Who cares? Some slaver northron thinks she is like her brother and it puffs her up. Meanwhile he is spying on her.

now, she has grown up a little bit. she likes sex now, as opposed to her wedding night. but she has not matured into a woman in an intellectual, and emotional level.

i dare compare her w lyanna.

[ab aeterno]

in the words of klaus daimler (willem dafoe in the life aquatic),

"i get what you're saying, but i think you misunderstand the guy."

dany isn't the antagonist. she's just fucking incompetent, unstable and going towards mad. and her only function is to get magic back in the world, IMO. she says she is the dragon, but does not know what it means. she knows the words, but can't hear the music.

i hope she isn't AAR, or ends up on the IT. She scares me, in a lot of ways. Her wantonness with Daario, her odd ideas of Westerosi mores WHEN SHE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF SLAVERS BAY. she just is a terrible ruler, if those dragons weren't born, no one would give her any thought. it is targs like dany, viserys and her father that give them a bad name.

she really is still a little girl, even tho she fakes the queenliness. Jorah thinks she is like Rhaegar. Who cares? Some slaver northron thinks she is like her brother and it puffs her up. Meanwhile he is spying on her.

now, she has grown up a little bit. she likes sex now, as opposed to her wedding night. but she has not matured into a woman in an intellectual, and emotional level.

i dare compare her w lyanna.

Dear god, RUN! :leaving:

[Arkantos]

The men she crucified were slavers of the Great Houses of Meereen. These men were not innocent, they had the blood of countless slaves on their hands.

Based on what?

[Winter's Knight]

Based on what?

They were slavers. D'oh.

[franko99]

in the words of klaus daimler (willem dafoe in the life aquatic),

"i get what you're saying, but i think you misunderstand the guy."

dany isn't the antagonist. she's just fucking incompetent, unstable and going towards mad. and her only function is to get magic back in the world, IMO. she says she is the dragon, but does not know what it means. she knows the words, but can't hear the music.

i hope she isn't AAR, or ends up on the IT. She scares me, in a lot of ways. Her wantonness with Daario, her odd ideas of Westerosi mores WHEN SHE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF SLAVERS BAY. she just is a terrible ruler, if those dragons weren't born, no one would give her any thought. it is targs like dany, viserys and her father that give them a bad name.

she really is still a little girl, even tho she fakes the queenliness. Jorah thinks she is like Rhaegar. Who cares? Some slaver northron thinks she is like her brother and it puffs her up. Meanwhile he is spying on her.

now, she has grown up a little bit. she likes sex now, as opposed to her wedding night. but she has not matured into a woman in an intellectual, and emotional level.

i dare compare her w lyanna.

Dear god, RUN! :leaving:

^^^^ Out of likes, but this :agree: :leaving:

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Lady tippy I like your new avatar, it suits you I think.

Thank you good ser! :D

Well, I've personally written volumes of critique on Dany's 163, and frankly, neither this nor Stannis' criminals are really appreciably different. They just really aren't.

I fully agree with the inhumane methods of death being similar, but the reasoning behind the deaths are not similar. Sure, the reasoning may not justify the means, but the reasoning definitely differentiates the situations.

I don't understand how advocates for either character argue that their preferred character is less wrong for this honestly nearly identical act. Both choose their particular execution methods for show, to prove a point. The execution method is where the problem lies, not in the fact that there were executions in the first place.

The initial discussion was not about execution methods:

she (referring to Mel) only burns criminals.

But leave it to Stannis on his own to burn starving men for eating dead bodies. A thought he'd himself considered during a desperate siege.

If he didn't burn those men other men would have more than likely started killing other men to eat their bodies. The fact that Stannis thought about eating the dead during a desperate siege means that he knows what his starving men are thinking in his current desperate situation, therefore he needed to show them that he will not tolerate that behavior.

And burning men alive is the only reasonable thing to do, I'm sure.

Which method of death would you prefer?

Stannis is supposedly following R'hllor. How else was he suppose to kill these men without any opposition from anyone?

ETA: Or maybe he should have imprisoned them, where they would have received food so as not to slowly starve to death. I wonder how many men would prefer imprisonment where meals are provided over fending for themselves.

Do you have the same sense of justification for the 163 slavers Dany crucified? While I don't favor capital punishment, my issue with these methods are the fact they are forms of torture: inhumane, cruel, unnecessary. I hold this for both Dany and Stannis.

My initial point was that Stannis--like Mel--was also killing criminals and that it was not a hypocritical act. And that he burned those criminals to ensure order in his army and that he had no other choice. Then suddenly. this became a Dany comparison about the inhumane methods they choose to kill people.

If you believe Stannis and Dany use inhumane methods of death, fine...so do I. No one is saying that the methods of death used by Dany and Stannis are humane, nor are we excusing our favorite characters for using these methods. Personally, I was only arguing the reasoning behind my characters choice to burn those men alive. They both may be inhumane, but there is a difference in reasoning behind Stannis' burnings and Dany's crucifixions. That difference has been pointed out repeatedly, and it matters when attempting to compare those two situations.

My personal feelings on Stannis did not factor into the discussion, nor did my personal feelings on burning people alive. Stannis burned criminals to ensure order in his army. I don't agree with him burning people alive, but I understand why he did it. Dany took vengeance on the slavers for what happened to the children I don't agree with killing people that may have been innocent (being slavers does not automatically make them deserving of death), but I understand why she did it.

[Arkantos]

They were slavers. D'oh.

So that means they killed/mistreated their slaves? I suppose it doesn't really matter that the only way to make a decent living around there is by owning some slaves or that it's an integral part of their society.

If you're brought up a Christian then you shouldn't be killed for following Christian practices/values, just beat up & taught a lesson.

EDIT: I'd like to add that Stannis was punishing men for committing crimes that they knew very well were crimes, whereas Dany punished people for acting as their society expected them to.

[franko99]

They were slavers. D'oh.

You think all slavers cricifixed childrens to deserve such punishment? She didn't know if the ones she killed are the ones who made the crime they're paying for

[Kanon]

You think all slavers cricifixed childrens to deserve such punishment? She didn't know if the ones she killed are the ones who made the crime they're paying for

She didn't kill them just to punish them for the crimes, she did it to send a message, that the life of a slave child is as just as much value than the life of a slave master. Imo they were slavers anyway so I wouldn't care if she killed them just for fun, but it was alot more than that.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I disagree. While the Dany haters seethe they know she is the hero and she will defeate the White Walkers and bring on the eternal spring.

No. Just no. People who think Dany might be the villain are not "haters" who "seethe" at Dany being the hero.

There are legitimate reasons to think Dany might become a villain. She has no problem being utterly ruthless (crucifying people that she admits might be guilty she just out of vengeance, torturing that one guy's daughters, etc.).

Even her "good intentions" are questionable. It's mighty damn convenient that she becomes a crusading anti-slaver (despite being a ruler of a slaver tribe who intended to enslave people to fund their trip to Westeros) right when it comes time to pay for a slave army.

I'm not saying Dany is an amoral monster. But she certainly has the potential to become a major villain.

Though she could never become an antagonist. Since she has a POV and is one of the central characters to the story, she is by definition a protagonist regardless of whether she becomes the savior of Westeros or a great evil.

Protagonist vs Antagonist =/= Hero vs Villain

ASoIaF has more than one protagonist. If you focus on though, other characters will become antagonists.

See, to me "Danystans" just sounds like people who 'ship Dany and Stannis. Which...well, to each their own, I guess?

My thoughts too.

It doesn't make her a villain; she's spent too much of her arc struggling with unleashing violence (i.e. having a conscience), and having abolitionist goals to really be considered truly villainous. She's a very dark shade of grey at times, but I think it's wrong to consider her a villain.

I wouldn't say she's a villain.... right now.

She has the potential to dip either way.

The irony if Westeros united against Dany...

Considering she's leading a foreign army and pretty much wants fuck up every major House (the "usurper" Houses have a justifiable reason to fear as she won't even listen to the idea that Ned isn't that bad guy, the Tyrells are now too invested in Tommen's throne, and while she has no reason to hate the Martells, I think they will blame Dany for Quentyn's death*), I consider it likely regardless of whether Dany becomes the savior or a villain.

@OP, with GRRM it is hard to say if he intends to paint this character as Antagonistic! Like he has said in several of his interviews, characters in ASoIaF are grey!

Burning of MMD was a punishment she saw befit to her betrayal. The deaths of slavers was justice for the murders they inflicted on young slave children.. If Ned Stark had announced that same sentence for the slavers, I don't think anyone on the forum would have questioned it. We as readers don't trust her judgement because we still see her as a naive child who just wants to take what is hers by fire and blood! But that does not mean that Dany is slowly turning into an evil entity. At her core, I believe she is still "one of the good guys"!

Thank you. I've been looking for a chance to use this smiley. :bs:

It wasn't justice. It was vengeance pure and simple. She didn't crucify those who did it or came up with the plan. If that was the case, I'd be OK with it (at least as OK as I can be with crucifixion). No. She took a number of random nobles and brutally murdered them for the crime of.... being unlucky enough to get picked.

It is also pretty absurd to think Ned wouldn't get put down if he did the same thing. He doesn't get put down because he doesn't brutally murder random people and hope he got the right ones. It's not that people will forgive Ned and not Dany for doing the same things. It's that Ned doesn't do the horrific things Dany does.

I'm assuming you're refereeing to Tyrion (who may be a good guy, but for the first three books fights on Tywin and Cersei's side) and Stannis (who straight up burns and assassinates those don't give him what he wants), and you're absolutely correct. Stannis can easily be seen as an insane religious zealot from other people's POV, and Tyrion could be seen as an evil monkey-demon shcemer.

As for the OP, yes, Dany will be very anatgonistic towards a number of characters we've come to sympathize with. Unless Tyrion counsels her differently, she probably won't be very friendly toward Jaime, the guy who killed her dad, and I can't see her liking Stannis, the guy who drive her into hiding, very much. But that in no way makes her the arch-villain of the series, especially since the Others arriving will probably be a much bigger problem.

Correction: Assassinates people who are in the process of attempting to murder him to take what is his.

I know that at least i will be against her. The way she thinks of "usurpers dogs" with no reality at all. Ignoring stuff people says unless she wants to here it. People love to say "well Quentyn was a d-bag and didnt do a good job" He and his father committed TREASON to send him across the world and bring her back to a safe place where she can begin their conquest with a bonus of 10,000 troops. Not to mention she married some weirdo who was plotting for himself instead. Her affair with her sellsword buddy is actually the only part i dont mind about her.

Of course some people like her and dont agree with me and thats the best part. When Dany finally gets to Westeros and the next Dance of Dragons begins there is gonna be a shit storm on this board of Jon/Aegon/Dany supporters battling it out and i cant wait

I think Quentyn is a case where both sides tend to take it the extreme either way.

Like you point out, Quentyn coming with a frickin' army would get his family dead real quick as they would be known traitors to the Baratheon throne and lack an army to defend themselves.

On the other hand, Dany was under no obligation to marry Quentyn. As stupid as marrying a slave lord is on the quest for the Iron Throne, Dany has the right to do as she wishes. But seriously. I'm fine with her fucking Daario. But how is Westeros supposed to react when she comes with a king from a random slaver city?

It was just a mess personally. She should have handled it better, but I see it mostly as mistakes rather than "Eh, fuck off, sun boy." Quentyn's own stupidity and insecurity played a large part in it.

And I do believe that marriage was done so her people would stop getting butchered in the streets. Again, what a bitch.

The problem is that Mereen is not hers. She intends on taking Westeros. I have NO problem with her not marrying Quentyn. The marriage contract did not state her. Nor was there a clause that if Viserys died, she would take his place.

I do have a problem with her marrying Hizadar or whatever his name was. Marriage is a big political tool. She tosses it away for Mereen instead of using it for her actual goal. Honestly, I think it was wise not to marry Quentyn. It was WAY to presumptuous of him and Doran to think they had that sort of right. But she should still have left herself unmarried until she could use her marriage to secure her throne.

But leave it to Stannis on his own to burn starving men for eating dead bodies. A thought he'd himself considered during a desperate siege.

Considered it, yes. Didn't do it though. Two VERY different things.

Figures, even in a dany hate thread I'm defending stannis.

You are the King's (wo?)man.

I don't recall Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris, Jean Claude van Damme and Bruce Willis travelling half the world only to get blown off by some chick and then deep fried by an overgrown lizard.

The Expendables 3: The Sun Sets In the East

Do you have the same sense of justification for the 163 slavers Dany crucified? While I don't favor capital punishment, my issue with these methods are the fact they are forms of torture: inhumane, cruel, unnecessary. I hold this for both Dany and Stannis.

I agree with you about burning alive and crucifixion. They are both horrible ways to murder someone.

But there is a CLEAR difference between the two you mentioned. Stannis executed people who actually did wrong. Dany executed random people from the social class of the people who did wrong.

Well, I've personally written volumes of critique on Dany's 163, and frankly, neither this nor Stannis' criminals are really appreciably different. They just really aren't. I don't understand how advocates for either character argue that their preferred character is less wrong for this honestly nearly identical act. Both choose their particular execution methods for show, to prove a point. The execution method is where the problem lies, not in the fact that there were executions in the first place.

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.

Honestly, I would still consider Dany worse in this aspect if she had made them take a drug that let them peacefully drift off to eternal slumber than if Stannis crucified people and then burned them alive before they finally died.

To me, guilt is the #1 important factor when it comes to **capital punishment.

The men she crucified were slavers of the Great Houses of Meereen. These men were not innocent, they had the blood of countless slaves on their hands.

But that doesn't work because otherwise she should have executed ALL slaveowners.

Also, Dany's anti-slavery attitude is overblown. She did legalize slavery. When it's convenient (getting a free army, excuse to conquer), she's anti-slavery. When it's convenient (her husband's Dothraki army using slaves to fund her war efforts, she doesn't know what to do with all the poor ex-slaves who think they had it better as a slave), she's pro-slavery. Honestly, I think she's anti-slavery at her heart but not enough to stop her from she rationalizing it when she finds it necessary (either because it helps her or because she doesn't have a better answer like when she made it legal in Mereen again).

*Personally, I think it was 75%-90% Quentyn's fault. Dany accidentally egged him on, but I wouldn't go so far as to blame her for it. The other 10%-25% I would just chalk up to shit happens.

**Which is why I'm against it. It is simply impossible that only guilty people would be executed. I am talking strictly about real life. As far as I know, most good guys (with the exception of Dany of course) have only executed guilty.