Stannis Baratheon: Worst Human Rights Abuser in Westeros?

[E-Ro]

You know, I think the last few posts in here have isolated a major issue wrt Stannis. His detractors have to do some serious mental gymnastics to justify the bs they want to throw at him. I honestly cannot believe what I have just read. Danys crucifixions and burnings, are a necessary evil. But Stannis burning 3 criminals isn't.

This is what Stannis fans deal with. Utter nonsense and threads like these.

Just to recap one last time.

burn a lady to death because she killed your raping murdering slaving husband, and crucify 163 random people= Justified because dany did it.

Burn exactly 5 criminals alive(Mance rayder, alester florentwho was guilty of treason, and 3 peasbury cannibals)= Terrible and bad and evil and no good.

[thepooperthatwaspromised]

Anti-Stannis fans keep trying to explain what I don't think can be explained easily: why is Stannis so unlikeable? I find it immensely perplexing that Stannis inspires this kind of devoted, hardcore fandom in people. When I read the books, he came off as a harsh, dogmatic, jerk of a character, and I had him pegged as a villain until I came to this website, where I discovered that a "Stannis-fan" was actually a thing. When I went back to reason my dislike of Stannis, I couldn't really support my position. I think his affinity with Melisandre, so obviously an antagonistic character, casts him in an unfavorable light, and his rigid sense of justice in the face of more moral judgement is off-putting, but ultimately I can't justify what's so wrong with him; he's an honest lord attempting to claim his birthright, a little whiny perhaps, but ultimately in the right. There's nothing in his actions or his motives which is inherently wrong, as so many anti-Stannis fans keep trying to argue.

I'm the same as you. I actually wanted to start a who likes Stannis thread because I could not picture him having fans. Would people be able to see his point of view? Yes. Would people understand where he's coming from? Yes. But like him? You basically mentioned why I don't like Stannis. Yes, a harsh dogmatic jerk of a character. He's incredibly stubborn too. He's also quite the hypocrite but that's just me. He's envious, holds a grudge forever, no matter how small... No, I can't say I like Stannis and I think he would be an awful king. He's not evil though or a villain and there are definitely a lot of people who are a lot worse than him.

Rickoninthenorth basically says he started off as really disliking stannis but upon rethink, largely influenced by this forum, he can't really justify his original opinion. PP then states that he agrees with Rickon, , but he just doesn't like the guy.

yes, there is a bit of name calling (like "jerk") , but PP qualifies it by saying that it's just his opinion, not a statement of fact. and honestly? even though i love stannis, he is "dogmatic" "envious" and "stubborn" at times...so what? he is. so are we all. so are all of our favorite characters. even the "hypocrite" part, i can disagree and still at least see why some people would think so. you don't agree? why not ask PP to back it up...

i think we can agree there have been far worse and more unjustified attacks on stannis' character.

also, those who just "don't like" him are far more likely to eventually come around than those who absolutely abhor him and think he's the enemy to all that is good and holy. stan fans will only win through love and patience :cheers:

[E-Ro]

also, those who just "don't like" him are far more likely to eventually come around than those who absolutely abhor him and think he's the enemy to all that is good and holy. stan fans will only win through love and patience :cheers:

I agree with this. But, it is hard to maintain ones composure at these obvious double standards that get thrown around. Why is it OK for one character to do something and another cant? Both Stannis and dany have done horrible things. But to label one of them as doing it for necessary reasons and the other as evil because of it has to be called out. Its simply unacceptable.

[thepooperthatwaspromised]

wholeheartedly agreed! but Stan the Man was responding directly to the 2 posts i included in my last post. not a peep about dany. and barely even an attack on stannis. the first poster was literally saying they had come around significantly in their anti-stannis views so why the harshness?

and you've been around this board long enough to know that character assassination of one character that turns into character assassination of another character (i.e. Stannis/Dany, Sansa/Arya, Jon/Cat) just goes round and round the wheel to nowhere. honestly, can anyone think of a single time when it's been helpful? :)

[Viserion Stormborn]

Wow. Never in my life have I seen such blatant hypocrisy and bullshit in one post. How in the fuck was burning MMD for VENGEANCE and nothing more, a necessary evil? Or crucifying the slavers? In what universe was that a necessary evil? Stannis burns criminals after they have confessed to crimes or have undeniable guilt. He has burned 3 people and all of them guilty of various crimes.

You know, I think the last few posts in here have isolated a major issue wrt Stannis. His detractors have to do some serious mental gymnastics to justify the bs they want to throw at him. I honestly cannot believe what I have just read. Danys crucifixions and burnings, are a necessary evil. But Stannis burning 3 criminals isn't.

This is what Stannis fans deal with. Utter nonsense and threads like these.

Just to recap one last time.

burn a lady to death because she killed your raping murdering slaving husband, and crucify 163 random people= Justified because dany did it.

Burn exactly 5 criminals alive(Mance rayder, alester florentwho was guilty of treason, and 3 peasbury cannibals)= Terrible and bad and evil and no good.

Ok, wow, I've heard this place has a reputation for being a bit of a looney bin - so congrats on being the first I've come across.

Yes I believe there are moral differences. Were Dany's "victims" also not criminals? They were all innocent and minding their own business, right? Daenerys gave MMD protection, in return she cursed her and killed her husband and her unborn baby. She deserved her get. Same with the slavers - they were also criminals and child killers. The leaders in Yunkai did not kill children, they did not get crucified.

Stannis makes a habit of ritual burnings and we know that he does not limit it to criminals. He was ready and willing to burn a child alive for his own gain, and he would have done it if it wasn't for Davos. That idea alone is worse than anything Dany has done. And he still might kill Gilly's baby, eventually. Add to that killing his brother (again completely unnecessary), he's no saint. I don't think he's "EEEEEEEVIILLL" but if the comparison needs to be made then I think Dany's actions have been more justified.

[E-Ro]

Ok, wow, I've heard this place has a reputation for being a bit of a looney bin - so congrats on being the first I've come across.

Yes I believe there are moral differences. Were Dany's victims also not criminals? They were just innocent, right? Daenerys gave MMD protection, in return she cursed her and killed her husband and her unborn baby. She deserved her get. Same with the slavers - they were also criminals and child killers. The leaders in Yunkai did not kill children, they did not get crucified.

Stannis makes a habit of ritual burnings and we know that he does not limit it to criminals. He was ready and willing to burn a child alive for his own gain, and he would have done it if it wasn't for Davos. That idea alone is worse than anything Dany has done. And he still might kill Gilly's baby, eventually. Add to that killing his brother (again completely unnecessary), he's no saint. I don't think he's "EEEEEEEVIILLL" but if the comparison needs to be made then I think Dany's actions have been more justified.

Name one person Stannis has burned that wasnt a criminal.

I listed all the people he has burned. Mance rayder, 3 peesbury soldiers, and lord alester florent. so please, enlighten me. I am patiently waiting.

You yourself just said danys victims were criminals. This is news to me, slavery was illegal in essos? wow, I had no idea. furthermore, if dany is allowed to punish criminals as she wants why isnt Stannis? your argument makes exactly zero sense.

Ok, he was thinking about burning s child to save millions in westeros from death. He considered it but didnt do it, and considering his motives, I cant blame him for thinking about it. glad to know we are complaining about thinkgs characters considered doing.

[Viserion Stormborn]

Name one person Stannis has burned that wasnt a criminal.

I listed all the people he has burned. Mance rayder, 3 peesbury soldiers, and lord alester florent. so please, enlighten me. I am patiently waiting.

You yourself just said danys victims were criminals. This is news to me, slavery was illegal in essos? wow, I had no idea. furthermore, if dany is allowed to punish criminals as she wants why isnt Stannis? your argument makes exactly zero sense.

Ok, he was thinking about burning s child to save millions in westeros from death. He considered it but didnt do it, and considering his motives, I cant blame him for thinking about it. glad to know we are complaining about thinkgs characters considered doing.

Slavery is not a crime but killing 163 children is.

Stannis wasn't "thinking" about it, or "considering" it, he was planning on it. He didn't decide not to do it. He was prevented by Davos who he almost executed because of it.

I never said Stannis's burned men were innocent. That he has made it his "thing" is the twisted part though and he still has no justification for putting designs on children and babies. Not to mention the kinslaying which I've yet to see how this is OK?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

I never said Stannis's burned men were innocent. That he has made it his "thing" is the twisted part though and he still has no justification for putting designs on children and babies. Not to mention the kinslaying which I've yet to see how this is OK?

Didn't dany agreed to Kinslaying when Drogo killed her brother?

[Jasta11]

Ok, wow, I've heard this place has a reputation for being a bit of a looney bin - so congrats on being the first I've come across.

Yes I believe there are moral differences. Were Dany's "victims" also not criminals? They were all innocent and minding their own business, right? Daenerys gave MMD protection, in return she cursed her and killed her husband and her unborn baby. She deserved her get. Same with the slavers - they were also criminals and child killers. The leaders in Yunkai did not kill children, they did not get crucified.

Stannis makes a habit of ritual burnings and we know that he does not limit it to criminals. He was ready and willing to burn a child alive for his own gain, and he would have done it if it wasn't for Davos. That idea alone is worse than anything Dany has done. And he still might kill Gilly's baby, eventually. Add to that killing his brother (again completely unnecessary), he's no saint. I don't think he's "EEEEEEEVIILLL" but if the comparison needs to be made then I think Dany's actions have been more justified.

Starting with ad hominems. How nice and productive of you.

Dany did not ''give MMD protection''. She stopped her being raped a fourth time then took her as a slave. Then MMD healed Drogo when she was asked to, only for him to rip off the poultice. Then she did the ritual Dany asked of her, explicitely warning her against entering the tent, but she still did (unwillingly but still). Then Dany killed her purely out of revenge, and to birth medieval WMDs. There was 0 justice in this. Like there was 0 justice in the wholesale massacre of Astapor's population. Or the torture of the wineseller's daughters. Or the mass executions of people who had not been proven guilty of anything.

Meanwhile, Stannis burns five convicted criminals and he's a jerk? Please. Killing Renly is war and I cannot hold it against him. Almost killing Edric is a bad thing but still not as bad as ordering people tortured on a whim like Dany did. Your moral myopia is astonishing and/or you need a re-read.

And for the record, no I'm not a stan-stan or a Dany hater. But it pisses me off when people apply massive double standards in their moral judgement just because they like a character. Like Dany and don't like Stannis as you will, but the love of all that is holy don't whitewash her and badmouth him with such silly arguments.

[Nictarion]

Didn't dany agreed to Kinslaying when Drogo killed her brother?

Even if she begged for Viserys to be spared, it wouldn't have stopped his death. He broke a sacred Dothraki law in front of 3 Khals.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Even if she begged for Viserys to be spared, it wouldn't have stopped his death. He broke a sacred Dothraki law in front of 3 Khals.

Renly did the same, didn't he, he took his brother's right!

[The Drunkard]

Stannis wasn't "thinking" about it, or "considering" it, he was planning on it. He didn't decide not to do it. He was prevented by Davos who he almost executed because of it.

I never said Stannis's burned men were innocent. That he has made it his "thing" is the twisted part though and he still has no justification for putting designs on children and babies. Not to mention the kinslaying which I've yet to see how this is OK?

As soon as he gave the order Edric would have been burnt, he didn't need to plan anything. That he took so long to be won over by Melisandre is a testament to the difficulty of his decision. His initial response was adamant refusal; Edric was an innocent and thus wouldn't be punished. It was only after almost the entirety of ASOS, multiple visions and the deaths of three kings that he came to believe in the necessity of the sacrifice.

A sacrifice he seems prepared to make himself, given his vision about a king in a crown of fire being destroyed by said crown.

Didn't dany agreed to Kinslaying when Drogo killed her brother?

She couldn't have done anything even if she wanted to in that scenario, so I would say no. She did however intend for her son to rule in place of Viserys, so him being put aside at some point was in the cards for her.

[mormont]

She couldn't have done anything even if she wanted to in that scenario, so I would say no. She did however intend for her son to rule in place of Viserys, so him being put aside at some point was in the cards for her.

Er... no, she didn't.

We've had that conversation before, I'm sure. Dany at one point pictures her son ruling the Seven Kingdoms, but at no point does she think that he will do so instead of Viserys, nor does she contemplate putting Viserys aside for him, or any such thing. It's a passing thought, which is easily explained, as her unborn son is at that time Viserys' heir. As evidence of a plot to supplant her brother goes, it isn't.