Why is the show turning Stannis into a dick?

[Guard of the Rainking]

Yeah, but it's Stannis, so it's wrong. Doesn't matter what he does, it's still wrong!

I'm sorry, but I had to post this.

[Red Tiger]

I'm sorry, but I had to post this.

From this day till your last, you are cool in my book.

[Mikkel]

I'm sorry, but I had to post this.

Apt. Any point you can underscore (or undermine) with Cartman instantly becomes better. Or worse. Whatever it is, It's Wrong™

[johndance]

Stannis is a dick thats why.

'Stannis is a serious, stubborn, unforgiving man with an inflexible sense of duty and justice.' asoiaf wiki

I just don't understand why people are trying to make him appear to be something else. He's a dick. At the same time it's like people think because he's an asshole he is going to die or have a very underwhelming story going forward. He can still be one of the more prominent characters and become whatever is all of the Stannis worshipers here want him to be.

[Guard of the Rainking]

For me the problem with the show Stannis is not that he's a dick but that the show somewhat downplays his betters parts. In the end it all comes down to Melisandre. Every Stannis scene that I dislike in the show has Mel in them. Not pondering over the Robb leech, choosing to burn Gendry after the first usurper had died, only deciding to go to the Wall and sparing Davos after Melisandre told him to, burning his bannermen for being infidels...

[Ingelheim]

The problem is not him being a dick. He's always been a dick. That's the funny part.

The problem is what the show has done to his character. He was ready to kill Davos even after he read the letter. That's a big change in his character.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

You do realize that if Stannis hadn't come to the wall, the Night's Watch would have been wiped out by Mance, right?

So that means it's ok to do what the poster below is saying? He saved them from an attack so he can do what he wants??

His involvement with the NW causes more problems than it actually solves and he wats to have his way all the time without consideration for them.

[Red Tiger]

So that means it's ok to do what the poster below is saying? He saved them from an attack so he can do what he wants??

You're missing the point of my post. He is saying that Stannis appearing made shit worse, this is a logical fallacy considering that if he didn't appear the NW would have been utterly wiped out. If Stannis hadn't appeared the NW would have had the problem of being dead, which is a much bigger problem than any of the ones Stannis makes.

Yes he takes their supplies and weapons, he needs to secure the North first to appease the NOrthern lords. He needs a unified NOrth AND the NW to take on the others. "He causes more problems", yes he is causing a couple problems NOW, so he can avoid about a hundred later. Jon might not like it now, but it IS necessary. Stannis needs the North pacified, then needs to arm the North and NW with weapons from Dragonstone and lead them against the WW, cause the NW and wildlings aren't enough.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

nvm

[Beric175]

I said he did the right thing by helping them but he's still an asshole for reminding them how much indebted to him the NW is because of this. if you're altruistic you don't shove it into people's faces. The total definition of an arrogant dick. It also doesn't help that his mere presence there goes against the apolitical nature of the Night's Watch and causes tensions that ultimately end in Jon 'dying'.

[Red Tiger]

I said he did the right thing by helping them but he's still an asshole for reminding them how much indebted to him the NW is because of this. if you're altruistic you don't shove it into people's faces. The total definition of an arrogant dick. It also doesn't help that his mere presence there goes against the apolitical nature of the Night's Watch and causes tensions that ultimately end in Jon 'dying'.

I was with you until you said this. Yes if you are altruistic you don't throw it in someone's face, what you fail to point out is that Stannis never painted himself an altruist, he is very pragmatic and he saved the NW because he would eventually need them to take out the others. There is nothing wrong with calling in a debt, is it nice? No, but just because you're not nice does not automatically make you an arrogant dick.

I find it pretty laughable that you basically blame him for Jon's eventual death, completely ignoring the fact that it was Jon who bargained with Stannis for the wildlings. Yes Stannis made demands of Jon, but Jon made some demands of his own and the breaking of the NW's neutrality was Jon's decision, he was not forced into doing so.

[Beric175]

But lets face it Jon more or less had to make concessions to Stannis if he wanted to have the Wall adequately defended. It's not that I say that Stannis is directly responsible but he's been told that the NW does not take sides and so he should have foreseen that his demands might cause tensions and hence he should have been content with defending the Wall instead of making all these demands that Jon was more or less obligated to discuss out of necessity due to the small numbers of the NW, which is something Stannis knew. Someone who does his duty just does it because he knows it will help other people but that's not a concern to Stannis because it's all ultimately about him and his own person. It's the only way he can complain about other people's failings because he feels uncomfortable with himself and his asocial personality and so doing his duty is just a means to feel better about himself, not about helping others. You might not care what the motivations behind someone's actions are but I do, hence why Stannis is a dick in my opinion because other people are not his concern as long as it's not demanded of him to consider them. His concern is to uphold the law but what if those laws are unjust or curel? is he going to chage them? I doubt it because he has not shown to me to be flexible enough to make a moral decision that defies an unjust law so far but he okays people burning at the stake even though he does not believe the R'hllor stuff except when it's about flattering his own ego by saying he's Azor Ahai?

Yeah, I'm not too fond of Stannis. I recognize that sometimes he does a morally right thing but it loses some of its value when the primary concern is not helping other people but living up to his duty and so he just does not want to disappoint himself, and so it's all about him. Calling in a debt is one thing. Making the other person feel like they have to always remember that they owe you for the one good thing you did and hence should treat you like a king is something else entirely. The fact that Stannis never lets bygones be bygones is also not helping him in my opinion because at best it makes him look stubborn, at worst it makes him look spiteful and petty depending on the situation at hand, like Walder Frey dwelling on past slights.

[Tywin Lannister_]

I don't think he's a dick. Then again, Tywin Lannister is my favorite character so I must be crazy.

[Cold Feet]

No, in the books Mance was much more hostile and he even threatened to tear down the Wall.

In the show we are led to believe Mance and Jon got to a peaceful arrangement before Stannis interrupts

It was NOT a peaceful arrangement in the show. It started out that way until Jon glanced at the knife & everyone goes apeshit (sort of, with Mance having his people chill for a sec). Mance says, "ah thats why you're here, I think you'd be able to do it before they stop you, but they'll kill you, slow, but you knew that...are you capable of killing a man in his own tent when he's just offered you peace... blahblahblah is that what the NW is? ***EVERYONE IS ON EDGE ABOUT TO FUCK JON UP***" THEN, you hear the horn & Stannis' forces moving in. Show Stannis saved Jon & the nights watch, seconds before he moved in, the agreement talks between Mance & Jon went sour, very quickly.

[Guard of the Rainking]

It was NOT a peaceful arrangement in the show. It started out that way until Jon glanced at the knife & everyone goes apeshit (sort of, with Mance having his people chill for a sec). Mance says, "ah thats why you're here, I think you'd be able to do it before they stop you, but they'll kill you, slow, but you knew that...are you capable of killing a man in his own tent when he's just offered you peace... blahblahblah is that what the NW is? ***EVERYONE IS ON EDGE ABOUT TO FUCK JON UP***" THEN, you hear the horn & Stannis' forces moving in. Show Stannis saved Jon & the nights watch, seconds before he moved in, the agreement talks between Mance & Jon went sour, very quickly.

As a bonus the show also shows the Boltons' way of dealing with invaders in episode 8. There's no way that Roose would let them "hide behind the Wall" peacefully.

[Guard of the Rainking]

But lets face it Jon more or less had to make concessions to Stannis if he wanted to have the Wall adequately defended. It's not that I say that Stannis is directly responsible but he's been told that the NW does not take sides and so he should have foreseen that his demands might cause tensions and hence he should have been content with defending the Wall instead of making all these demands that Jon was more or less obligated to discuss out of necessity due to the small numbers of the NW, which is something Stannis knew. Someone who does his duty just does it because he knows it will help other people but that's not a concern to Stannis because it's all ultimately about him and his own person. It's the only way he can complain about other people's failings because he feels uncomfortable with himself and his asocial personality and so doing his duty is just a means to feel better about himself, not about helping others. You might not care what the motivations behind someone's actions are but I do, hence why Stannis is a dick in my opinion because other people are not his concern as long as it's not demanded of him to consider them. His concern is to uphold the law but what if those laws are unjust or curel? is he going to chage them? I doubt it because he has not shown to me to be flexible enough to make a moral decision that defies an unjust law so far but he okays people burning at the stake even though he does not believe the R'hllor stuff except when it's about flattering his own ego by saying he's Azor Ahai?

Yeah, I'm not too fond of Stannis. I recognize that sometimes he does a morally right thing but it loses some of its value when the primary concern is not helping other people but living up to his duty and so he just does not want to disappoint himself, and so it's all about him. Calling in a debt is one thing. Making the other person feel like they have to always remember that they owe you for the one good thing you did and hence should treat you like a king is something else entirely. The fact that Stannis never lets bygones be bygones is also not helping him in my opinion because at best it makes him look stubborn, at worst it makes him look spiteful and petty depending on the situation at hand, like Walder Frey dwelling on past slights.

Stannis is able to forgive people, he just doesn't forget what they did. He pardoned the Stormlords, he wanted to send pardons to the Iron Islands, the North and the Riverlands after Balon and Robb had died, he says that in the end he loved his brothers, he forgave all of the Northern lords except the Boltons for their rebellion, he let's the Wildlings pass through the Wall...

[Mikkel]

Yeah, I'm not too fond of Stannis. I recognize that sometimes he does a morally right thing but it loses some of its value when the primary concern is not helping other people but living up to his duty and so he just does not want to disappoint himself, and so it's all about him. Calling in a debt is one thing. Making the other person feel like they have to always remember that they owe you for the one good thing you did and hence should treat you like a king is something else entirely. The fact that Stannis never lets bygones be bygones is also not helping him in my opinion because at best it makes him look stubborn, at worst it makes him look spiteful and petty depending on the situation at hand, like Walder Frey dwelling on past slights.

Fair point. Let me ask you a question though:

Would you rather have

1) A person who does good things, sometimes for selfish reasons

or

2) A person who does terrible things even if they're trying to do good?

and, the kicker is, which of these two would you prefer to lead your country in a time of crisis?

Is the intention always - or ever - more important than the end result?

For the record, Stannis does let bygones be bygones, grudgingly perhaps, but he does accept the political necessity of it.

[Chatty Duelist]

I don't think he's a dick. Then again, Tywin Lannister is my favorite character so I must be crazy.

Results and all that, am I right?

[James Arryn]

Addressing this whole Stannis/Dragonstone thing.

Leaving

So the argument goes that Stannis left for his own safety.

Ok, well...sure. But without even trying to tell Robert or Renly, he's kind of putting himself ahead of his...what's the word for a course of action you are morally and ethically bound to pursue, even at a danger to yourself...? I'll get there, I'm sure. Meanwhile, I'll call it ditty. He's pretty much putting himself above his ditty. Doesn't matter if he thinks Robert will believe him...that's not how ditty works. If ditty were something you only did when it didn't potentially cost you, it wouldn't be called ditty, but convenience. He had a ditty as a Brother, as a Member of a small Council, and as a subject a Lord. Stannis made a choice, and ditty came second at best. He left his brother and King in the midst of a nest of assassination-happy traitors, and he left knowing only the assassination-happy traitors understood the situation.

And lo and behold, the king ahead of him in succession and the Hand he resented were caught short and died. Who could have seen that coming?

Sulking-waiting.

This is where it gets fugly.

I tried to point out yesterday that as a defender of Stannis, it absolutely behooved one to call it sulking because the alternative was much worse, but that didn't work, so here we are. Buckle your seat belts, Stanfans, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

1) If his own safety was the reason he fled, why didn't he send any word for over a year once he got there? At that point he's safe and secure, and Robert isn't. So...why nothing? Not even no word, but he repeatedly ignores summons, Ravens, councils...all the while knowing the man ahead of him in the line of succession (and his resented Hand) are surrounded by murderous traitors and don't know it. Even if he wasn't your brother, lord or King, wouldn't common decency suggest letting him know?

What...aside from the obvious...was he waiting for?

2) This ridiculous notion that Stannis believed silence was the safest course for Robert.

First off, this would be the only time in his life Stannis has seen something seriously wrong/unjust/illegal and kept quiet about it. I mean...Stannis?

But more to the point, he fled because he was in danger. Ergo he knew and they knew he knew, and they kill people who know.

SO WHY WOULD HE ASSUME THEY WOULD ASSUME HE WOULD KEEP QUIET ABOUT IT?

Why wouldn't he assume that the Lannisters assume everything is one raven, one ship, one Stannis away from disaster? If he sees Jon Arryn's death as confirmation, what does he think they think Arryn's death tells him? Why is he gambling Robert's life on an assumption that his deadly, treasonous enemies will pretend nothing has happened, and that Stannis fucking Baratheon will keep quiet about treason, murder, injustice, AND THE THING WHICH MAKES HIM HEIR TO THE THRONE?

If you want a more interesting question, forget Stannis for a second and ponder the fact that Cersei et al DID assume Stannis would say nothing...we know Cersei...what would she be assuming Stannis is waiting for? What motive would she ascribe to someone in Stannis' position leaving his brother/King out to dry?

But anyways, back to Mr. Duty...oh, yeah, I was just pretending to forget earlier. So Stannis has knowledge that the Queen is sleeping with her KG brother, that the heirs to the throne are not the king's children, that they murdered the King's chief advisor to prevent Robert finding out, and that they know that Stannis (his brother and the man who would be heir if this gets out) knows all, lost his bottle and hightailed it to Dragonstone.

And he does nothing. Says nothing. Tells no one. Restricts access to DS from the outside world, ignores various duties and obligations, sends no reply to Ravens asking wtf, and...waits.

What was Stannis Baratheon waiting for?

3) lol @ 'preparing'. This is going to get embarrassing, folks.

So, in DS he can clearly gather no new information, so his apologists suggest he was 'preparing', to which I say 'indeed, but what for?'

He gathers ships and, eventually, a small group of meh men.

How exactly was this meant to help/save Robert? He was going to invade Robert's capital, and then tell him about the plot? Really? The man worried that a 'hey, Bob' would be misconstrued is planning to attack Bob's city and apparently Bob himself in order to keep things clear? And to do that he's gathered an ineffective band of brothers who couldn't even take Storm's End without witchcraft. This makes sense to...anyone?

Or is it something else? How does gathering ships in any way help Robert? What possible course of action proceeds here where ships stop assassinations? And why does it take the leader of the Royal Fleet a year and a half to do it?

He knows...or thinks he knows...Cersei's methods. Assassination. She doesn't need to engage in warfare or gather a fleet, she has to kill the man in her bed. That's all. Nothing Stannis' ships can do could possibly stop her from doing that. Sending word could. Coming and telling all could. Gathering your fleet only serves Stannis after Robert dies.

In the meanwhile, not only does it do nothing to secure Robert, but Stannis is in no position to even know if/when the Lannister's move on King Bob.

Until after he's dead, obviously. Which, whattya know, is when he acts.

So, to sum up, on Dragonstone, Stannis does absolutely nothing to help Robert. Doesn't send word, doesn't come with enough men to keep him safe and explain, doesn't even answer inquiring Ravens and Royal summons. He's in no position to know if or when Robert is in immediate danger except for the 'always' answer which is the obvious interpretation. He also knows that they know he knows, and being acquainted with strategy, understands that they are therefore in a position of extreme advantage over ignorant Bob, and knowing it's all one word from him away from exploding, presumably will act sooner than later.

Robert, his brother, his Lord, and his King, is a sitting duck and only Stannis and Robert's enemies know it.

And Stannis...waits.

For a year and a half. Even when everything does go down, Stannis doesn't act like a man who was 'prepared' to save Robert, somehow...he's beaten to the punch by several others. Wtf has he been preparing for over a year? What did his waiting accomplish?

Oh, right...there is that. He's now the Rightful King, etc. He has no new evidence, he has no more of a legal case than he had previously. The only difference between when he actively did nothing and when he does everything is that instead of Robert's crown, he's now acting on behalf of his own.

At this point maybe you'll see why 'sulking' is by a mile the best defence you can offer for Stannis' actions?

Last point, what does Stannis have to say about all of this? Does he express regret that letting Robert hang out to dry didn't somehow save him? Does he recall with sadness all the 'what are you doing?' ravens from Robert, or Ned? Is he haunted by imagining their plight, their being caught flat-footed and killed by a danger only he, Stannis Baratheon, could have warned them about?

No. He talks a lot about how much Robert should have done for him, and a lot about how Robert mistreated him. He mentions Proudwing. He rants about Storm's End. He chafes about Ned being named Hand. He reminisces about the time Robert spoiled his wedding. Etc.

Not sure if y'all watch legal programs that talk about things like means, motive, and opportunity, but it might lead to an interesting discussion if you did. Just saying.

I did try to warn you.

Edit: lol, I'll leave it because it applies, but actually meant more for another thread.

[Guard of the Rainking]

Nice post. I think I already answered the leaving part in another thread ("Stannis' honor" or something like that), so I'll just answer to the waiting part. I think that Stannis believes/knows that Robert only truly trusts two people: Jon Arryn and Ned Stark. So he needs either one of those two to tell Robert the truth. He probably believes that if anyone else told Robert the truth he wouldn't believe it, and he would see all the other attemptents of telling him the truth after that as ploys. So why can't he send someone to Ned? Unlike with Jon Arryn Stannis doesn't know Ned personally, and they have probably met only a few times. If Ned got the information from Stannis he might in Stannis' eyes just dismiss it and show it to Robert, and the thing that I mentioned earlier would happen.

I think it's pretty hilarious that HBO might have cut what might have been Stannis' biggest dick move. BTW if you're going to answer could you keep it from possibly starting a flame war since this has nothing to do with the show?