Stannis, raging hypocrite?

[Jory]

I fail to understand how burning people alive because you find it useful is better then burning people alive because of what you belive.

So, he is not a fanatic. He makes people due a horrible death it just because it might help him get the Iron Throne, which, if you believe him, he doesn't even want. And that should warm my heart to him? Really?

The people he's burned so far have all deserved death, one way or another, so I fail to see how burning them is worse than beheading.

[LuisDantas]

Has this been mentioned already in this thread? It seems quite relevant.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1053/

[Jory]

Has this been mentioned already in this thread? It seems quite relevant.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1053/

Uh, how?

[mediocre cheese]

Ned Stark wanted king Stannis on Iron Throne. He did'nt want Renly, Joffrey or any other usurper. If he could contact with Robb, his son would bend a knee before king Stannis.

Do You have any argument for that?

King Stannis helped Night's Watch, when NO ONE wanted to help them. He listened Davos's advice. He listened his Hand. Wow.

/sigh/

I think You simple hate this fictional character, it's all.

I don't want to respond to hostilely to this but, you didn't address anything I wrote and "simply" said I hated this fictional character. Which is nonsense. I dislike a fictional character, just like others are free to like him or dislike him. I like certain fictional characters and dislike others thats the nature of this board. We are all debating fictional characters here. Now I gave clear reasons for disliking stannis, that he burns other people's places of worship, that burns people alive for opposing him, that he is hypocritical and inflicts his moral codes on others all the while failing to abide by them, that he is willing to abrogate the dynastic inheritances of others but objects when it is done to himself. You don't respond to any actual criticisms of him, but endlessly repeat the same fair and just words.

Ned stark supports stannis, but overwhelmingly the people of westeros don't. Barristan supports dany and he is considered a good man, lord tarth supports renly and he is considered a good man, lord rowan is considered a good man and he supports tommen. Like Spock says the many outweigh the few, and the many want someone other than stannis, and the few want him.

Is robert as usurper? If your answer is no, than neither is renly joffrey or tommen. If stannis cared about dynastic laws he would have never supported robert.

I do think Robert was right to give Stannis DS but he probably should have received SE aswel. DS is the seat of the heir apparent and at the time of Roberts ascendancy this was Stannis. Aegon the conquerer killed many kings and lords,took their castles and gave them to others. Thats the spoils of war. The baratheons have as much right to DS and KL as the Targaryens ever did-that of a conquerer. Im not saying thats right but its the way it is.

Actually aegon killed very few lords, and only took castles from those whose line expired. Neither the starks, nor the lannisters, nor the arryns lost their castles. But that is irrelevant. If you believe that castles and ancestral lands are simply the spoils of war, than sure the baratheons could seize dragonstone and hold it for themselves. But the same is true for the freys and boltons. The freys/boltons defeated the tullys/starks in a war and took their castles. And stannis lost the battle of the blackwater and the realm is ruled by tommen and the lannisters. Either might makes right and it should be applied across the board or it isn't.

The targaryen right to ds and kl isn't based on conquest its based on having built those castles and cities. The same as winterfell for the starks. Their is a difference between titles and rule (which no one has any right to) and castles and lands (which you do have a right to). The starks have a right to winterfell, they don't have a right to rule the north. Its the same with the targaryens, they have a right to their ancestral castles and cities (dragonstone and kl), but they don't have a right to rule westeros.

[LuisDantas]

Uh, how?

My fault, sorry. I fixed the link now. It is http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1053/

[Kate Poem]

Is robert as usurper? If your answer is no, than neither is renly joffrey or tommen. If stannis cared about dynastic laws he would have never supported robert.

I think Stannis supported Robert because Robert was his older brother and his liege lord; because life of all Baratheons were in danger. King Aerys killed Rickard and Brandon, ordered Jon Arryn send to him heads of Robert and Ned, who - what could stop him before sending for little Renly's and Stannis's heads?

Theoretically Stannis could do three things to defend a little brother and himself: join to Robert, betray him or close the eyes, put "stoppers" in ears, close mouth and wait. After everything bend a knee before a winner.

For Danaerys Robert is usurper as any other "kings" in Westeros. She has, in some way, right, but she did'nt know about many important things.

Theoretically Joffrey's and Tommen's right to the Iron Throne based on Robert. If Robert was'nt usurper, Joffrey and Tommen were them, because they were'nt Robert's sons.

If Robert was usurper, no one in Westeros had'nt right to the Throne or everyone had rights as good like these Robert's. Joffrey or Tommen, Roose Bolton or Doran Martell.

/sigh/

George Martin is great, his book provoked many emotions. : - )

[Cydal]

He is lord of dragonstone in the same way emmon frey is lord of riverrun and ramsay bolton is lord of winterfell. In that he conquered/stole it from its ancestral inhabitants and now rules it despite having no blood claim to it. And a lord's rights are not absolute. He certainly cannot burn the holy places of his people, any more than a real medieval lord could burn his people's churches.

And the idea that burning the weirwood branches is melisandre's idea is really weak. Stannis claims to be king, he should overrule her. Making the wilidings burn weirwoods was really cruel, and that stannis allowed it showed how weak he is. Killing the millers son's was ramsay's idea, but theon is rightly blamed for it. If you allow someone else's intolerant and petty ideas to be implemented your no better than the idea's originator.

I think you are wrong. if Stannis had no right to Dragonstone, then the Targs had no right to Westeros. They took it (Westeros) by conquest, the same way Stannis did. You can't pick and choose when you want to follow a rule. Stannis burned his sept, One thing this series has taught us( me anyway) is that "Rightful King/Lord" is a relatively relative term. When the Andals arrived, they mostly forcefully converted the First Men inhabitants to the Faith so you can say the Faith is also evil. ahh but that is where the problem is you see, You keep seeing Rhllor as evil because you don;t think it as "Rightful/established" religion. But for a religion to be established, it usually starts first with the existing religion being uprooted forcefully (No pun intended Old gods). So, in the grand scheme of things, R'hllor isn't any worse than the Faith and has as much right to Dragonstone as the faith does.

[Stannis the Great]

And that is the crux. Stannis never had such a chance. His fight for support has been an uphill battle from the very beginning, despite technically having the only legitimate claim. That is politics for you and me. He could claim to be the legitimate heir of Robert all he wants, but that would avail him little, because he falls short in political acceptance. To take an example from AGOT, the Freys were technically bannermen of the Tullys, but saying so does not really make it a true political reality. Stannis's claim to the Iron Throne is no different; it may be justified on a technical level, but that is ultimately of little consequence and less importance. He must convince his subjects that he is worth their allegiance, much as Renly, Robb, and even Joffrey and Balon Greyjoy did.

He saw himself as the rightful heir to Robert and the Iron Throne and acted to claim what he thought was rightfully his. Generally in medieval times you wanted a secure law of inheritance so that you could ensure that your property and title go to the right child or heir. The link you posted describes Salic Law and the right of inheritance via the female line which isn't relevant to this scenario. However the point that inheritance goes down to the one with the greatest strength is relevant. However you can't expect him not to pursue his claim to the throne, by your logic Viserys, Dany, Edward IV, Henry V (in France) and Matilda, etc. should all have given up despite them all being rightful heirs and relative outsiders to the conflict at hand. The feudal system is based on allegiances to an overlord and generally lords want a stable system to preserve their power - the Freys were disliked because they sat on the fence ignoring all feudal dues.

Regarding the fact that he needs to convince the subjects that he is worthy, then what was the excursion to the Wall about? He saw that he needed to save the realm in order to show that he was a capable candidate for the throne. Read the quote in my signature about how Stannis agrees with you and does exactly as you describe.

My recollection is that Renly was indeed quite willing to negotiate with Stannis - and for that matter, with the Tyrells and Starks as well. He would leave Stannis well enough alone if Stannis let him. He most certainly did not attempt to murder Stannis.

That suggests a lack of strategic foresight. Lets say he leaves Renly alone. There are two conceivable outcomes:

• Renly wins the Iron Throne by defeating the Lannisters who have very few allies. The majority of the kingdom would accept him as king and Stannis is completely isolated.
  
• The Lannisters win the Iron Throne, the power of the Storm Lords is diminished and their lands forfeit to the victors. The Tyrells probably would have been executed/exiled and the Reach granted to any of the bannermen who proved loyal to the throne. Stannis would be unable to gain support of the Storm Lords and would be completely isolated.
  

The risk he took by having Renly killed and absorbing everyone but the Tyrells and their bannermen was the best option Stannis could hope for.

It seems to me that you are taking as a premise that Stannis must be considered as a candidate to the throne. However, that is not necessarily true, and certainly not at the expense of other candidates that have actual political acceptance and superior military support. That Stannis decided to cheat his way up by way of assassination does not make his claim any more legitimate ("I had to kill him to get my due" is about as poor a justification as they come, really).

He is considered a candidate to the throne because he is legitimately the heir to Robert who was the last King of the Iron Throne. Look at Dany and Viserys, they were considered candidates despite their lack of political acceptance (outside of Dorne) and military assets. They maintained their respective claims to the throne and slowly built their army. Quite similar to Stannis. By your logic in real life, Henry VII should have just given up his claim to the throne and not seize the opportunity to seize the throne with the overthrow of the Woodvilles by Richard III and the murder of Edward V.

He killed a rival candidate to the throne. One who was just as willing to kill him. I fail to see the problem. Would you feel that Stannis would be more justified had he defeated Renly in battle instead of Mel assassinating him?

Of course. That is exactly why his assassination was not only immoral, but also counterproductive.

He saw the throne as his right and refused to give up his claim. Renly was perfectly willing to kill him for it. One or both of them were going to die because they were both too stubborn. They are both equally at fault here. Stannis just had the advantage because he had Mel.

It was of course wise after a fashion to absorb Renly's troops. But it was also taking advantage of a deeply immoral act, one that he commited exactly to cause that result. That, too, damns his cause and taints his judgement.

It was kill or be killed. Stannis was too stubborn to give up his claim as was Renly.

I beg your pardon? I must have missed the part where Renly threatened Stannis with death. Without that part, your claim of Stannis having "no alternative" just doesn't make sense.

IIRC he lamented to his bannermen that Stannis would have to die in battle.

That is the point. Stannis is not entitled to a chance no matter the price or the lack of proper support. He has to earn his chances just like anyone else.

He does earn it by saving the realm. It took Davos to point it out to him but he does acknowledge it.

That others support Renly instead of him is a fact of life and he must deal with it in a mature way, not cheat and murder his way away from it.

The Tyrells supported Renly because Mace Tyrell saw a chance to put his daughter as Queen and for his blood to rule the kingdoms. You act as if Stannis somehow cheated? This is the Game of Thrones, you need to cheat to survive. Renly cheated by ditching the inheritance laws as did Robert earlier. You have to play your cards when you want to win and that is exactly what every candidate has done (except Ned Stark who refused to seize the opportunity and look where that got him!). Stannis also gave Renly a reasonable alternative by offering to make him heir. We know that Stannis doesn't have sex with his wife and would never have produced a male child with her. Renly would have inherited the Iron Throne without the conflict with his brother if he had just waited.

Why on Westeros would he have to kill Renly in the first place? To make himself the only alternative to Lannister rule? That is a very twisted and self-serving understanding of "need".

He saw the throne as his right. As did Renly.

That he even considered killing an innocent boy such as Edric in the first place shows that he is indeed that stubborn, idiotic Stannis. Considering killing loyal Davos only further damns him.

He has an extremely powerful witch with him trying to convince him to sacrifice Edric Storm who uses all of the weapons in her arsenal. I don't think he even considered executing Davos.

Neither you nor him should expect me to praise him for falling short of being a complete brainless monster, really.

I don't want you to praise him, I want you to accept that he acted reasonably considering his goal to become King. A monster is Tywin Lannister who sends out men to literally rape the Riverlands to correct a slight on the Lannister name as opposed to Stannis who gelds the soldiers who rape wildling women (people the vast majority of Westeros couldn't care less about). A monster is Ramsay Bolton who relishes the idea of torture.

I like Stannis because he is the underdog, has interesting flaws and basically saves the Night's Watch. He's not even my favourite character but because a lot of people unreasonably hate him I have him as my username.

[Kate Poem]

A lot of people think that Stannis is a "Just" man and a man who is "Lawful Neutral" as opposed to "Lawful Evil" and that he's fundamentally a guy just trying to follow his own personal code of ethics to the best.

I can't say I agree.

Littlefinger, not admittedly the best judge of character, highlights for me what a complete HYPOCRITE that Stannis is about just about everything. He persecutes just about everyone who offends his code of honor but Stannis doesn't HAVE any real honor if you take note of it.

Let's do a short little examination of his actions.

* Turned against the Targaryens. Again, this is treason from the part of Stannis and the fact that he continues to act that its NEVER justified just shows what a complete liar he is about everything.

* Stannis is a kinslayer. This is something that is considered the most monstrous crime in all of Westeros and he willingly goes about it with Renly.

* Stannis turns against the Seven. His religious conversion totally appalls me because he shows here that he's willing to go with any force that provides him the kingship. Any promises or prayers he's offered in the past are clearly worthless to him.

* The fact that Stannis takes all of Renly's traitorous bannermen underneath his wing with narly a word so long as they're helping him again shows that he only cares about being king.

* Stannis is an adulterer, it's implied, sleeping with Mel instead of his wife.

I mean, seriously, Stannis observes no code of honor but an INTERPRETATION of his own that benefits him the most.

Yes, he has a lot of self-righteousness but his principles are VERY flexible in my opinion.

1/ Decision about turning against Targaryens was very difficult for Stannis, but he felt he must do it. Life of his older brother, Robert was in danger. He could think if Aerys demanded from Jon Arryn heads of young lord of Storm's End and very new lord of North, nothing will stop Aerys before beheading Stannis and little Renly if Stannis would be sit and wait for nothing. He could, of course, choose the king, take little Renly and bend his knee before Dragon, but... Robert was his brother, head of House Baratheon, his liege and... he knew nothing would stop Aerys before order "fight with your traitorous brother, if you don't do it, I do with you the same what I did with Starks".

2/ Renly was quilty of treason. After Robert's death Stannis become head of House Baratheon, because Stannis was older than Renly. In fact Stannis become Renly's liege lord, because he is older than him.

If - if Renly would be decide kneel before his "nephew", I could understand it. But he had his "brother's children" and his liege lord very deep in...

And he did'nt sacrifice any thought about fact his men will kill his brother in the battle. He only ordered "don't behead his corpse" "Loras, bring mi my brother's sword".

3/ Stannis lost faith in Seven long time a go. After deaths of his parents.

4/ He needed them. He did'nt forget about their doings. He knew who are them, he said it to Davos. Do You think he should behead them all? He was'nt suicidal or mental, I think.

4/ I think the fact he slept with Melisandre is'nt adultery. Not in 100 %.

I think You are wrong then.

[jarl the climber]

The people he's burned so far have all deserved death, one way or another, so I fail to see how burning them is worse than beheading.

Humbartons sons and Sunglass were killed for objecting to the burning and destruction of the sept on dragonstone(Sunglass) and trying to defend it(Humbartons sons). They didn't deserve to die nor was the burning of Alester Florent, he was just trying to make a peace on what were reasonable terms, Stannis could have just removed him as hand. I think Mels spell probaly have more power if the victim dies for what they believe in, its a sacrifice but who knows.

[TheFlayedMan]

* Turned against the Targaryens. Again, this is treason from the part of Stannis and the fact that he continues to act that its NEVER justified just shows what a complete liar he is about everything.

Stannis still struggles with the decision, as seen in ASoS (I think). Blood vs law, hardly an easy decision.

* Stannis is a kinslayer. This is something that is considered the most monstrous crime in all of Westeros and he willingly goes about it with Renly.

There is no proof that says Stannis orders Mel to kill Renly. I think that Mel told him if Renly did not yield, he would die, perhaps by a rogue Kingsguard or whatevs.

* Stannis turns against the Seven. His religious conversion totally appalls me because he shows here that he's willing to go with any force that provides him the kingship. Any promises or prayers he's offered in the past are clearly worthless to him.

Ridiculous. What does Religion have to do with honour? The Seven do nothing. They're fucking statues. R'hllor grants those who follow him the power to see the future, among other things.

* The fact that Stannis takes all of Renly's traitorous bannermen underneath his wing with narly a word so long as they're helping him again shows that he only cares about being king.

How is he supposed to take his rightful throne without men?

* Stannis is an adulterer, it's implied, sleeping with Mel instead of his wife.

It's implied? No, you can't base your argument on what you think is implied.

I mean, seriously, Stannis observes no code of honor but an INTERPRETATION of his own that benefits him the most.

Yes, he has a lot of self-righteousness but his principles are VERY flexible in my opinion.

I haven't read much responses in the thread, so the points mentioned have been likely argued many times already, but this is my opinion.

[The Oncoming Storm]

I will see Stannis/Mel as non-con or dub-con till he reveals otherwise.