Robert, Renly, or Stannis

[JKeats]

Residents of the castle are free to go outside the castle to worship then. It's not like he's going to outlaw the worship itself.

As to the weirwood branches, the wildlings were defeated in battle. They were an invading force, and they lost. The terms of the post-conflict peace were that they could either 1) go back north of the Wall, where they would be free to live and worship as they please, or 2) pass south of the wall, accept Stannis as king, and abandon their old gods. Those a surprisingly generous terms really. Not to mention Stannis never set up an inquisition to make sure they didn't return to the old gods. The burning of the branches was mostly symbolic. Nor did those branches belong to anybody, so he didn't confiscate another's property to do it.

He did not demand that the people of the North such as the mountain clans abandon their faith because they were never a defeated foe. Victors get to determine the terms of the peace.

[JKeats]

Actually, let's try a thought experiment. Suppose groups of wildlings turn up at the Wall and ask to be let in. They don't threaten to make war, they just want to live south of the wall. They're immigrants essentially.

Stannis is king in this scenario and is considering letting them pass. These wildlings, who have not made war on the realm, swear to obey the laws of the land and live in peace, but would like to retain their faith. Does anybody seriously think he would demand that they convert first? That makes no sense. He doesn't expect it of the northerners after all.

[Talleyrand]

As for Renly, I feel like he would be the easiest to influence over the other brothers and was slightly cowardly, which is horrible for a King. I say this because of his actions when he was actually King, slowly making his way to Kings Landing instead of rushing to the city to conquer Joffrey and take the throne for himself.

I still am unable to see how Renly's slow advance North was a bad move. The longer he takes to move is the longer KL goes without supplies from the Reach, which it desperately needs, which as we saw turns the public against Joffrey and more in favour of Renly. Also as a plus of taking the long route is that Tywin, who at the time would be considered the greatest threat to the Southern army is being bled in the Riverlands. With the loss of Jaime's 15K and Stafford's 10 plus several hundred/ maybe a thousand from his own host there's not that much chance he could pose much of a threat to Renly. If he had gone straight for KL Tywin could have taken his full host and probably most or some of Jaime's and reinforced KL.

[mediocre cheese]

Residents of the castle are free to go outside the castle to worship then. It's not like he's going to outlaw the worship itself.

"Pray in the fields peasants" eh? "This is my castle, (even though you actually live here and I've spent the last 10 years in KL) and I get to burn your places of worship because I'm the lord"

[JKeats]

He just did some redecorating.

More seriously, there is a village on Dragonstone island which most likely has a sept. I grant the text does not explicitly state this, but it seems probable. They can pray there.

[mediocre cheese]

Edit:

Fuck it, you have your opinion, I have mine (that burning a place of worship that others use and than telling people to "pray elsewhere" is horrible and unacceptable), this debate is going nowhere.

[Noimporta]

I still am unable to see how Renly's slow advance North was a bad move. The longer he takes to move is the longer KL goes without supplies from the Reach, which it desperately needs, which as we saw turns the public against Joffrey and more in favour of Renly.

It is certainly not a bad military move, yes. But you said it yourself, he was essentially starving the probably most densely populated city in the seven kingdoms to death, a city filled with civilians that had nothing to do with the war except which side of the wall they were on.

[Arkh]

Stannis is just so uncompromisingly ambitious in the worst of situations, he has my vote. He's definitely the underdog, and my personal favourite.

[JKeats]

He may well have made a mistake about cannibalism. It's treated much more casually in ACoK before becoming a monstrous crime in ADwD. Just like how it was perfectly normal for Jaime to inherit Casterly Rock in AGoT before becoming impossible in ASoS. But small villages do indeed have septs. Catelyn prayed at one shortly before Renly's death.

As for the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, if indeed the Taliban was the legitimate sovereign government over the territory in which the statues rested (which is debatable), they had every right to do with them as they wished. I would be strongly against destroying Mount Rushmore for example, but if somehow the legitimate (this is important) authority of the US was deployed in removing the heads, there's nothing unlawful about it.

[mediocre cheese]

As for the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, if indeed the Taliban was the legitimate sovereign government over the territory in which the statues rested (which is debatable), they had every right to do with them as they wished. I would be strongly against destroying Mount Rushmore for example, but if somehow the legitimate (this is important) authority of the US was deployed in removing the heads, there's nothing unlawful about it.

See this is why I deleted that comment. Because earlier I just disagreed with you regarding a character in a fantasy book. Now I think you have politically abhorrent views on real-world issues. Some things are better left unsaid.

Edit:

Whatever one thinks about the level of morality in a fantasy book, it is never okay in the real world for a government to destroy the religious heritage and buildings of a minority (or of the majority for that matter) . The taliban was universally condemned for doing so, (as were hindus who destroyed the babri mosque) and rightly so. It was unacceptable and remains so.

[Stannis the Great]

Yes, as a matter of fact she does.

That's good. Most of the arguments I've read about the issue deal with whether the execution was justified rather than the method of execution. Dany gets a lot of abuse from the readers but most of it seems centred around Meereen and Daario (who admittedly I really really dislike but she gets a pass because of hormones).

Regarding the assassination of Renly, what else was Stannis to do? We know that he's one of the most stubborn people in the series when it comes to what he perceives as his birthright. If he had battled Renly then he would have lost. If he had just given up then that's not Stannis.

Do we know if Renly's death was even (relatively) painful? What I think most people take issue with is that Stannis 'cheated' by resorting to supernatural means (if he was aware of every particular detail of the assassination) and that there was nothing Renly could do to stop it. While I dislike the intrusion of magic into what should be a very interesting political novel you can't really blame Stannis for resorting to all of the weapons in his arsenal.

[JKeats]

See this is why I deleted that comment. Because earlier I just disagreed with you regarding a character in a fantasy book. Now I think you have politically abhorrent views on real-world issues. Some things are better left unsaid.

Or more likely I can keep a healthy separation between what is acceptable in a fantasy universe and what is acceptable in real life.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Forever supporting Stannis. :wub:

[LuisDantas]

The assassination of Renly. Oh for goodness sake, the guy was a traitor and usurper. He earned an execution. The manner of his death ultimately saved a lot of lives. It's a shame the making of the shadow assassin is so expensive (in terms of "life force"). Elsewise Stannis ought to use them more often really.

That is taking a foregone conclusion and using it to justify the means, you realize.

First of all, Renly was by no means a traitor OR a usurper. He betrayed no one, and he took no throne. He was a self-proclaimed King, much as Stannis himself. It is true that Stannis had the support of the letter of the law once the incest was officially recognized - however, it is just as true that Stannis lacked that recognition. He was not sitting in the Iron Throne, Joffrey was. Renly never swore fealty to either Stannis or Joffrey, and he most certainly deposed neither, so I just don't see how he could be a traitor or usurper instead of a rebel, more properly a claimant King. Same as Stannis, really.

But much more serious is the utter moral disgrace of such assassination tactics. It is so damned low that it can only be explained by Melisandre influence or major psychological disturbance in Stannis (or both). Stannis, for all his failings and shortcomings, is a man who values proper procedure and an experienced military man. He knows all too well that calling his opponents armies to the field and then sending a silent assassin to kill his opponent commander in the quiet under such false pretext is dishonorable to the point of being unforgivable. Such military ethics were rarely even heard of until some decades after World War II, and in the context of Westeros are best compared to the Red Wedding. Soldiers are expected to prove their merit by risking life and limb against their enemies, and Kings and other military commanders are expected to prove theirs by the size, courage and skill of their armies.

Stannis cheated. He disrespected those understandings and took a dishonorable, kinslaying shortcut. He forfeited the default degree of respect that a King claimant was due. He became a coward hypocrite right then and there. And if he is telling himself that he did not expect Melisandre to kill Renly, he is even worse, because that is an obvious lie.

There is still time for him to redeem himself by, for instance, becoming Lord Command of the Night's Watch, a task that he is superbly suited for. But King material, that he is most certainly not. Melisandre influenced him, but it was his gross failure to be weak enough to listen to her in the first place.

As for him not forcing the faith of R'hlorr on anyone... I can only assume people haven't been reading the last few chapters of ASOS very well, nor grasping the point of burning statues of the seven gods. Stannis is very explicitly demanding people to let go of the "false gods" and accept R'hloor as the only true god, even if he is not much of a believer himself. Besides being politically unsound, such an attitude is also grave hypocrisy, but Stannis has proven to be a hypocrite already ever since he killed Renly.

When ship comes to shove, Stannis is the weakest of the Baratheon brothers. And deep down he knows that full well. So well that he hides behind a shield of superficially proper behavior. Donal Noye said that he was like iron, bound to break before breaking, and it turns out that he is broken already. He lost his principles and he has nothing else to sustain him.

[Catastrophe]

Donal Noye summed it up best: "Robert was the true steel. Stannis is pure iron, black and hard and strong, yes, but brittle, the way iron gets. He'll break, before he bends. And Renly, that one, he's copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day."

Robert had the most potential, but after becoming king he went to rust. He never should have taken the throne. As for Renly and Stannis, they were prideful and stubborn fools who stupidly made war on each other, giving the Lannisters exactly the opportunity they needed to win. I really liked Renly a lot at first, and I was upset when he died, but in retrospect he was too vain and shallow. I don't think he'd have been a horrible king, but I also doubt he'd have been a good one. At best he would've been another Robert, an ineffectual but charismatic figurehead who could've kept the realm at peace for a short time while ignoring how everything was falling apart around him. As for Stannis, while I like him more than I first did, I still have some major problems with him: His unflinching stubbornness, his blatant hypocrisy, and his excessively harsh sense of "justice," which can often seem arbitrary to everyone but him. Most of all, I can't look past his support of a monster like Melisandre, and his willingness to commit all manner of atrocities in order to win his crown.

The strange thing is, at this point I actually hope Stannis ends up winning. Right now he's the best King in the running, even if it is because all the better ones are dead. For all his flaws he's still a much better choice than the deceitful and treacherous opportunists currently holding the throne, the murderous reavers looting and killing and raping their way across the continent, or the army of foreign invaders massing across the narrow sea. He's also the only one to give a damn about the living extinction event coming down from beyond the Wall, so that wins him a few points in my book. Still think he was the worst of the three, though.

Ultimately, I don't think any of the Baratheon brothers were ever fit to rule Storm's End, let alone all of Westeros. At least Robert was able to overthrow the Mad King, though, and he did keep the realm together for a little while. I'd say he was the best of them, not that it's saying much.

[mor2]

But much more serious is the utter moral disgrace of such assassination tactics. It is so damned low that it can only be explained by Melisandre influence or major psychological disturbance in Stannis (or both). Stannis, for all his failings and shortcomings, is a man who values proper procedure and an experienced military man. He knows all too well that calling his opponents armies to the field and then sending a silent assassin to kill his opponent commander in the quiet under such false pretext is dishonorable to the point of being unforgivable. Such military ethics were rarely even heard of until some decades after World War II, and in the context of Westeros are best compared to the Red Wedding. Soldiers are expected to prove their merit by risking life and limb against their enemies, and Kings and other military commanders are expected to prove theirs by the size, courage and skill of their armies.

I dont think he called Renly armies to the field and I dont think that there is anything dishonourable in his actions. while assassination usually considered distasteful or unhonorable thing, it's also an option that every good ruler must consider, I doubt that even Ned would have objected to assassinating Dany, if she was actually ready to invade westeros at the head of 40K army. Also the Red Wedding taint on the Frays is not for not showing their prowess in battle, but about oaths, betrayal and custom's.

There is still time for him to redeem himself by, for instance, becoming Lord Command of the Night's Watch, a task that he is superbly suited for. But King material, that he is most certainly not. Melisandre influenced him, but it was his gross failure to be weak enough to listen to her in the first place.

I dont see this happening but indeed he would have been a great Lord commander.

Melisandre influenced him, but it was his gross failure to be weak enough to listen to her in the first place.

True, the only reason he listened to her and later went to save the wall, was because the he was to weak and out of options after the failure at kings landing.

[DukeTheGold]

I still am unable to see how Renly's slow advance North was a bad move. The longer he takes to move is the longer KL goes without supplies from the Reach, which it desperately needs, which as we saw turns the public against Joffrey and more in favour of Renly. Also as a plus of taking the long route is that Tywin, who at the time would be considered the greatest threat to the Southern army is being bled in the Riverlands. With the loss of Jaime's 15K and Stafford's 10 plus several hundred/ maybe a thousand from his own host there's not that much chance he could pose much of a threat to Renly. If he had gone straight for KL Tywin could have taken his full host and probably most or some of Jaime's and reinforced KL.

Wasn't a bad military move, no. But Renly's strongest point on his resume is that "he cares about the smallfolks". As the war prolongs, it's not the great lords that suffer, it's the smallfolks in Riverland, Westernland, and King's Landing. Renly had the strength to overrun King's Landing and the Lannisters through sheer number, ending the war within a month. Instead Renly delayed and feasted.

[Arrogant Bastard]

For me, it's easily Stannis. Robert was a good character, but pretty one-dimensional and barely lasts through half of the first book. I never cared for Renly that much; seemed arrogant, and really does not do anything of note.

For some reason, I enjoy reading about Stannis and his no-nonsense, rigid approach to just about everything. I also like how blunt he is with everyone. Consider during the parlay scene before Renly arrives, he responds to Catelyn's wish to be reunited with her daughters that he would send them to her if he found them when taking over KL, in a tone implying "dead or alive". That kind of cracked me up. Plus, he seems genuine in his desire to rule, and it's not based on glory or wealth but entirely on his moral code. I also think he would easily make the best ruler out of the three Baratheon brothers. He holds honor as high as Ned, but is not naive in politics. For instance, I think as king he would immediately banish the political schemers like Littlefinger and Varys.

In fact, I would go so far as to say Stannis is one of my favorite characters in the whole series, probably top ten.

[Candor]

I dont think he called Renly armies to the field and I dont think that there is anything dishonourable in his actions. while assassination usually considered distasteful or unhonorable thing, it's also an option that every good ruler must consider, I doubt that even Ned would have objected to assassinating Dany, if she was actually ready to invade westeros at the head of 40K army. Also the Red Wedding taint on the Frays is not for not showing their prowess in battle, but about oaths, betrayal and custom's.

I dont see this happening but indeed he would have been a great Lord commander.

True, the only reason he listened to her and later went to save the wall, was because the he was to weak and out of options after the failure at kings landing.

Davos was the one that convinced Stannis to go North.

[salt]

"Pray in the fields peasants" eh? "This is my castle, (even though you actually live here and I've spent the last 10 years in KL) and I get to burn your places of worship because I'm the lord"

Those terms given to me by the victorious side I just unsuccessfully attacked, along with being protected from ice demons who will turn me and everyone I know into zombies? Yeah, sounds like a pretty good deal to me, better than a lot of people in Westeros have gotten in the past couple of years.