496 replies to this topic

[Feather Crystal]

It Rhymes With Meek, on 06 March 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

It's slightly silly to quote the wiki in support of this position, given that the only reference it lists is the Theon gift chapter that's the very thing in question.

"Tell me, then.  Where are these two trained to fly?"
Maester Tybald did not answer.  Theon Greyjoy kicked his feet feebly, and laughed under his breath.  Caught!

Note that Theon only says "Caught!" after Stannis asks the maester where they are trained to fly to and he hesitates to respond.

"Answer me.  If we were to loose these birds, would they return to the Dreadfort?"  The king leaned forward.  "Or might they fly for Winterfell instead?"

Note that if "Dreadfort" is not an error this question is pointless: either Dreadfort or Winterfell would come to the same thing.  If Maester Tybald sent a raven directly to Winterfell, the Boltons would receive the message.  If he instead sent a raven to the Dreadfort, the Dreadfort would then send a raven on to Winterfell and the Boltons would still get the message.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong and it's not an error, but these things would still be rather odd and require some sort of explanation, I think.

OK...I agree that it can get tedious reading every single post under this subject and this is the 4th continuation, but if you had viewed them all you would have already read this discussion!

Stannis already knows that Tybald is from the Dreadfort and that he is one of the Bolton's maesters. BUT, he suspects that the reason he is with Lord Arnolf is because Karhold has aligned with Bolton. He is confirming his suspicions by accusing Tybald of having ravens that are trained to fly back to Winterfell. Stannis is trying to confirm as to why a Dreadfort maester would be with Karhold? If he was strictly with Arnolf as a captured "prisoner" tending to Arnolf's wounded, his ravens would ONLY fly to the Dreadfort. How would he have ravens that can fly to Winterfell unless he was planted by Bolton's command? When Stannis asks him where the ravens were trained to fly, Tybald hesitates. That's when Theon thinks to himself, "Caught!" and Tybald pisses himself because he's knows he's been found out.

[Feather Crystal]

sorry, double post.

Edited by Melisandra, 06 March 2012 - 01:42 PM.

[It Rhymes With Meek]

Melisandra, on 06 March 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

OK...I agree that it can get tedious reading every single post under this subject and this is the 4th continuation, but if you had viewed them all you would have already read this discussion!

I have actually read a large majority of them-- I'm not persuaded yet though, I fear.

Melisandra, on 06 March 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

Stannis already knows that Tybald is from the Dreadfort and that he is one of the Bolton's maesters. BUT, he suspects that the reason he is with Lord Arnolf is because Karhold has aligned with Bolton. He is confirming his suspicions by accusing Tybald of having ravens that are trained to fly back to Winterfell. Stannis is trying to confirm as to why a Dreadfort maester would be with Karhold? If he was strictly with Arnolf as a captured "prisoner" tending to Arnolf's wounded, his ravens would ONLY fly to the Dreadfort. How would he have ravens that can fly to Winterfell unless he was planted by Bolton's command? When Stannis asks him where the ravens were trained to fly, Tybald hesitates. That's when Theon thinks to himself, "Caught!" and Tybald pisses himself because he's knows he's been found out.

The idea that the Karstarks are pretending that Tybald is their captive seems problematic to me, and also seems to be pretty important for your case.  What is your evidence for this?  And what do you think the story is that the Karstarks are telling about how Tybald came to be their captive?  

That is, how are the Karstarks supposed to have a captive from the Bolton household at this point? They haven't fought any battles against them.  Was he supposed to have been taken more or less by himself, with little or no guard?  In the Karstarks' story he would also have to have been captured with his raven cages.

"To his wounded?  Or his ravens?"  

"Both, Your Grace."

If Tybald is supposed to be a captive from your enemy's household why would you openly and freely let him tend ravens that would fly straight to that enemy's seat? Even more: recall that Tybald has already sent a message with one of his ravens--again, ravens which are thought to fly to the Dreadfort!  What story are the Karstarks telling about these things? Are they just crossing their fingers and hoping no one notices?

Edited by It Rhymes With Meek, 06 March 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[Ghost714]

Nymeria, on 06 March 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

I see your point. Applying my own moral code to a fictional story is like viewing history though a 21st century lens...it is not applicable. I mean I can apply my morals to the fiction world in some ways (like twincest, come on...ick), but sometimes you have to suspend belief. I guess that is what good fiction is all about. Or better yet, good fiction is making me like someone whom I previously detested (i.e. Stannis, Jamie, the Hound). I agree with you that Stannis has seen some crazy stuff and in his position I would be incline to burn a few people if it helped my cause, especially since many of his men believe it. The whole R'hllor thing felt evil to me (the birthing of shadow killers, creepy) until the we got the view of Lord Beric, Thoros, and the other red priests who seem to have real power and abilities linked to their god. Thanks for giving me another way to look at this

Your very welcome.
I'm glad someone else looks at it that way, I thought I was going to be ridiculed as a mad man, "for condoning the burning of people alive". Even though I wasn't saying that at all. Anyways I appreciate your rational views on the subject.

Edit. I agree with others who have said, Maester Tybald is Maester of the Dreadfort, not Karhold! And I can't wait until GRRM confirms this.

Edited by Ghost714, 06 March 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[Bran Vras]

I have said already that the maester situation in the Dreadfort is curious.

1) Roose went south to war without any maester.
2) He did not go to Winterfell with his maester.
3) His ally, Lady Dustin, hates maesters, and doesn't seem to have one.
4) When he talks to Theon about Domeric's death, he mentions in the present tense maester Uthor.
5) When Theon is prisoner at the Dreadfort, he is brought to the Great Hall and sees the whole of the Dreadfort for a feast in honour of the visiting  Karstarks. No maester is present.
6) In the later Theon chapters the maester of the Dreadfort is never mentioned, not even to note his absence when Theon sees that other maesters tend the raven in Winterfell.
7) At the Dreadfort, a cell is occupied by an unidentified prisoner that the Walders mistook momentarily for Theon.

How about this. The maester at the Dreadfort is in the cell, because, just like Lady Dustin, Roose hates maesters. The Karstarks have come to take with them the maester to Karhold. The maester is just as terrified as Theon is and doesn't dare to rebel against the Boltons. It seems that there is no maester in activity when Theon is at the Dreadfort.

Edited by Bran Vras, 06 March 2012 - 06:15 PM.

[Feather Crystal]

It Rhymes With Meek, on 06 March 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I have actually read a large majority of them-- I'm not persuaded yet though, I fear.



The idea that the Karstarks are pretending that Tybald is their captive seems problematic to me, and also seems to be pretty important for your case.  What is your evidence for this?  And what do you think the story is that the Karstarks are telling about how Tybald came to be their captive?  

That is, how are the Karstarks supposed to have a captive from the Bolton household at this point? They haven't fought any battles against them.  Was he supposed to have been taken more or less by himself, with little or no guard?  In the Karstarks' story he would also have to have been captured with his raven cages.

"To his wounded?  Or his ravens?"  

"Both, Your Grace."

If Tybald is supposed to be a captive from your enemy's household why would you openly and freely let him tend ravens that would fly straight to that enemy's seat? Even more: recall that Tybald has already sent a message with one of his ravens--again, ravens which are thought to fly to the Dreadfort!  What story are the Karstarks telling about these things? Are they just crossing their fingers and hoping no one notices?

We haven't been given all the details yet as to what kind of story the Karstark's are offering to explain Tybald's presence. The North is a mess after Robb releases the Riverland lords, and he loses control after he beheads Rickard. Perhaps they are counting on all of this confusion as a way to disguise having Tybald in their presence.

GRRM uses the word concealed when describing what Tybald wore. "The door opened with a gust of cold black wind and a swirl of snow.  The knight of the moths had returned with the maester the king had sent for, his grey robes concealed beneath a heavy bearskin pelt." Because GRRM chose the word "concealed" rather than simply saying something like, "covered" implies to me that Tybald at least attempted to conceal his identity. And the Karstark's apparently either do not know Tybald's true identity or they don't know Stannis has suspicions because Arnolf requests to have breakfast with Stannis. I don't think many of Arnolf's men even knew who Tybald was, because I remember reading that the men took and followed the orders of their liege lord without question.

From the books we know that Gregor Clegane's forces captured Harion Karstark at the Battle of Duskendale, Roose switches sides while at Harrenhal when he heard of Tywin's victory at the Battle of Blackwater, Ramsay/Reek fools Rodrik Cassel and his northern force and then plays Theon false with the Sack of Winterfell, and somewhere in there Rickard Karstark is beheaded sending his men away from Robb and towards the Boltons. I could find nothing noted in the books that expicitly says when the Karstarks join the Boltons, (just as there is no mention of Maester Tybald until the Theon gift chapter) but I think its a safe assumption that the Karstarks and Boltons join forces around the time of the Red Wedding. *(I had to edit this because I had forgotten about Alys!)* Remember it was Alys Karstark that escaped from her family (they wanted to force her to marry Arnolf's son Cregan) and fled to the Wall to warn Jon that the Karstarks intended to lure Stannis to attack the Dreadfort and pretend to join forces in the hopes that the Lannisters would then execute Harrion Karstark in retaliation, thereby making Alys (and Cregan by marriage) the heir of Karhold. But, when Stannis attacked Deepwood Motte instead (because of Jon's advice) it spoiled their plans. Stannis already knew the Karstarks were playing him false before the Theon gift chapter, but Arnolf didn't know that Stannis knew. Furthermore, we learn that Stannis has received Jon's letter warning that the Karstarks have joined forces with the Boltons, but Arnolf still doesn't know that Stannis knows! Arnolf may have been Rickard's uncle and his castellan, but I don't think the guy was real smart!

In aDwD, Reek chapter, after Reek/Theon is brought up out of the dungeon of the Dreadfort, he is taking note of all the people seated at the banquet table with Ramsay. He notices a lord: "The second lord was thin as well, but twisted where the first was straight. One of his shoulders was much higher than the other, and he stooped over his trencher like a vulture over carrion. His eyes were grey and greedy, his teeth yellow, his forked beard a tangle of snow and silver. Only a few wisps of white hair still clung to his spotted skull, but the cloak he wore was soft and fine, grey wool trimmed with black sable and fastened at the shoulder with a starburst wrought in beaten silver."  The starburst is the sigil for house Karstark, and I believe this is a description of Arnolf.

That the ravens are trained to fly to Winterhaven instead of the Dreadfort is the evidence that Arnolf not only knew who Tybald was, but that he knew of the plan to send a raven with a map of Stannis's location. The books do not say whether the Karstarks and Boltons ever met in battle, but the description of Arnolf in the Reek chapter places him at the Dreadfort. We could assume Arnolf plotted with the Boltons regarding his desire for his son to marry Alys and the plan to lure Stannis to attack the Dreadfort. Maester Tybald could have become part of Arnholf's group at this time or sometime after they move to Winterfell.

Bran Vras, on 06 March 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

I have said already that the maester situation in the Dreadfort is curious.

1) Roose went south to war without any maester.
2) He did not go to Winterfell with his maester.
3) His ally, Lady Dustin, hates maesters, and doesn't seem to have one.
4) When he talks to Theon about Domeric's death, he mentions in the present tense maester Uthor.
5) When Theon is prisoner at the Dreadfort, he is brought to the Great Hall and sees the whole of the Dreadfort for a feast in honour of the visiting  Karstarks. No maester is present.
6) In the later Theon chapters the maester of the Dreadfort is never mentioned, not even to note his absence when Theon sees that other maesters tend the raven in Winterfell.
7) At the Dreadfort, a cell is occupied by an unidentified prisoner that the Walders mistook momentarily for Theon.

How about this. The maester at the Dreadfort is in the cell, because, just like Lady Dustin, Roose hates maesters. The Karstarks have come to take with them the maester to Karhold. The maester is just as terrified as Theon is and doesn't dare to rebel against the Boltons. It seems that there is no maester in activity when Theon is at the Dreadfort.

When Reek/Theon is brought into that feast at the Dreadfort he does see many faces that he knew by sight if not by name, but there were strangers too, faces he did not know. There could have been maesters that Reek/Theon didn't know. As for the unidentified man in the dungeon...we may never know who that was or whether or not he was anyone important. I know there are people that scrutinize every detail in the books, but this particular detail may just be simply background material.

Edited by Melisandra, 07 March 2012 - 01:46 AM.

[iamthedave]

Ghost714, on 06 March 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

And I think I am more open to the Burning people alive. Yes I do think it's bad, but I don't hold it against Stannis. He has seen some crazy stuff happen because of Melisandre and R'hllor. Now one could argue that R'hllor isn't real, and it's just Mel with magic abilities, but what matters is what the characters believe. If Stannis was just burning people alive, as a way to punish and execute them, then I might hold it against him. However Stannis isn't just burning people alive to kill them, he is doing it as a sacrifice to R'hllor, while looking at the bigger picture. Stannis may not actually believe in R'hllor himself, but many of his Lords Bannermen do, so it's because of then that he allows for the sacrifices, and because Stannis can't deny the power in R'hllor/Melisandre, after seeing the things he had seen with his own eyes. So that's why I don't hold that against Stannis, because Stannis believes it is for the greater good, "the big picture", and who knows that may be true, if R'hllor is real. I know many people argue that no gods are real in this story, and it's just people with magic abilities etc.. For me personally though, it's more fun to think of it as the gods are real, because it doesn't really matter if they are real or not, what matters is that the characters believe they are.

The problem is that it's another sign of Stannis compromising. I love the character, but one of the things to be said for Stannis was always that he is who he is and he doesn't change that for anyone. He's honest and true, to a fault.

Yet now he's increasingly compromising his beliefs for pure convenience, changing the way he applies the justice he believes in, and his quest - which was always an attempt to claim that which was his by right and lawful passage - has increasingly become one of forced religious conversion. There's nothing just in burning people's gods, there's nothing lawful or righteous about it. He does it because Melissandre is the backbone of his operation and she's converted about half of his army.

Stannis is doing the one thing he cannot do in order to be who he is: compromise.

Because once Stannis has begun compromising, all of the things he's done in name of the law, and in the name of being just and true, begin to lose their validity, and he comes perilously close to becoming a hypocrite, damning other people when he's as guilty as they are.

To me at least, Stannis' greatest merit was that he was one of the few people in the series who didn't just talk about honour, he lived it and never bent on it. He suffered for it when required and never went outside what was allowed him because of it. So while his burning people makes 'sense' in terms of pure efficiency, it's an increasing sign that Stannis has begun a downward slide from where he began.

For example: Consider his loveless marriage to Selyse, and the very strong implication that he's been sleeping with Melissandre. You cannot make an exception for this if it's true. Stannis will be an adulterer, and by his own iron-clad rules he should be punished for being so. Is it the pragmatic choice? Given her powers, yes. Is it the choice Stannis should have made? No. It's a further erosion of the one man in Westeros who did the unthinkable: he was the man who said one thing, and did just that instead of doing whatever was convenient at the time.

Is it understandable? Yes. Is it sad? Very.

Edited by iamthedave, 07 March 2012 - 08:31 AM.

[Lady Octarina]

@iamthedave
I don't understand your point. Would you rather have Stannis die a foolish death like Eddard, all in name of honor and principles? I also don't get it why people seem to think Stannis wasn't flexible before; I mean, we learn in ACoK that, during the siege of Storm's End, his master of arms, I think, tries to surrender to the Tyrell men, and Stannis declares he's going to throw him from the walls using a catapult or something, until Maester Cressen dissuades him by saying they might need to eat their dead later, and by doing that he would be wasting good meat. If anything, I think that shows that Stannis was always a pragmatic, from a young age, even when the actions he was forced to take would contradict his personal preferences. Davos is another example. If Stannis wasn't flexible, do you think he would have just cut small bits of the man's fingers? Having saved his life or not, I think if Stannis was as hard as claimed he would have given him the fate of all caught smuggles: death.

Stannis die-hard values mingled with his ability to be pragmatic when necessary, while trying not to lose himself in the way as much as possible is what made me love the character (and his seemingly non-existent sense of humor, of course ). The problem is that, sometimes, we take how other characters describe him as the ultimate truth about who Stannis is, and that's not true. Nothing but his acts can tell us about him.

[iamthedave]

Lady Octarina, on 07 March 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

Davos is another example. If Stannis wasn't flexible, do you think he would have just cut small bits of the man's fingers? Having saved his life or not, I think if Stannis was as hard as claimed he would have given him the fate of all caught smuggles: death.

Stannis die-hard values mingled with his ability to be pragmatic when necessary, while trying not to lose himself in the way as much as possible is what made me love the character (and his seemingly non-existent sense of humor, of course ). The problem is that, sometimes, we take how other characters describe him as the ultimate truth about who Stannis is, and that's not true. Nothing but his acts can tell us about him.

I'd rather Stannis die a foolish death than reduce himself to being another unworthy challenger to the throne who thinks he's better than the others, yes.

Davos was spared because he saved Storm's End. He was rewarded for his good and punished for his bad. in that scenario most people would have had their criminal record (so to speak) expunged and be rewarded richly. Stannis - because he's Stannis - insisted on cutting off his fingers as well.

The problem is that Stannis doesn't have die-hard values anymore. He did. If you follow his character arc you can clearly see him compromising the die-hard values that make him who he is. Observe the entire Edric Storm arc. His response at the start tells you Stannis' stance on the matter. The man who Davos defies at the end, shows you the way he's begun to slip.

If he's actually slept with Melissandre, again, his values are slipping. He's not even the man that he claims he is anymore, and he doesn't see it. Davos does, and did. That was the entire point of Davos' character at that stage, allowing us to see Stannis changing from outside because Stannis isn't in a position to do so. The man who defended Storm's End to the bitter end is not the man who became sullen, withdrawn, and began staring into fires for answers every night, begging for help from a god he doesn't even believe in (as he's said several times).

It's not to say that his slide is going to continue, but given the slow angle of the arc and the way Martin writes? I'm pretty sure Stannis will crack eventually.

Edited by iamthedave, 07 March 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Noimporta]

Quote

The man who defended Storm's End to the bitter end is not the man who became sullen, withdrawn, and began staring into fires for answers every night, begging for help from a god he doesn't even believe in (as he's said several times).

Have you read the preview chapter? Stannis is far from his sulking state at the beginning of Storm of Swords, even when he's pretty much in the worst situation he's ever been.

[Ghost714]

Lady Octarina, on 07 March 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

@iamthedave
I don't understand your point. Would you rather have Stannis die a foolish death like Eddard, all in name of honor and principles? I also don't get it why people seem to think Stannis wasn't flexible before; I mean, we learn in ACoK that, during the siege of Storm's End, his master of arms, I think, tries to surrender to the Tyrell men, and Stannis declares he's going to throw him from the walls using a catapult or something, until Maester Cressen dissuades him by saying they might need to eat their dead later, and by doing that he would be wasting good meat. If anything, I think that shows that Stannis was always a pragmatic, from a young age, even when the actions he was forced to take would contradict his personal preferences. Davos is another example. If Stannis wasn't flexible, do you think he would have just cut small bits of the man's fingers? Having saved his life or not, I think if Stannis was as hard as claimed he would have given him the fate of all caught smuggles: death.

Stannis die-hard values mingled with his ability to be pragmatic when necessary, while trying not to lose himself in the way as much as possible is what made me love the character (and his seemingly non-existent sense of humor, of course ). The problem is Ythat, sometimes, we take how other characters describe him as the ultimate truth about who Stannis is, and that's not true. Nothing but his acts can tell us about him.

I agree with this. I would rather not see Stannis die a foolish death.

Also to "iamthedave",
Stannis wasn't really willing to compromise at first, until he was given some proof of why he should compromise. Take Edric Storm for example. Stannis wasn't willing to sacrifice him, until the deaths of Balon Greyjoy, Robb Stark, and Joffrey Boratheon. I mean call it what you will, but Mel foretold of those deaths way before they happened. I can't blame Stannis for adhering to the Red god, when there is that much proof put forward. I know this sounds horrible, but I would sacrifice the life of one child in a heart beat, of I truly believed it was neccisary to save all of man kind.

And like the post above mine says, Stannis in the new gift chapter, is one awesome-rock-solid-determined-man. Based off of the Stannis in the new gift chapter, I don't think the compromises Stannis has made have changed him. Yes Stannis was sullen for awhile, and looking for answers etc, but that was because he lost the Battle of the Blackwater, more than anything. Now though, I think it's more than obvious that Stannis is back in the game.

[iamthedave]

Perhaps. I don't believe for one second that his being willing to sacrifice Edric Storm should be taken as anything other than a negative, though. Wrong is wrong, and Stannis more than anyone should know this.

[Ghost714]

iamthedave, on 07 March 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Perhaps. I don't believe for one second that his being willing to sacrifice Edric Storm should be taken as anything other than a negative, though. Wrong is wrong, and Stannis more than anyone should know this.

I disagree, all sense of normal "right" and "wrong" goes out the window when your dealing with a threat against the whole realm, he'll the whole world even. All people in power should be willing to make neccisary sacrifices. Stannis wasn't willing to do anything until ample proof was given, so I don't hold that against him. At all. I actually respect that Stannis was willing to do what it takes, if neccisary, to fight the Others. That choice was practical, and rational.

[Feather Crystal]

iamthedave, on 07 March 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

The problem is that it's another sign of Stannis compromising. I love the character, but one of the things to be said for Stannis was always that he is who he is and he doesn't change that for anyone. He's honest and true, to a fault.

Yet now he's increasingly compromising his beliefs for pure convenience, changing the way he applies the justice he believes in, and his quest - which was always an attempt to claim that which was his by right and lawful passage - has increasingly become one of forced religious conversion. There's nothing just in burning people's gods, there's nothing lawful or righteous about it. He does it because Melissandre is the backbone of his operation and she's converted about half of his army.

Stannis is doing the one thing he cannot do in order to be who he is: compromise.

Because once Stannis has begun compromising, all of the things he's done in name of the law, and in the name of being just and true, begin to lose their validity, and he comes perilously close to becoming a hypocrite, damning other people when he's as guilty as they are.

To me at least, Stannis' greatest merit was that he was one of the few people in the series who didn't just talk about honour, he lived it and never bent on it. He suffered for it when required and never went outside what was allowed him because of it. So while his burning people makes 'sense' in terms of pure efficiency, it's an increasing sign that Stannis has begun a downward slide from where he began.

For example: Consider his loveless marriage to Selyse, and the very strong implication that he's been sleeping with Melissandre. You cannot make an exception for this if it's true. Stannis will be an adulterer, and by his own iron-clad rules he should be punished for being so. Is it the pragmatic choice? Given her powers, yes. Is it the choice Stannis should have made? No. It's a further erosion of the one man in Westeros who did the unthinkable: he was the man who said one thing, and did just that instead of doing whatever was convenient at the time.

Is it understandable? Yes. Is it sad? Very.

I am in the process of a reread of the books and am not that far into aSoS where Stannis gives Davos his excuse for following R'hllor and Melisandre. He says,

"I stopped believing in gods the day I saw the Windproud break up across the bay (his parents death).... (speaking of R'hllor)..."why trouble with this new one? I have asked myself as well. I know little and care less of gods, but the red priestess has power. I trusted in his (Maester Cresson's) wisdom and your (Davos) wiles, and what did they avail me, smuggler? The storm lords sent you packing. I went to them a beggar and they laughed at me. Well, there will be no more begging, and no more laughing either. The Iron Throne is mine by rights, but how am I to take it? There are four kings in the realm, and three of them have more men and more gold than I do. I have ships...and I have her. The red woman. Half my knights are afraid even to say her name, did you know? If she can do nothing else, a sorceress who can inspire such dread in grown men is not to be despised. A frightened man is a beaten man. And perhaps she can do more. I mean to find out."....(and later)...."The Seven have never brought me so much as a sparrow. It is time I tried another hawk, Davos. A red hawk."

Just thought you'd enjoy that reread section. I think it shows Stannis as a resourceful person, with convictions that he has the right to the Iron Throne. He doesn't have the money, men, or love of people that the others have so he needs something different, and I think he's creative!

[Lady Octarina]

Ghost714, on 07 March 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I disagree, all sense of normal "right" and "wrong" goes out the window when your dealing with a threat against the whole realm, he'll the whole world even. All people in power should be willing to make neccisary sacrifices. Stannis wasn't willing to do anything until ample proof was given, so I don't hold that against him. At all. I actually respect that Stannis was willing to do what it takes, if neccisary, to fight the Others. That choice was practical, and rational.

I agree with you. Actually, this discussion mostly reminds me of Watchmen

Spoiler

Stannis is no different from Ozymandias, who killed millions (for the chance, the possibility) to save billions. Stannis is simply sacrificing a few dozens for the Red God in order to achieve a comparatively more certain objective: first becoming king, and then actually saving the realm from ice zombie apocalypse

.

We should admire Stannis's willingness and courage to do what must be done for the greater good. I know "the greater good", in our world, is usually used an excuse for slaughter, but in this case WE KNOW that it's what Stannis is fighting for, that the ream will be lost if it depends o him behaving like honorable Eddard.

[Noimporta]

iamthedave, on 07 March 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Perhaps. I don't believe for one second that his being willing to sacrifice Edric Storm should be taken as anything other than a negative, though. Wrong is wrong, and Stannis more than anyone should know this.

The thing is, it's hard to argue what's right and what's wrong when coming from different codes of ethics. An utilitarian would probably consider sacrificing the kid the right thing, while others would consider it an inadmissible and unforgivable act, and yet others wouldn't give a damn.

Ned would've never allowed the sacrifice, and Tywin would perform it without second thoughts. Through his conversation with Davos, though, we learn that he understands how complicated the decision really is, and I see that, rather than adamant refusal or unfettered acceptance, as a strong point.

Edited by Noimporta, 07 March 2012 - 07:48 PM.

[Ghost714]

Lady Octarina, on 07 March 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

I agree with you. Actually, this discussion mostly reminds me of Watchmen

Spoiler

Stannis is no different from Ozymandias, who killed millions (for the chance, the possibility) to save billions. Stannis is simply sacrificing a few dozens for the Red God in order to achieve a comparatively more certain objective: first becoming king, and then actually saving the realm from ice zombie apocalypse

.

We should admire Stannis's willingness and courage to do what must be done for the greater good. I know "the greater good", in our world, is usually used an excuse for slaughter, but in this case WE KNOW that it's what Stannis is fighting for, that the ream will be lost if it depends o him behaving like honorable Eddard.

I am very glad there are a few people at least who agree with me about this, most the time I get called a monster or something, when I talk about supporting Stannis's decision to sacrifice the few to save the many. I am a firm believer in rational thinking, I would definitely chop of a few fingers to save the whole body. Like "Noimporta" said above me, Tywin Lannister wouldn't think twice about sacrificing someone, and Eddard Stark would never even consider it, but that's what I like about Stannis. Tywin and Ned are on opposite ends of the subject, but Stannis is in the middle. Stannis is willing to do such a thing, but not without ample proof that such an act is neccisary. That's what I really like and respect about Stannis, he isn't automatically willing to do something so drastic, yet with enough reason he will consider it, that's exactly how a person in power should be, in my opinion.
For similar reasons, that's why I believe that the Red Priests are actually good guys, unlike most people. Both Stannis, and the Red Priests fall under the grey character catagory. They both are willing to do things that can be considered as bad, but they are doing it for the greater good of the big picture. That's why GRRM's has made such a great series, it's filled with grey characters, in a world where, even the "good guys" do "bad things". For the most part, nobody is completely good or evil, but that's not to say most characters aren't still good over all, or bad over all.

[Feather Crystal]

To build on what @Ghost714 said above, I completely agree that no one, real or fictional, is completely good or completely evil. Stannis was built up from the very beginning as a brilliant military mind...a strategist. I hope he prevails!

Speaking about the Red Priests, I had a thought...what makes the undead state of Beric Dondarrion and Catelyn different than the Others beyond the Wall? If this is too much off subject, let me know and we can create a separate thread on the subject.

[It Rhymes With Meek]

Sorry about my slow response!

Melisandra, on 07 March 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

We haven't been given all the details yet as to what kind of story the Karstark's are offering to explain Tybald's presence. The North is a mess after Robb releases the Riverland lords, and he loses control after he beheads Rickard. Perhaps they are counting on all of this confusion as a way to disguise having Tybald in their presence.

GRRM uses the word concealed when describing what Tybald wore. "The door opened with a gust of cold black wind and a swirl of snow.  The knight of the moths had returned with the maester the king had sent for, his grey robes concealed beneath a heavy bearskin pelt." Because GRRM chose the word "concealed" rather than simply saying something like, "covered" implies to me that Tybald at least attempted to conceal his identity.

I understand what you're saying, but if you were trying to hide the fact that you were a maester, wouldn't the very first thing you do be to stop wearing your maester's robes, as opposed to just partially "concealing" them with a pelt? In any case, that there was a maester with Karstark was apparently obvious.  From one of Asha's POVs:

"Lord Arnolf had found them eight days past.  The northman had brought a son, three grandsons, four hundred spears, two score archers, a dozen mounted lances, a maester, and a cage of ravens ... but only enough provisions to sustain his own." (emphasis mine)

So Tybald clearly did not conceal the fact that he was a maester traveling with the Karstarks and there is no indication here he was being treated as a captive.  The most we can imagine Tybald might have been concealing is where he was from.  So, suppose that he concealed where he came from and none of the northmen knew him by sight.  In that case, how on earth would Stannis have figured it out?  Remember, Stannis just up and says "You are the maester at the Dreadfort"; how could he know this if neither Tybald nor the Karstarks were telling and no one knows Tybald by sight? On the other hand, if there is an error and Tybald was actually supposed to be from Karhold, Stannis would just have assumed as much.

Melisandra, on 07 March 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

And the Karstark's apparently either do not know Tybald's true identity or they don't know Stannis has suspicions because Arnolf requests to have breakfast with Stannis. I don't think many of Arnolf's men even knew who Tybald was, because I remember reading that the men took and followed the orders of their liege lord without question.

I think it's safe to say that the Karstarks don't know Stannis suspects them.  Otherwise Karstark wouldn't have walked himself, his son and his grandsons into Stannis's tower without guards and mostly "dressed for breakfast, not for battle." (Incidentally, I think you've got it backwards: Stannis requested the breakfast with Karstark and his son, and what we saw in the chapter was Karstark sending back word that he would be pleased to join him.)

Melisandra, on 07 March 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

Stannis already knew the Karstarks were playing him false before the Theon gift chapter, but Arnolf didn't know that Stannis knew. Furthermore, we learn that Stannis has received Jon's letter warning that the Karstarks have joined forces with the Boltons, but Arnolf still doesn't know that Stannis knows! Arnolf may have been Rickard's uncle and his castellan, but I don't think the guy was real smart!

Are you saying that you think Stannis knew the Karstarks were traitors before he got Jon's letter?  If so, why do you think so?

Melisandra, on 07 March 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

In aDwD, Reek chapter, after Reek/Theon is brought up out of the dungeon of the Dreadfort, he is taking note of all the people seated at the banquet table with Ramsay. He notices a lord: "The second lord was thin as well, but twisted where the first was straight. One of his shoulders was much higher than the other, and he stooped over his trencher like a vulture over carrion. His eyes were grey and greedy, his teeth yellow, his forked beard a tangle of snow and silver. Only a few wisps of white hair still clung to his spotted skull, but the cloak he wore was soft and fine, grey wool trimmed with black sable and fastened at the shoulder with a starburst wrought in beaten silver."  The starburst is the sigil for house Karstark, and I believe this is a description of Arnolf.

It is.  In the gift chapter Theon actually thinks to himself about where he's seen Arnolf before: "At the Dreadfort.  I remember.  He sat and supped with Lord Ramsay and Whoresbane Umber, the night they brought Reek up from his cell." I'm not following what difference this makes, though.

Melisandra, on 07 March 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

That the ravens are trained to fly to Winterhaven instead of the Dreadfort is the evidence that Arnolf not only knew who Tybald was, but that he knew of the plan to send a raven with a map of Stannis's location.

I don't follow the logic of this, and it seems pretty convoluted in any case.  My version of the interrogation, where Tybald is from Karhold is a lot simpler and clearer: Stannis wants to confirm that the Karstarks are traitors, so he calls in their maester.  If their ravens fly to Karhold, this does not implicate them, but if they fly to Winterfell it does.  When Stannis asks, Maester Tybald's bladder confesses for him.  Tybald later makes a point of saying he was only serving, thus implicating the Karstarks specifically, and now Stannis has a second piece of evidence (independent of Alys's claims from Jon's letter) that the Karstarks are traitors.  He then goes on to try and find out just what information has leaked.  Clear as can be!

I do think it's possible that I'm wrong about all this and the maester really is from the Dreadfort, but if so, at the very least, GRRM has some editing to do to make this all make a little more sense.

[iamthedave]

Ghost714, on 07 March 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I disagree, all sense of normal "right" and "wrong" goes out the window when your dealing with a threat against the whole realm, he'll the whole world even. All people in power should be willing to make neccisary sacrifices. Stannis wasn't willing to do anything until ample proof was given, so I don't hold that against him. At all. I actually respect that Stannis was willing to do what it takes, if neccisary, to fight the Others. That choice was practical, and rational.

So Melissandre's word now counts as 'ample proof'? He received no proof whatsoever that Edric Storm's death would help. And we've now seen exactly how the red woman's magic works, we've seen her get things 100% WRONG, and as far as we can tell she's backing the wrong horse in the race. Stannis isn't azor ahai, Dany is, and if she isn't Stannis still isn't azor ahai. Every single major sign we've been given suggests he's a fake.

There was nothing practical to it whatsoever. Stannis knew he was in the wrong. There's a reason that Davos turned him around so quickly despite openly defying him (for which he ought to be executed).

There's a huge difference between 'making the sacrifices to save the realm' and 'making the sacrifices to please the red god'. Stannis does the latter, not the former. His men aren't his men, they're hers. If she changes her mind and goes to someone else, half his army will drop him like a bad habit.

Edit: Furthermore, Davos was the one - not Melissandre - who came up with the cunning plan of actually getting out there and saving the realm instead of sitting on his backside throwing leeches into a fire and hoping magic would get everything done for him. Most of what Stannis has done that's worth genuine praise has come from listening to the one guy around him who knows what's right and what's wrong and sticks to it. And personally I've always found Stannis' relationship with Davos to be one of the series' best and most fascinating. The idea of an ex-smuggler being the conscience of a king is - if not completely original - certainly a poignant one, and it speaks to Stannis' ability to recognize worth when he sees it.

Edited by iamthedave, 08 March 2012 - 12:32 PM.