70 replies to this topic

[Hookd]

Xtopher, on 22 February 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

i think its very well stablished by now that Joffrey is not a trueborn heir but a twisted creature born from incest.
It was explained clearly in the first book. Genes dont lie.

True that we know.. But who alive knows all the reasoning?  Stannis, Jon Arryn, and Eddard Stark knew that all of Robert's bastard are dark haired.  Who else alive, that would be willing to admit it, is going to tell everyone?  That was the point I was trying to make.

[LuisDantas]

Ramsay Gimp, on 21 February 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Renly was planning on killing Stannis too. Stannis just beat him to it. Why does it matter how it was done? I agree that it probably does to people in Westeros, since black magic is a taboo there, but it wasn't like he killed Renly (if he did) for calling him names.

This is not about who wants to kill whom, but rather on how honestly it is done.  Mainly, how fair a chance of surrender both parties are given, and how much of a chance of raising their armies they are given.

Using a living shadow (or, say, a ninja) to bypass the actual battle is dishonorable in the extreme and taints all of Stannis' claim forever since.  And that is before even considering how tactically wise it was to attack Renly instead of allying with him or at least striking at Tywin first.

Quote

Renly was drawing up plans to attack and slay Stannis, the older brother whom he owed fealty.

That always comes up, but it is arguable at the very best.  Even allowing that Renly must choose between supporting Stannis or supporting the Lannisters (which I don't think he must), the truth of the matter is that Stannis has no concrete proof that his claim is any more legitimate than Joffrey's.

Quote

LuisDantas, do you believe open war is preferable to assasination, morally?

Most definitely.  It bugs me that the question is even asked, in fact.  Have so many of us forgotten what war ethics were all about?

[LuisDantas]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 21 February 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

I may not be remembering correctly (been a while since I read CoK), but wasn't Renly planning on attacking in the dead of night, as a surprise attack?

As I remember it, Catelyn and his advisors told him that it was unwise to accept attacking at dawn (a time proposed by Stannis and agreed upon by Renly) with the sun rising behind Stannis' forces, and Renly paid that advice little attention.  It is possible that he changed his mind after that, but I will have to check in the text.  I don't remember it happening, for what it is worth.

Quote

Also, Stannis could have met Renly's army on the battlefield, but he would have severly hindered the forces that he hoped to gain from Renly, and even risk defeat from his overwhelming force.

That explains why he chose to be treacherous, and helps in explaining why he made the surprising decision of choosing Renly as a target instead of the far more natural choice of the Lannisters in King's Landing.

What it doesn't is make his choices any honorable.

[LuisDantas]

Hookd, on 22 February 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Frankly, Renly should never had claimed the throne.  He shold have helped Stannis' claim and then 'demanded' that he (Renly) be named heir after Stannis since Stannis' daughter is feeble-minded.

I guess it all comes around to how aware Renly was of his brother's true colors.  I used to like Stannis up to that moment when he killed Renly.   Now, not a chance.

Quote

But, even with Bran having seen Jamie and Cersei doing the deed, how is that proof that Joffrey isn't the true king?

That is a crucial matter.  Despite having gathered some very convincing evidence and, indeed, having convinced themselves and much of King's landing smallfolk (as seen in one of Tyrion's ACOK chapters), ultimately Joffrey's denouncers have no concrete proof and must rely on political and military support just like Renly or Robb.  The law arguably should support Stannis' claim (the Seven forbid), but in practice it just doesn't mean anything.

[Im With Stannis]

In Stannis' mind,  Renly was a usurper and deserved death. Lets remember,  all characters in asoiaf have flaws,  and Stannis is definitely full of them. To win that battle and most of Renlys men, he did what he had to do.

However,  I think Stannis doesn't exactly know what happened. When he finds out,  ill bet he buries lightbringer into Melissandre's chest and takes the black for the crimes he has committed and his infidelity to his wife. At least that's what I hope happens.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

[TheTarrasque]

From what I understand, Stannins honestly believed that either Catelyn or Brienne killed stannis in that tent. Mel did it herself to avoid a long, bloody battle for Storms End.

[Xtopher]

LuisDantas, on 22 February 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

Most definitely.  It bugs me that the question is even asked, in fact.  Have so many of us forgotten what war ethics were all about?

Everything is fair in love and war.

Edited by Xtopher, 22 February 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[Ramsay Gimp]

LuisDantas, on 22 February 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

This is not about who wants to kill whom, but rather on how honestly it is done.  Mainly, how fair a chance of surrender both parties are given, and how much of a chance of raising their armies they are given.



Most definitely.  It bugs me that the question is even asked, in fact.  Have so many of us forgotten what war ethics were all about?

So you'd rather that thousands die rather than one? How ethical of you. And if Renly didn't believe the tales of incest, what was his excuse for claiming the throne? He would have been willing to murder his niece and nephews, children, for his own vanity. At least Stannis does it because it is his legal right, even though killing children is still inexcusable

And it's easy to say "may the best man win" like Renly did when your army is 10x the size of your enemy.

Edited by Ramsay Gimp, 22 February 2012 - 11:02 PM.

[LuisDantas]

Xtopher, on 22 February 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Everything is fair in love and war.

Uh, no, it isn't.  Read a bit about Rommel or the Red Baron sometime.

[LuisDantas]

Ramsay Gimp, on 22 February 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

So you'd rather that thousands die rather than one?

That is what war is all about, you know; giving both sides the chance to consider how strongly they feel about their respective stances, and whether they should fight and probably kill or die, flee or simply give up.

Assassination is a travesty that violates war ethics to a shameful degree.  Particularly under the circunstances where Renly was killed.

Quote

How ethical of you. And if Renly didn't believe the tales of incest, what was his excuse for claiming the throne?

"Stannis will not be as good a ruler as myself, and besides he simply doesn't have comparable support" is plently enough justification.  Whether he believed Joffrey or Stannis was the lawful inheritor from Robert was, quite plainly and even explicitly, well besides the point. Rule is not all (or even mainly) about lawful inheritance.

Quote

He would have been willing to murder his niece and nephews, children, for his own vanity. At least Stannis does it because it is his legal right, even though killing children is still inexcusable.

I'm not sure either one would kill Cersei's children, myself.  But since Renly was openly challenging the letter of the law, it stands to reason that he was bypassing the need for removing those children as well.

As for vanity, what do you think drives any of the other claimants?  Crowning oneself is hardly an act of humility.  And Stannis, who claims to have a duty instead of a choice, is the most vain of all the claimants.

Quote

And it's easy to say "may the best man win" like Renly did when your army is 10x the size of your enemy.

Yes, it is.  But how do you think Stannis and Renly came to that situation in the first place?

Politics is all about being accepted.  That Renly managed to raise so many soldiers and Lords to his side despite a lack of legal support speaks very well about his qualities as a ruler.

[Drowsey Dragon]

Despite the odds, I am confident Stannis would have handed it to his young and inexperienced brother. Numbers are not everything. Just look back at history. Think of Ceaser and his victory over Pompey.

Renly would not have accepted Stannis' claim even if there was 100% proof that the King was a bastard. He was too self rightous and contemptious of his older brother.

[Xtopher]

LuisDantas, on 23 February 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Uh, no, it isn't.  Read a bit about Rommel or the Red Baron sometime.

Rommel played by the book in WWII and look where it got him, he risked his family and ultimately commited suicide so Hitler doesnt kill them. Yeah, very brave but what did he accomplish? killed by his own men, his supposed allies.

I rather win and live than lose and die. Just look at how honor served Ned Stark.

Edited by Xtopher, 23 February 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[Ramsay Gimp]

LuisDantas, on 23 February 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

That is what war is all about, you know; giving both sides the chance to consider how strongly they feel about their respective stances, and whether they should fight and probably kill or die, flee or simply give up. Assassination is a travesty that violates war ethics to a shameful degree. Particularly under the circunstances where Renly was killed. "Stannis will not be as good a ruler as myself, and besides he simply doesn't have comparable support" is plently enough justification. Whether he believed Joffrey or Stannis was the lawful inheritor from Robert was, quite plainly and even explicitly, well besides the point. Rule is not all (or even mainly) about lawful inheritance. I'm not sure either one would kill Cersei's children, myself. But since Renly was openly challenging the letter of the law, it stands to reason that he was bypassing the need for removing those children as well. As for vanity, what do you think drives any of the other claimants? Crowning oneself is hardly an act of humility. And Stannis, who claims to have a duty instead of a choice, is the most vain of all the claimants. Yes, it is. But how do you think Stannis and Renly came to that situation in the first place? Politics is all about being accepted. That Renly managed to raise so many soldiers and Lords to his side despite a lack of legal support speaks very well about his qualities as a ruler.

Well, I find your notions about war very antiquated. I wonder if you've thought them through - what about assasinating Hitler during WW2, or Osama bin Laden today?

For me, the laws of war should have more to do with reducing suffering (no torture of captives, no killing civilians, etc.) rather than honor and chivalry. Renly wasn't following the rules (the rules require that he follow either a Targaryen, Joffrey, or Stannis) so why should his brother?

And it's pretty naive to imagine Stannis or Renly wouldn't have slain Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella. Their claim never would have been safe with those kids around

Edited by Ramsay Gimp, 23 February 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[Ser Malthred Stark]

LuisDantas, on 23 February 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

"Stannis will not be as good a ruler as myself, and besides he simply doesn't have comparable support" is plently enough justification.  Whether he believed Joffrey or Stannis was the lawful inheritor from Robert was, quite plainly and even explicitly, well besides the point. Rule is not all (or even mainly) about lawful inheritance.

You speak of Stannis' honor at stake for assassinating his enemy. Then you say that Renly has more honor, while he is trying to usurp his brother's throne...being a better ruler doesn't mean you have right to that throne....

Edit: I don't know about you, but I would gladly kill one man, unethically, than kill thousands of my fellow citizens. Does that man's life have more value than all of the mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, all going into a slaughter? No. (The different kinds of people dying is as in today, where women are allowed to serve .)

Edited by Ser Malthred Stark, 23 February 2012 - 04:19 PM.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 23 February 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Edit: I don't know about you, but I would gladly kill one man, unethically, than kill thousands of my fellow citizens. Does that man's life have more value than all of the mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, all going into a slaughter? No. (The different kinds of people dying is as in today, where women are allowed to serve .)

Exactly, and most of the Western World, these days, would agree with you. LuisDantas has a right to his own ethical system, of course, but very few people in modern times would share it

Indeed, even if Cersei/Tyrion had arranged for Stannis's murder before the Blackwater, I would approve because it would spare all of those soldiers getting burned alive/the possible sacking of a city

Edited by Ramsay Gimp, 23 February 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[LuisDantas]

Im With Stannis, on 22 February 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

In Stannis' mind,  Renly was a usurper and deserved death. Lets remember,  all characters in asoiaf have flaws,  and Stannis is definitely full of them. To win that battle and most of Renlys men, he did what he had to do.

That marks him as a hypocrite, however.  "Doing what he has to do" in order to put himself at an unfair advantage is something one wouldn't expect of the supposedly strict and proper Stannis Baratheon.

That he is an experienced general that ought to know better than to sacrifice honor in order to attain a momentary advantage only makes his mistakes worse.

TheTarrasque, on 22 February 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

From what I understand, Stannins honestly believed that either Catelyn or Brienne killed stannis in that tent. Mel did it herself to avoid a long, bloody battle for Storms End.

Melisandre is indeed corrupt enough to make such a choice, of course; but if Stannis was so out of the loop, how do you explain his decision to ask for Davos' help in killing the castellan shortly after?

Drowsey Dragon, on 23 February 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Despite the odds, I am confident Stannis would have handed it to his young and inexperienced brother. Numbers are not everything. Just look back at history. Think of Ceaser and his victory over Pompey.

Really?  One can only wonder why Renly's supporters failed to notice that.

Quote

Renly would not have accepted Stannis' claim even if there was 100% proof that the King was a bastard. He was too self rightous and contemptious of his older brother.

Of course.  In that respect he was not any different from Stannis, either.

Xtopher, on 23 February 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Rommel played by the book in WWII and look where it got him, he risked his family and ultimately commited suicide so Hitler doesnt kill them. Yeah, very brave but what did he accomplish? killed by his own men, his supposed allies.

I rather win and live than lose and die. Just look at how honor served Ned Stark.

That goes to show how much we lost track of honor since WW II.

Ramsay Gimp, on 23 February 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Well, I find your notions about war very antiquated. I wonder if you've thought them through - what about assasinating Hitler during WW2, or Osama bin Laden today?

Sure, my views are indeed antiquated in these days of drone wars and such.  And I'm proud of it, too.

Killing Hitler would not necessarily be a good idea back in the day.  Are you aware that even Churchill wasn't always enthusiastic about the idea?  Making a martyr out of the fool could well prove disastrous.

Killing Osama Bin Laden was a foolish act, and a dishonorable one as well.  It is no more likely to bring peace than, say, the Israeli response to the Munich murders in the 1970s proved to be.

Quote

For me, the laws of war should have more to do with reducing suffering (no torture of captives, no killing civilians, etc.) rather than honor and chivalry. Renly wasn't following the rules (the rules require that he follow either a Targaryen, Joffrey, or Stannis) so why should his brother?

What rules?  Both the Targaryen and the Baratheons rose to power by sheer military success, not rules.  Why would Renly be any less legitimate by following the same path?

Quote

And it's pretty naive to imagine Stannis or Renly wouldn't have slain Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella. Their claim never would have been safe with those kids around

Do you think so?  Plenty of people seem to have agreed with Tyrion when he brought up that ultimately Joffrey was simply a spoiled brat that shouldn't be given too much attention back in ACOK.  Cersei's kids are convenient pawns, but I just don't believe many Westerosi really take their supposed birthrights too seriously.  Even the Targaryens saw no need to kill the Starks in the North or the Martells in Dorne - and really, how much loyalty can those kids inspire in the first place?

[LuisDantas]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 23 February 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

You speak of Stannis' honor at stake for assassinating his enemy. Then you say that Renly has more honor, while he is trying to usurp his brother's throne...being a better ruler doesn't mean you have right to that throne....

No one has a right to any throne, ultimately.  But the closest anyone can hope to get is attaining support to be given one.  Renly did, far more legitimately so than Stannis.

Quote

Edit: I don't know about you, but I would gladly kill one man, unethically, than kill thousands of my fellow citizens. Does that man's life have more value than all of the mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, all going into a slaughter? No. (The different kinds of people dying is as in today, where women are allowed to serve .)

Trouble is, when one crosses that line, there is neither honor left nor turning back.  That is a losing proposition.

[Drowsey Dragon]

Xtopher, on 23 February 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Rommel played by the book in WWII and look where it got him, he risked his family and ultimately commited suicide so Hitler doesnt kill them. Yeah, very brave but what did he accomplish? killed by his own men, his supposed allies.

I rather win and live than lose and die. Just look at how honor served Ned Stark.

So you would rather live on your knees rather than die on your feet?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Drowsey Dragon, on 24 February 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

So you would rather live on your knees rather than die on your feet?

Is that what he said? No. He said that in war, it isn't much use to be honorable if the result is getting annihilated. Robb and Ned would never have done what Stannis did to Renly, hence....

SPOILERS



They both get murdered but Stannis is alive and kicking through ADWD

Also, the vast majority of people would rather "live on their knees" than die on their feet. If I came up to you with a gun and said "get on your knees", I'm betting you'd follow orders

Edited by Ramsay Gimp, 24 February 2012 - 03:49 AM.

[Ygrette]

"Speaking for the grotesques, I’d have to disagree. Death is so final. Whereas life... life is full of possibilities."