70 replies to this topic

[Ramsay Gimp]

LuisDantas, on 23 February 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

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.



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

I just can't wrap my head around your morality here. According to you, it's perfectly moral to raise an army because you think you would be a good king, march to the capitol, slay the children you believe to be your nephews/nieces, and facilitate the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children. But it is dishonorable in the extreme, heinous I say, to kill one man in his tent.

Edited by Ramsay Gimp, 24 February 2012 - 03:57 AM.

[Xtopher]

Ramsay Gimp, on 24 February 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

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.

Exactly, If Rommel really didnt share Hitler´s ideas and didnt want to obey him then why the hell did he join Hitler´s Reich!?!?
And if he decided that he didnt like Hitler anymore at a later stage, then bummer, he should have quit the Axis right there, doesnt matter if they decided to murder his family for it, cause he chose honor and just quit, right? RIGHT? (no freaking way)

[Cylas Stouttree]

It seems like Stannis's real problem is that he is too rigid and set in his ways. Like a cedar. Davos risked his butt to smuggle provisions to him during a siege. He repays him by calling him Ser Davos and maiming his hand? Just because its against the law to smuggle? That's not very kingly. Not when the guy who openly fought against you would be absolved if he simply bent the knee.

Also, this is my first post. Hello everyone!

Edited by Cylas Stouttree, 24 February 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[LuisDantas]

Ramsay Gimp, on 24 February 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

I just can't wrap my head around your morality here. According to you, it's perfectly moral to raise an army because you think you would be a good king, march to the capitol, slay the children you believe to be your nephews/nieces, and facilitate the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children. But it is dishonorable in the extreme, heinous I say, to kill one man in his tent.

That may be because you are discarding important elements of the situation.  Were it just a matter of choosing one death instead of thousands, of course the choice would be clear.  

That is however a grave misrepresentation.  Raising armies is giving those armies some power over their own destinies, including the choice to desert you if you turn out to be too wild.  Assassination is simply arrogant cheating with no regard to the rights of others to surrender or to fight you.

It is a very simple choice between conflict and all-out abomination, in fact.

[LuisDantas]

Xtopher, on 24 February 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Exactly, If Rommel really didnt share Hitler´s ideas and didnt want to obey him then why the hell did he join Hitler´s Reich!?!?
And if he decided that he didnt like Hitler anymore at a later stage, then bummer, he should have quit the Axis right there, doesnt matter if they decided to murder his family for it, cause he chose honor and just quit, right? RIGHT? (no freaking way)

Rommel was much like most Germans (and many foreigners) in that he simply lacked in options.  Hitler was dutifully elected.  Choosing between major treason and murder conspiracy or just going on doing a soldier's job is how the matter presented itself in most situations.  It was not a reality show voting situation.

[LuisDantas]

Cylas Stouttree, on 24 February 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

It seems like Stannis's real problem is that he is too rigid and set in his ways. Like a cedar. Davos risked his butt to smuggle provisions to him during a siege. He repays him by calling him Ser Davos and maiming his hand? Just because its against the law to smuggle? That's not very kingly. Not when the guy who openly fought against you would be absolved if he simply bent the knee.

Also, this is my first post. Hello everyone!

Stannis nurtures his reputation as a rigid man, but if anything he is much too flexible - at least when if suits his pride.  He is continually challenging tradition, law (because yes, law does support the Lannisters instead of him) and honor just in order to feed his ambition.

[Cylas Stouttree]

It does favor them, but Stannis disagrees and, at least to the point I am in the series, that doesn't seem like it is going to change.

[Ser Malthred Stark]

LuisDantas, on 25 February 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Stannis nurtures his reputation as a rigid man, but if anything he is much too flexible - at least when if suits his pride.  He is continually challenging tradition, law (because yes, law does support the Lannisters instead of him) and honor just in order to feed his ambition.

How does law favor the Lannisters? Joffrey, Mercella, and Tommen are all bastards, and I believe that in Westeros (Excluding Dorne) the inheritance laws are Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture, meaning that the oldest child inherits everything, however Robert had no child, therefore it falls to the eldest brother.

[Ramsay Gimp]

LuisDantas, on 25 February 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Stannis nurtures his reputation as a rigid man, but if anything he is much too flexible - at least when if suits his pride.  He is continually challenging tradition, law (because yes, law does support the Lannisters instead of him) and honor just in order to feed his ambition.

It's kind of a case of whether a tree falls in the forest, do you hear it or not? Yes the law currently supports the Lannisters because Tommen sits the Iron Throne and they have the strength (though its quickly fading), but the actual laws of inheritance favor Stannis

[LuisDantas]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 25 February 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

How does law favor the Lannisters? Joffrey, Mercella, and Tommen are all bastards, and I believe that in Westeros (Excluding Dorne) the inheritance laws are Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture, meaning that the oldest child inherits everything, however Robert had no child, therefore it falls to the eldest brother.

It has not been proven that Cersei's kids are bastards.  We readers know that they are, and Stannis and many others believe that they are.  But Stannis lacks proof, and therefore can't use the law to support him.

It is conceivable, perhaps even likely, that at some point in the future Jaime or Cersei will confess, or some sort of court will proclaim that the kids are not Robert's children.  But that has not happened yet, and until then the law supports Joffrey's claim, not Stannis'.

[Drowsey Dragon]

Just look at Cercei's children compared to Robert? If you could produce a few of his bastards, the realm could see the truth. Cercie killed all of them off that she knew of. Lacking a confession, this would be the only way for Stannis to prove Cerei;s children are abominations. The throne is his by rights.

[Ser Malthred Stark]

LuisDantas, on 25 February 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

It has not been proven that Cersei's kids are bastards.  We readers know that they are, and Stannis and many others believe that they are.  But Stannis lacks proof, and therefore can't use the law to support him.

It is conceivable, perhaps even likely, that at some point in the future Jaime or Cersei will confess, or some sort of court will proclaim that the kids are not Robert's children.  But that has not happened yet, and until then the law supports Joffrey's claim, not Stannis'.

Okay, okay, then how is Renly's uprising supported? If Renly did not believe that the story was true, that means that he just, out of nowhere, decided to start a rebellion. If he did believe the story, then he is attempting to usurp his brother's throne, so in no way can Renly be seen as the rightful heir.

[Gentso]

I was indeed a bit deflated upon reading that bit. I felt a bit cheated, but then I recalled the fact that dragons were spawned and black magic was performed in the first book and I accepted it.

[Xtopher]

Gentso, on 27 February 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

I was indeed a bit deflated upon reading that bit. I felt a bit cheated, but then I recalled the fact that dragons were spawned and black magic was performed in the first book and I accepted it.

I havent accepted that yet, it seems so easy and without any real consequence that renders the whole war useless, why doesnt he tell Mel to kill every enemy and be done with it, there´s nothing keeping them from it.

[Drowsey Dragon]

Xtopher, on 27 February 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

I havent accepted that yet, it seems so easy and without any real consequence that renders the whole war useless, why doesnt he tell Mel to kill every enemy and be done with it, there´s nothing keeping them from it.

Because it is slowly killing him. The next time could be the last.

[Crown]

Drowsey Dragon, on 27 February 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Because it is slowly killing him. The next time could be the last.

Where does it exactly say that it's slowly killing Stannis? I can't remember it, and I'm halfway through ADWD.

[Xtopher]

it never says that, thats what bothers me, that everyone thinks that its causing Stannis´ health some problems each time she does that but it doesnt say that in the books, EVER.

[LuisDantas]

Melisandre claims that it is, when she visits Davos while he is arrested in Dragonstone (ASOS).  

IIRC Jon and Asha both believe that Stannis looks less healthy as times passes, as well.

[LuisDantas]

Ser Malthred Stark, on 26 February 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Okay, okay, then how is Renly's uprising supported? If Renly did not believe that the story was true, that means that he just, out of nowhere, decided to start a rebellion. If he did believe the story, then he is attempting to usurp his brother's throne, so in no way can Renly be seen as the rightful heir.

"Out of nowhere"?

Renly stateshis case quite plainly to both Ned and Catelyn. It is, in fact,quite straightforward,even plain: he doubts Stannis would make a better king than himself and he has convinced enough people to support him that he felt like challenging the letter of the law.

It is not even unusual. And we have no reasonwhatsoever todoubt him.

[Drowsey Dragon]

Crown, on 27 February 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Where does it exactly say that it's slowly killing Stannis? I can't remember it, and I'm halfway through ADWD.

Now that Stannis Baratheon had come into his power, the lordlings buzzed around him like flies round a corpse. He looks half a corpse too, years older than when I left Dragonstone. Devan said the king scarcely slept of late. “Since Lord Renly died, he has been troubled by terrible nightmares,” the boy had confided to his father. “Maester’s potions do not touch them. Only the Lady Melisandre can soothe him to sleep.”

“Enough!” Stannis said. “The Lord of Light willed that my brother die for his treason. Who did the deed matters not.”

He eased back to a slow trot when his horse came up beside the king’s. “Your Grace.” Seen at close hand, Stannis looked worse than Davos had realized from afar. His face had grown haggard, and he had dark circles under his eyes.

He had only an instant to look at it before it was gone, twisting between the bars of the portcullis and racing across the surface of the water, but that instant was long enough.
He knew that shadow. As he knew the man who’d cast it.