The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Iron Throne Replica
TFAW
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Stannis is the One True King


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
418 replies to this topic

#41 mcb

mcb

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,605 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:43 PM

The Targaryens came to Westeros and conquered the kingdoms and turned it into one big realm. Ok. But after three hundred plus years of incest to keep bloodlines pure, and horrible kings like Maegor the Cruel, Baelor the Befuddled, Aegon the Unworthy, and of course the Mad King, the people of Westeros finally had enough.


Dany's claim is weak, since she's a descendant of Aegon the Unworthy and Mad King Aerys? Don't you see the irony of using this particular argument, since Stannis' sole claim to the throne is being the heir of Robert the Drunk Moron? Sorry, the quality of predecessors is the very last argument you want to use when advocating for House Baratheon.

#42 mcb

mcb

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,605 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:59 PM

Insane or no Aerys was the king and a rightful one ulike Robert. Yes he was not a good man but that doesn't make him less of a king just as being a good man doesn't give you the right to be king.


And kings who think this way sometimes lose the throne, usually along with their head.

In the end he was no longer fit to rule and removing him from power was right but not in the maner that it was done.


"When you play a game of thrones you win or you die".

As for Aegon you may belive him to be a fake but until there is some proof to it that's just that - your belief and he is Aegon of the house Targaryen sixth of his name titles titles...


Why? Because Varys said so?
Of course it doesn't really matter how strong the proof is, but how many swords will False Aegon gather. Just like False Dmitriy who almost certainly was an impostor, yet managed to place his arse on the Russian throne (for a year).

#43 Black Crow

Black Crow

    Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,385 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:18 AM

As Kings go, Stannis, could have a lot going for him. He appears to thrive in adversity - especially when separated from Selsye and Mel - and given the state Wsteros is in right now might be just the man to set it to rights. Ultimately though he's cursed as a kinslayer and consequently doomed.

#44 Young Wolf's Vanguard

Young Wolf's Vanguard

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 04:33 AM

As Kings go, Stannis, could have a lot going for him. He appears to thrive in adversity - especially when separated from Selsye and Mel - and given the state Wsteros is in right now might be just the man to set it to rights. Ultimately though he's cursed as a kinslayer and consequently doomed.


he would be disastrous king - most of his good decisions are attributed to Davos and Jon, he is too reckless, hotheaded and stern (remember that insane plan to storm Dreadfort), not to mention that he has this misinterpreted Messiah thing going - being called kinslayer is least of his worries

#45 Fire and Blood!

Fire and Blood!

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:21 AM

And kings who think this way sometimes lose the throne, usually along with their head.



"When you play a game of thrones you win or you die".



Why? Because Varys said so?
Of course it doesn't really matter how strong the proof is, but how many swords will False Aegon gather. Just like False Dmitriy who almost certainly was an impostor, yet managed to place his arse on the Russian throne (for a year).


Well most king thought this way and most of them managed to remain in power.

Maybe so but I have a special hatred for usurpers.

No not because Varys says so but because it has never been stated otherwise so until there is proof to the contraty I take this to be the truth.And to be honest because I want Aegon to be real and it is possible, so until it becoms impossible(if it comes to that at all) I will belive him to be real.

Edited by Fire and Blood!, 08 May 2012 - 05:22 AM.


#46 mcb

mcb

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,605 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:36 AM

Well most king thought this way and most of them managed to remain in power.


Of course. That's why people like Aerys (or Joffrey) think they can get away with anything. Surprise, they cannot: it's not enough to have correct lineage, you only need to not suck at your job. Aerys got fired, plain and simple, the way kings in absolute monarchies get fired.

Maybe so but I have a special hatred for usurpers.


Goodness, why special hatred? With books full of treachery, rape, murder, cannibalism and jousting dwarfs, you reserve special hatred for usurpers, of all things?
And there wouldn't be any usurper in the first place, if not for Aerys' abysmal job performance.

No not because Varys says so but because it has never been stated otherwise


In-universe? Then it's also never been confirmed to be true, save for empty declarations by members of Team Young Griff.

#47 kkae

kkae

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:48 AM

I love these who has the right to rule debates. Nobody has really the right to rule anybody.

I think for the common people it doesn't really matter who sits on the throne. It doesn't matter who the top dog is because everybody in between stays the same and kings rarely seem to do any big changes to anything.
Robert's "offspring" probably would have been the best choice, as long as someone like Joffrey was terrorizing only KL or his court but since that is no longer option then what the hell. King Stannis!!!

Edited by kkae, 08 May 2012 - 05:48 AM.


#48 ( Bloodraven )

( Bloodraven )

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:54 AM

He's my king too-- it has nothing to do with him having the "rightful" claim and everything to do with his character. I know he is doomed but idc, i'll stick with this one thanks /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />

His shadow baby friggin killed his brother in the battle for the throne, he deserves nothing!

That annoying douchebag deserved it, he was no more than a pawn of the Tyrells. And calling Brienne grotesque, and laughing at and calling his niece ugly, really?

#49 Young Wolf's Vanguard

Young Wolf's Vanguard

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:57 AM

I love these who has the right to rule debates. Nobody has really the right to rule anybody.

maybe not, but they still do

I think for the common people it doesn't really matter who sits on the throne. It doesn't matter who the top dog is because everybody in between stays the same and kings rarely seem to do any big changes to anything.


not true, usually some degenerate monarch was replaced with stronger, more capable one that left kingdom improved in some way. Sometimes improvements bettered lives of the smallfolk so it did matter who the top dog was

Robert's "offspring" probably would have been the best choice, as long as someone like Joffrey was terrorizing only KL or his court but since that is no longer option then what the hell. King Stannis!!!


agreed, but what Stannis did with Rambton and Sunglass was not much better than what Joff did with ... everything

#50 Young Wolf's Vanguard

Young Wolf's Vanguard

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:04 AM

He's my king too-- it has nothing to do with him having the "rightful" claim and everything to do with his character. I know he is doomed but idc, i'll stick with this one thanks /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />


loyal in spite of the odds - mark of great person

That annoying douchebag deserved it, he was no more than a pawn of the Tyrells. And calling Brienne grotesque, and laughing at and calling his niece ugly, really?


yet that annoying douchebag was his little brother and he didn't deserve it. he was wrong, he was asshole and he was incompetent puppet but he didn't deserve to be slaughtered like a pig

#51 sifth

sifth

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:14 AM

I find myself in the Stannis camp too. The guy really does appear to be a just and fair ruler

#52 kwvapor

kwvapor

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:24 AM

Conquest of the Seven Kingdoms under one King is gonna take a while.

More important for Stannis is, if he is still alive, and if he is victorious at Winterfell, what next?

i) March South
ii) March North
iii) Stay
iv) Use Manderly Fleet To...
v) Other

I am guessing but his priority seems to be linked to the Wall. If he heads South what does that say?

Iron Throne > Realm's Defense

My point is he's not going to be sitting on the Iron Throne anytime soon, if at all.

So he can be the One True King of the Gift for all it matters, unless the Others go away, he can't retake the Seven Kingdoms personally. Unless other folk gather around him and do it in his name cause his place is on or near the Wall.

#53 Buried Treasure

Buried Treasure

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:44 AM

I honestly can't stand Stannis, I dislike him more than any other character (with the caveat that I do not rate truly self-interested / evil characters like Littlefinger, Gregor Clegane etc. for likeability). That doesn't change the fact that I see him as Robert's heir and thus the only one involved in the War of 5 kings that had any claim to the Iron Throne.

#54 kwvapor

kwvapor

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:59 AM

Stannis had his golden chance to be King, that was the last days of Robert's life. Stannis had all the information and knew that Ned knew what he knew but he bailed. If Stannis can't win the war amongst the politik of the small council, with the King's Hand that sees him as the rightful heir then no matter how many times he reconquers the Seven Kingdoms, he will just loss it again.

#55 Fire and Blood!

Fire and Blood!

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:02 AM

Goodness, why special hatred? With books full of treachery, rape, murder, cannibalism and jousting dwarfs, you reserve special hatred for usurpers, of all things?
And there wouldn't be any usurper in the first place, if not for Aerys' abysmal job performance.



In-universe? Then it's also never been confirmed to be true, save for empty declarations by members of Team Young Griff.


Well it's not specifically in the books I have a special hatred for traitors, rebels and usurpers in real life and thus in the book also.And yes it may seem strange to you but I would hate a usurper more than a rapist or a murderer, not more than a canibal though.

Yes in-universe.No one but members of team Young Griff can declare it for no one else knows it.Of course it's far from 100% sure and he may turn out to be a fake in the end but so far him being real is the default.I have already mentioned my personal reasons for beliving him to be real.

#56 Mulled Wino

Mulled Wino

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,993 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:53 AM

Well it's not specifically in the books I have a special hatred for traitors, rebels and usurpers in real life and thus in the book also.And yes it may seem strange to you but I would hate a usurper more than a rapist or a murderer, not more than a canibal though.

Yes in-universe.No one but members of team Young Griff can declare it for no one else knows it.Of course it's far from 100% sure and he may turn out to be a fake in the end but so far him being real is the default.I have already mentioned my personal reasons for beliving him to be real.


wow.............................................never thought I'd ever hear that

#57 Ser Giant

Ser Giant

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:16 AM

Wow is an understatement. Holy crap Fire and Blood, I'm not gonna get in to morals and what-not, but that's f'ed up yo!

I think if Stannis takes Winterfell he will stay there and regroup(will probably take awhile). This should get him most of the North's fealty unless he starts burning their Godswoods.

So, yeah, he may never leave the north by the end of the series.

#58 QuaitheTheShadow

QuaitheTheShadow

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:13 PM

I find myself in the Stannis camp too. The guy really does appear to be a just and fair ruler


He was more than willing to burn two innocent children to death.

Don't see how that makes him just or fair. . .

He also seems owned by the red priestess so his decision making prowess is questionable.

#59 Knight of the Teabags

Knight of the Teabags

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 02:44 PM

He was more than willing to burn two innocent children to death.


Except he wasn't particularly willing. In the series of chapters in ASoS involving Melisandre trying to persuade Stannis to burn Edric Storm - Stannis is replying again and again with comments like 'Is this the only way?'. Yes he considers it, but you also have look at it in the context that Stannis after Blackwater is looking deep into the jaws of defeat in this point of the story and he knows enough about war to know unless he finds a way to go and get himself back in the 'Game', his daughter will die, Davos Seaworth the closest thing he has to a friend will die, his loyal followers who still remain at his side will die and he will die with his entire cause, At this point at Stannis' darkest hour Melisandre steps in and offers him temptation.

Murder a child and everything will sort itself out, It is literally the old 'kill one innocent to save thousands'.

The only reason he doesn't turn it down is at this point the only other way is certain defeat, but he resists and resists as Melisandre puts up the pressure. - but then Davos steps in, saves the child and Stannis' soul. Then he offers another solution... and despite trying not to show it Stannis is visibly relieved.

To say Melisandre owns Stannis by this point in the story is arguably laughable, especially when we've have her POV which clearly though she has some influence but is far from controlling him. She offers him the odd advise that he follows but he ignores or argues against her far more - like on the Blackwater and the above example with Edric. Indeed after the comment Stannis makes to Davos in ASoS that he still extremely skeptical about the existence of Rh'llor but evidently Melisandre has power could be used (and has been made on these boards) that Stannis is manipulating Melisandre as much as she is manipulating him if not more so.

As for considering burning 'the Monster' the evidence we were shown in ADwD seems to suggest this scenario was largely found only in Jon Snow's head!

To date the only people Stannis has had executed (despite how horrible those executions are) are those he knows within within reasonable doubt (in the vast majority of cases he caught the offenders red-handed) who have committed crimes considered capital ones under the traditions of Westerosi law - namely treason, murder and cannibalism.

Compare that to Daenerys in Mereen.

To quote just a couple of her attempts at 'justice'.

There are 163 'slavers' she has crucified for the 163 crucified slave children. Please note she doesn't check these people are slavers she just asks the slavers of Mereen to provide 163 people to crucify - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the vast majority of the 163 were slaves dressed up in Tokars.

Then there's the wineseller in Mereen who the Shavepate tells her is possibly in league with the Harpy. He has the man tortured on her orders -gets nothing and then he tells her the wineseller has a daughter and suggests he tortures the daughter. Dany hesitates then tells the Shavepate to torture the daughter in front of the father,

Edited by Knight of the Teabags, 08 May 2012 - 02:50 PM.


#60 Young Wolf's Vanguard

Young Wolf's Vanguard

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 03:07 PM

To date the only people Stannis has had executed (despite how horrible those executions are) are those he knows within within reasonable doubt (in the vast majority of cases he caught the offenders red-handed) who have committed crimes considered capital ones under the traditions of Westerosi law - namely treason, murder and cannibalism.


Ser Hubard Rambton and his four sons decided to defend septuary at Dragonstone. He was killed alongside two of his sons. Two sons that survived were imprisoned and later burned at stakes. Lord Sunglass and some other prisoners were burned during Battle of Blackwater to appease R'hllor.

What is there within reasonable doubt?